Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P062-099

62.

1 A (Continuing[Covered]groups, but they

2 are something[Covered]ague or something

3 like that[Covered]eague, whatever,

4 the Bible Cr[Covered]of groups.

5 I might say[Covered]the question.

6 Q Would you[Covered]tion, sir.

7 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would object, since there

8 is a proper form to present a deposition to a witness, and

9 I would suggest to Mr. Campbell that he might ask the

10 witness if he recalls the particular question and answer.

11 I would object to this method of questioning my witness,

12 and particularly approaching it in this way.

13 THE COURT: Why don't you follow the procedure.

14 MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)

15 Q Professor Marsden, do you recall my asking you the

16 question, "Just so we can get this straight, and I don't

17 want to go back and repeat what we've talked about in

18 terms of your expertise, but will you be talking about

19 contemporary Fundamentalism, or Fundamentalism as it

20 exists today, or will you be narrowing your testimony to

21 fundamentalism at the beginning of the nineteenth century,

22 1920 or 1930."

23 And do you recall your answer to that?

24 A No, I don't.

25 Q (Reading) "I think, I guess I'll be emphasizing

63.

1 Q (Continuing) Fundamentalism up to 1920 or 1930.

2 Perhaps--It depends on what I'm asked, I guess.

3 But suggesting there might be some connection with what

4 is going on today, but not presenting myself as an expert

5 on what is going on today, in that sense, or as a strong a

6 sense as I would from a historical source of things."

7 Do you recall that statement?

8 A Clearly at the time you were asking the question, I

9 was a bit off the guard. What I said was, they will be

10 emphasizing Fundamentalism of the Twenties or Thirties.

11 Perhaps, it depends on what I'm asked, I'm not as much an

12 expert on Fundamentalism today as I am in the past. Not in

13 as strong a sense.

14 So I meant to be qualifying it. At that time I wasn't

15 clear what was being asked of me or expected of me. I'm

16 willing to present myself as an expert an Fundamentalism

17 up to the 1930's, and to a somewhat lesser degree, I must

18 confess, at least somewhat of an expert on Fundamentalism

19 since then..

20 There are degrees of being experts.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, we would move to limit

22 Professor Marsden's expertise up to 1930 in the area of

23 Fundamentalism.

24 THE COURT: It's overruled.

64.

1 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continuing)

2 BY MR. SIANO:

3 Q Professor Marsden, you have continued to study

4 Fundamentalism right up until today, haven't you?

5 A Yes, I have.

6 Q And from your perspective as a church's authority,

7 isn't that correct?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q Now, did you, because your book stops at 1930, stop

10 to your research at 1930?

11 A No, I did not stop my research at 1930.

12 Q Now, did I engage your services in 1981 as an

13 expert?

14 A Yes, you did.

15 Q And as to what subject matter?

16 A On the history of Fundamentalism.

17 Q Any particular other topic?

18 A The history of Fundamentalism as it relates

19 particularly to Act 590.

20 Q Professor, could I ask you to describe for me the

21 circumstances of the development of the movement which we

22 describe as Fundamentalism in America?

23 A Fundamentalism is a movement that began as a

24 coalition primarily among evangelical Protestants in the

25 late nineteenth century. The distinguishing feature of

65.

1 A (Continuing) Fundamentalists that distinguishes

2 them from related religious movements is their militancy

3 in opposition to what they called at the time Modernism,

4 which meant certain ideas that were pervasive in modern

5 secular culture, and equally to certain modern

6 esthesiologies that they saw as incorporating the secular

7 ideas into Christianity.

8 So the militancy in opposition to Modernism became the

9 distinguishing factor that brought together concerned to

10 evangelicalists from a variety of other traditions.

11 Q Did this movement of Fundamentalism have any other

12 goals?

13 A Yes. It had what it would describe as positive

14 goals of evangelization, converting people to Christianity.

15 Q And that's how you would define that term

16 "evangelization"?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Would you also describe it as spreading the faith?

19 A Yes. Certainly.

20 Q Could you describe furthers the development of

21 Fundamentalism again, starting in the mid-nineteenth

22 century?

23 A Sure. One has to go back to about a hundred years

24 ago and imagine the condition of America at that time,

25 which was a nation pervaded by a Protestant evangelical

66.

1 A (Continuing) ethos. Protestant evangelicalism had

2 a special position in America because of its being here

3 first, primarily, and the revivalism of the nineteenth

4 century.

5 For instance, in the public schools in the mid and

6 latter nineteenth century, it was characteristic to use

7 McGuffey's Readers. And in McGuffey's Readers, there were

8 explicit Protestant principles taught. There were lessons

9 like, "The Bible - The Greatest of All Books," or "My

10 Mother's Bible," or "Observance of the Sabbath Rewarded."

11 And these sorts of doctrines were the standard American

12 doctrine equated often with being a good American.

13 Now, it's in that context that there are a number of

14 shocks that hit this Evangelical ethos in America. And

15 they combined social factors of change with very

16 spectacular intellectual changes that hit here roughly at

17 the same time, in the period from about 1870 through 1900.

18 The social changes were those associated with vast

19 immigration, the tremendous growth of the cities, and the

20 shift of the center of gravity toward the cities from the

21 countryside, and the general increase of pluralism in an

22 Industrial society.

23 In that context of social change then hit also higher

24 criticism of the Bible, which had been developing in

25 Germany since about 1800. And then more or less at the

67.

1 A (Continuing) same time, here comes Darwinism, which

2 was taken by some people, at least, to be an implicit

3 attack on the veracity of the Bible.

4 Those factors converged, and different religious people,

5 different Protestants reacted in different ways. And

6 there were a group of them who decided that the best

7 defense was to take a strong stand at the most secure

8 position, which was a defense of the literal

9 interpretation of the Bible; concede nothing to modern

10 thought, defend the Bible at every point.

11 Those people who did that and who did it militantly, in

12 opposition to other religious groups and the secularists,

13 began to feed into the coalition that came to be known as

14 Fundamentalism.

15 There were, in this development, several traits of the

16 Fundamentalist, emergence of the Fundamentalist movement.

17 There were several sub-movements. One important one was

18 the emergency of a theology, basically an interpretation

19 of prophecy called dispensationalism.

20 Dispensationalism is relevant to this case in this

21 respect: That its hermeneutical principle, that is, its

22 principle of interpreting the Bible is the principle,

23 literal when possible.

24 And many Fundamentalists became dispensationists. Not

25 all. But dispensationalism was symptomatic of a tendency

68.

1 A (Continuing) of people to say, in the late

2 nineteenth century, the literal interpretation of the

3 Bible is the best defense against modern thought.

4 Sometimes also, though not as much as usually is

5 imagined, opposition to Darwinism became a tenet of these

6 people who were defending literal interpretation.

7 Particularly in the South in the late nineteenth century,

8 Darwinism began to be a symbol of secularism, though this

9 didn't spread to the North until a somewhat later date.

10 Q Did it in fact spread to the North at a later date?

11 A Yes, it did. It gradually developed in the North,

12 or there were advocates saying that Darwinism was

13 necessarily antagonistic to Christianity right from the

14 start. I would say most Bible believing evangelicals in,

15 say, 1870, 1880, would have said Darwinism and literal or

16 conservative Biblical interpretations are to some degree

17 compatible. Not fully compatible, but given certain

18 amendments to one or the other, you could make them

19 compatible.

20 It's not until the period basically following World War

21 II that it becomes a large scale factor in Fundamentalism

22 in the North to oppose evolutions.

23 Q Did you say World War II?

24 A I'm sorry. If I did, I meant to say World War I

25 Q Focusing on the period following World War I, did

69.

1 Q (Continuing) the Fundamentalist assault on

2 evolution come to the forefront at that time?

3 A That's correct. What happens is, before World War

4 I, as I was saying, Fundamentalists sometimes emphasized

5 opposition to evolution. But it was World War I that

6 rather dramatically brings us to the fore.

7 And it involved -- the story is, very briefly -- during

8 World War I there was a tremendous propaganda effort

9 against Germany. And the war was considered to be the war

10 to save civilization from barbarism. The war would make

11 the world safe for democracy.

12 In that context, American propaganda emphasized that the

13 reason why Germany had turned to barbarism was the

14 evolutionary philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, and that

15 might be the right philosophy, as they said, was what

16 accounted for Germany's losing its Protestant Christian

17 heritage. The birthplace of Protestantism now turned to

18 barbarism.

19 Well, Fundamentalists picked this up, people like Bryan

20 picked this up and said the same thing could happen here.

21 And after World War I there was period much like the

22 period today, where there was a sense of general unease

23 for the progress of American civilization.

24 There was a sense that something had gone wrong; a

25 rather indefinite sense, not a real disaster, much like

the 1980's, it seems to me. And in that context, that

70.

1 A (Continuing) saying evolution is a problem was

2 something that became convincing to a wide variety of

3 people.

4 So out of that World War I concern for the progress of

5 civilization, evolution began to emerge as a symbol of the

6 Fundamentalists fight against secularism.

7 Q Could you describe for me how the Fundamentalists

8 waged this campaign against evolution in this country?

9 A Primarily by working for legislation in the public

10 schools by getting state legislatures to pass acts banning

11 the teaching of evolution in the public schools.

12 They also worked within universities and colleges

13 sometimes to try to prevent the teaching of evolution, and

14 sometimes within their own schools they made them.

15 Now, usually for the first time anti-evolution became a

16 test of whether you were in or out.

17 Q Were Fundamentalists also pursuing this goal of

18 evangelization that you described earlier in your

19 testimony at this time?

20 A Certainly. That's correct.

21 Q Was there a model of origins put forward by

22 Fundamentalists during the 1920's?

23 A Yes, there was.

24 During the 1920's, Fundamentalists made it very clear

25 that the only adequate source for knowing about the

71

1 A (Continuing) questions of the origin of the

2 universe or the origins of the human race was the Bible.

3 The Bible alone was, after all, one of the hallmarks of

4 the whole Protestant heritage that they were defending.

5 The Bible alone was the source of knowing about evolution.

6 And God was the only person who was there, and so forth.

7 Q I'm sorry?

8 A God alone was the only source for knowing about

9 creation. And God was the only person there. And so to

10 learn about it, we have to read about that in the Bible.

11 There were one or two people, two at least, who were at

12 that time trying to marshal scientific evidence to fit a

13 very conservative reading of the Bible. A man named G.M.

14 Price, and another man named Harry Rimer were the primary

15 defenders of pitting scientific investigation into this

16 literal interpretation.

17 Q Did all Fundamentalists derive this scientific

18 constructive origins from the literal interpretation of

19 Genesis at that time?

20 A Yes, they did, though there are degrees of

21 literalism. One of the interesting factors is that,

22 William Jennings Bryan, at the time of the Scopes trial,

23 was a Biblical literalist. But as many Biblical

24 literalists were at that time, he was convinced that the

25 days referred to in Genesis One could be long periods of

72.

1 A (Continuing) time.

2 For instance, " God rested on the seventh day." He did

3 not just rest for twenty-four hours, he rested for a

4 longer period of time, so the days of creation could be

5 longer.

6 Bryan said at the trial, `It seems to me just as easy to

7 believe that God created the world in six million years,

8 six hundred million years, whatever you want, as to

9 believe he created it in six days.' The length of

10 creation at that time wasn't considered to be a necessary

11 tenet of literalism. It is only since then that a certain

12 group of Fundamentalists has made that into a special test.

13 Q So what you're saying, then, Professor, is the

14 interpretation of the Biblical account of origins became

15 even more literalistically interpreted by Fundamentalists

16 after 1920?

17 A That's correct. What happened was that opposition

18 to evolution became more and more a symbol and a test of

19 being in or out of the true Fundamental faith.

20 And so in that sort of context was the tendency to drive

21 out middle positions. And what the history of the

22 development of Fundamentalism and evolution is the history

23 of driving out the middle positions until you end up with

24 only two positions: One, creationism, and everything else

25 in the world, any others view, is some species of

73.

1 A (Continuing) compromise with evolution.

2 Q That mental process, from a church historian's point

3 of view, could you describe that as dualism?

4 A Well, it ends up with a very dualistic outlook, yes.

5 Q Thank you.

6 What happened to this Fundamentalist movement

7 particularly focused on the-- focusing on origins between

8 the 1930's and up until about the 1950's?

9 A During the 1930's, Fundamentalism after the Scopes

10 trial tended to be a rebuilding, forming independent

11 groups and churches and so forth, and working, shoring up

12 its own resources. And by about the 1940's and `50's,

13 there begins to be a very perceptible split within the

14 Fundamentalist movement.

15 The split is a split that is called, the one party, the

16 more moderate party came to be known as

17 neo-evangelicalism. On the other hand, the

18 Fundamentalists who wanted to preserve the Fundamentalist

19 division became more and more hard line, more and more

20 insisting on the classic tenets of Fundamentalist faith.

21 Q Did the more moderate view have an opposite number,

22 if I might use that expression, in the area of scientific

23 investigation?

24 A Yes. The more moderate view involved people who

25 continued to say that, as has been done since the

74.

1 A (Continuing) inception of Darwinism, that there were

2 ways of being faithful to the infallibility of the Bible,

3 even the inerrancy of the Bible, that did not necessarily

4 rule out all process in God's way of creating; that it's a

5 false choice between evolutionism on the one hand and

6 creationism on the other hand. And many of the

7 neo-evangelicals in the 1950's and since then have

8 emphasized that, particularly in an organization known as

9 the American Scientific Affiliation.

10 Q As a church historian, Professor Marsden, do you see

11 any essential similarity between the Fundamentalism of the

12 late 1920's and Fundamentalism today?

13 A There's a great deal of, both similarity and

14 continuity. The main contours of the movement are the

15 same. That is, militant opposition to what was called

16 modernism, what has now come to be called more likely

17 secular-humanism, continues to be the glue that brings

18 together a coalition.

19 On the periphery of the movement, of course, there is

20 some variety. Any movement that has been around as long

21 as Fundamentalism has some change. For instance, the

22 hardening of the categories kind of phenomenon just

23 described tends to be one of the changes that has taken

24 place since the 1920's.

25 In many respects, there is a striking similarity.

75.

1 Q Is there any similarity between the Fundamentalist

2 movement of the 1920's and Fundamentalism today, with

3 reference to the view of the factual inerrancy of the

4 Genesis account of creation?

5 A Yes, there is. There continues to be an emphasis on

6 Genesis and the literal interpretation of Genesis as the

7 primary source of our knowledge about the origins. And as

8 I said, more emphasis on this being a young earth, a

9 twenty-four hour day, six day creation.

10 Q Now, at the time that Fundamentalist Christians were

11 coping with modernism as you described it from a

12 historical perspective, were other groups in America

13 to coping in different ways?

14 A That's correct. There's a whole spectrum of opinion

15 among Christians relating to the question of origins,

16 evolution, and the like. And in that spectrum, you name

17 it, you can find any variety of relating Christianity to

18 science.

19 Q Is there any particular number of points which

20 defined Fundamentalism from a historical perspective?

21 A No, there's not. Fundamentalists emphasized certain

22 fundamentals of the faith. That has something to do with

23 the origin of the term "Fundamentalism". Views like the

24 virgin birth were defended as fundamentals of Christianity.

76.

1 A (Continuing) It used to be thought that there were

2 just five fundamentals around with which the movement had

3 coalesced.

4 In fact, that turned out to be an error made by the

5 first historian of the movement, a man named Stewart Cole

6 in 1931. Some years ago, about ten years ago, that was

7 discovered to be a sort of mythology, that there were five

8 points of Fundamentalism.

9 In fact, sometimes there were fourteen points, sometimes

10 there were five, sometimes there were seven; sometimes

11 there were different numbers for different groups. There

12 were some groups that didn't even have a list.

13 Q Did you find that Fundamentalism was embraced only

14 by Protestants in this country?

15 A No. It's a coalition at the heart of which are

16 evangelical Protestants, primarily in the revivalist

17 tradition. But that coalition has brought into it people

18 from other groups, Catholics, Mormons, even sometimes

19 conservative Jews, Seventh Day Adventists. Certainly all

20 sorts of people might come into the Fundamentalist

21 movement as they become militantly opposed to some aspect

22 of modern religion.

23 Q In the course of your studies as a religious

24 historian, are you familiar with the phrase "religious

25 apologetics"?

77.

1 A Yes.

2 Q Do you have a definition which you might make

3 reference to at this point of that phrase?

4 A Religious apologetics is simply an attempt to defend

5 the faith against its critics.

6 Q Were the Fundamentalists in the historical period

7 you made reference to engaged in religious apologetics in

8 the arena of science and education?

9 A Yes. Certainly.

10 Q Was that the reference you made earlier to the

11 scientific works of Mr. Price and Mr. Rimer?

12 A Right. They would be the best examples of doing

13 that.

14 Q Are you familiar with what might be described as

15 creation science?

16 A Yes, I am.

17 Q Are you familiar with the organizations that

18 presently promote creation science?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of

21 professional certainty as to whether the groups involved

22 in the creation science movement are part of the

23 Fundamentalist movement?

24 A Yes, they certainly are.

25 Q Is that your opinion?

78.

1 A That's my opinion, yes.

2 Q Upon what do you base that opinion, sir?

3 A Well, I base that opinion on my research into the

4 history of Fundamentalism, looking at documents published

5 by such groups and seeing the convergence of their views

6 with Fundamentalist views.

7 Q And have you examined these creation science groups

8 in the ordinary course of your scholarship?

9 A Yes.

10 Q In other words, without particular reference to my

11 engagement of you as an expert?

12 A To some degree, yes.

13 Q And also to some degree with reference to my asking

14 you to look at creation science?

15 A Yes. Certainly.

16 Q Does the creation science movement today contain any

17 elements found in the Fundamentalist movement as you have

18 described it historically?

19 A The creation science movement today does contain

20 elements that are strikingly and typically

21 Fundamentalist. One is the creation science movement,

22 from its inception, has emphasized the divine creation and

23 literalistic interpretation of the Bible, which tends to

24 be a leading trait of Fundamentalism, and necessarily

25 opposed to all forms of evolutionalism.

79.

1 A (Continuing) So, for instance, if you look at a

2 book like Henry Morris' The Troubled Waters of Evolution--

3 Q Professor Marsden, would having that book facilitate

4 your testimony in this connection?

5 A Yes, it would.

6 Q You were about to make reference to one of those,

7 Professor. Could you, before you begin to read, identify

8 the book by author, title, and page?

9 A This is a book by Henry M. Morris, The Troubled

10 Waters of Evolution, published by C.L.P. Publishers, San

11 Diego, California. Copyright 1974.

12 I am going to refer to page 10.

13 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, at this point I would state

14 for the record that Professor Marsden has brought this

15 book with him, and I would like to see if we have got a

16 document, Exhibit Number Four, at this time. If I may

17 have a moment to do that.

18 Q You brought those books with you, didn't you?

19 A Well, yes, I did. Actually I brought my copies.

20 These are copies of the same books.

21 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, we are going to offer a

22 record designation to the pages to which Professor Marsden

23 makes reference. We will insert in the blank exhibit

24 numbers that are in the record at this point as Exhibit

25 Number Thirty, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, by Henry

80.

1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) Morris, and provide copies

2 to counsel for the defendants at this point.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, in I might interject, it

4 would assist us greatly if we could have a copy of that

5 book now to look at, so we can prepare our cross

6 examination. Without that, I think we would be prejudiced.

7 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy?

8 MR. SIANO: There are only two.

9 THE COURT: Fine. You can look at my copy.

10 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

11 Q You were about to make reference to those, Professor?

12 A Yes. One characteristic of Fundamentalism has been

13 to emphasize, as you described it, the dualistic

14 position. That is, that there are only two positions,

15 they say, that are positions. There is the position of

16 creationism now defined as twenty-four hour a day

17 creationism, virtually, at least, and everything else,

18 which is evolution.

19 So in this book by Morris, he says this on page 10,

20 "Sometimes, evolution is described as God's method of

21 creation, in an attempt to make it more palatable to

22 die-hard creationists, but this device has never been

25 satisfactory, either to evolutionists or creationists."

81.

1 A (Continuing) Now, Morris, the origin of that sort

2 of sentiment, you trace in Morris' own thoughts of this--

3 Q Are these books all in?

4 You may make reference to that in Exhibit Number

5 Thirty-One at this point.

6 A There is a second book called, by Henry M. Morris

7 again, called, Studies in the Bible and Science, which is

8 a collection of essays by Morris published by Presbyterian

9 and Reform Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1966,

10 copyright.

11 In 1963, Morris delivered an address at the American

12 Scientific Affiliation around the same time, I think, as

13 the emergence of the Creation Research Society, and the

14 theme of the address was "No Compromise". That's a

15 characteristic Fundamentalist emphasis, you're either with

16 us or you're with Satan. And Morris said that in just so

17 many words. On page 102--

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I object to the last

19 comment, certainly, concerning a statement. Perhaps I

20 misunderstood, but if he is making reference to a speech

21 that was given that he does not have, that would violate

22 the best evidence rule and I would move to strike that.

23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm sorry. This is a

24 quotation from that speech. This is a collection of

25 essays.

82.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the objection, Your

2 Honor.

3 A He says this-- Well, he's referring to another

4 point there. He says, "And this should be true more than

5 anywhere else in connection with the philosophy of

6 evolution, since as been pointed out above" -- And he has

7 just argued this at some length -- "as has been pointed

8 out above, this philosophy", that is evolution, "is really

9 the foundation--" The philosophy of evolution is really

10 the foundation, "of the very rebellion of Satan himself

11 and of every evil system which he has devised since that

12 time to oppose the sovereignty and grace of God in this

13 universe."

14 So there you have it. On the one side is evolution and

15 every evil philosophy on the side of Satan, or you can

16 have creationism. No middle ground.

17 Q Do creation scientists today, as you understand

18 them, share any common characteristics of early

19 Fundamentalists in insisting that the Bible is the source

20 of their creation science models?

21 A That's correct. Often in creation science

22 literature it is stressed that the Bible is the only

23 source for finding out about origins.

24 For instance, here is another book by Duane T. Gish,

25 called Evolution: The Fossils Say No. This book is

83.

1 A (Continuing) published by Creation Life Publishers,

2 San Diego, Californian copyrighted, the first edition,

3 1972.

4 In this book, Mr. Gish, on page 42, makes a

5 characteristic statement in his definition of creation.

6 He says, "By creation we mean the bringing into being of

7 the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of

8 sudden or fiat creation," -- and this is the key --

9 "described in the first two chapters of Genesis."

10 That's just the very definition of creation in many

11 creation science publications. Henry Morris says this

12 even more strongly in a book, The Studies in the Bible of

13 Science.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would have to interject

15 at this point an objection. This has absolutely, without

16 question, no relevance to Act 590. We're talking now

17 about a statement where someone said that creation is as

18 described in Genesis. This Act specifically prohibits any

19 mention to Genesis. I fail to see what relevance it has.

20 Obviously, it cannot go to the legislative intent. These

21 people did not pass Act 590; the Arkansas Legislature did.

22 We have an Act which is specific, and we should look at

23 the Act. This is irrelevant.

24 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in addition to the

84.

1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) memorandum that the

2 Plaintiffs submitted earlier this morning on the question

3 of relevance, I will speak briefly to that point, if your

4 Honor feels it appropriate at this time.

5 THE COURT: I think maybe you should. And

6 incidentally, the memorandum was never given to me. I've

7 never read it.

8 MR. SIANO: Excuse me, your Honor. I think it was

9 conveyed to a member of the Court's staff earlier this

10 morning.

11 THE COURT: Well, the first I heard of it was when

12 we were getting ready to walk in the courtroom this

13 morning. I haven't read it.

14 MR. SIANO: In that case, I'll be a little more

15 detailed. I'm sorry about the time it will take.

16 Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, your

17 Honor, the test of relevance is a logical test. It's a

18 test as to whether the proper evidence has a tendency in

19 logic to make the point being proposed more likely to have

20 occurred; or the point being opposed less likely to have

21 occurred.

22 Now, in this case it is the point to be made by the

23 Plaintiffs that the entire body of writings of the

24 creation science movement display their purpose as being

25 religious. And that this purpose, this religious purpose,

85.

1 MR. SIANO: (continuing) is intrinsic in the

2 writings of the creation science movement.

3 And that we believe that this is relevant, your Honor,

4 logically likely to make the fact finder conclude that the

5 term, creation science, is, in fact, a religious

6 apologetic, in that all the writings advance a religious

7 thought.

8 Furthermore, the defendants' witnesses have stated in

9 their depositions that the gentlemen, particularly

10 referred to in this case as to this witness, Mr. Morris

11 and Mr. Gish, are authorities on the topic of creation

12 science. And that, therefore, we believe what is being

13 put before the Court are these relevant sections of these

14 books which bear upon the question of religious purpose,

15 or argue quite strenuously in opposition to the

16 defendants' position that creation science is, in fact,

17 science, and not a religious apologetic.

18 And it is offered for that purpose, and that is why

19 we're offering these writings, to show the religious

20 purpose and intent of the creation science movement.

21 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the plaintiffs cannot

22 overcome the section of the Act which specifically

23 prohibits any religious instruction. Merely because

24 someone calls it creation science somewhere out in the

25 world does not mean it complies with Act 590, just as

86.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) evolution may have been

2 abused in the past for some doctrine which it does not

3 fairly characterize. So it is irrelevant to the question

4 at hand.

5 THE COURT: Well, I'll have to wait and see what the

6 witnesses say about how much they relied on Mr. Gish and

7 Mr. Morris and other writers in that connection. If the

8 people the creation scientists are relying upon are people

9 who write in terms of religious writings, I think that

10 would be relevant.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think our point is that

12 to the extent that there are writings out there which have

13 religious references and talk about creation science, they

14 cannot be used under Act 590. It is specifically

15 prohibited.

16 THE COURT: I appreciate that, yes, sir. But I

17 don't think the writers can call it religion for one

18 purpose and science for another, if that's what they have

19 done in these writings. And they underpin it with

20 religious writings, then I don't think they can just take

21 the hat off and say, "Well, we're talking about science

22 now." I think that's the point the Plaintiffs are trying

23 to make.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: That may be true, But I just wanted

25 to make the point, your Honor, that these individuals are--

87.

1 THE COURT: I appreciate the point that you're

2 making. They can't teach out of the book in school. I

3 understand that, and they wouldn't be used in school, or

4 even those viewpoints wouldn't be used in school

5 necessarily.

6 I think the evidence is admissible and relevant.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Your Honor.

8 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

9 Q Professor Marsden, you have in front of you a copy

10 of Exhibit Twenty-Nine in evidence, Act. 590 of 1981. You

11 have, in fact, seen that Act before, have you not?

12 A That is correct.

13 Q Do you have an opinion, sir, as to whether the

14 definition of creation science as set forth in Section

15 4(a) of Act 590 is a statement of Fundamentalist belief?

16 A Yes, I do.

17 Q As a professional opinion to a reasonable degree of

18 certainty, could you state what that opinion is?

19 A Yes. The striking thing to me about reading this

20 Act is that when reading it, as a historian one is quite

21 aware of the variety of opinions that there have been on

22 relating science to the Bible. There are numbers of

23 things that might plausibly be called creation science in

24 the sense of using science to confirm or to agree with the

25 Bible in some way or another.

88.

1 A (Continuing) This Act singles out and gives

2 preferential treatment to just one such view, one that is

3 very easily identifiable as a characteristically

4 Fundamentalist view.

5 Q Now, is there an interpretation of Genesis from a

6 Fundamentalist perspective that coincides with subdivision

7 1 of Section 4(a), "Sudden creation of the universe,

8 energy, and life from nothing"?

9 A Yes. The anti-evolutionism characteristics of

10 Fundamentalist would emphasize the word "sudden".

11 Q And is there an interpretation, a Fundamentalist

12 interpretation of Genesis that coincides with point 2 of

13 Section 4(a), "Insufficiency of mutation and national

14 selection in bringing about the development of all living

15 kinds from a single organism"?

16 A Yes. The word "kinds" is a word that appears in

17 Genesis One several times and which is characteristic of

18 Fundamentalist talk about the subject.

19 Q Now, is there a Fundamentalist view of Genesis that

20 coincides with point 3 of Section 4(a), "Changes only

21 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

22 and animals"?

23 A Yes. Genesis One repeatedly says that they brought

24 forth after their kind. And that's interpreted by

25 Fundamentalists to mean that you can't change from one

89.

1 A (Continuing) kind or species to another.

2 Q Is there an interpretation of Fundamentalist view of

3 Genesis that coincides with point 4 of Section 4(a),

4 "Separate ancestry for man and apes"?

5 A Yes. That's an elaboration of the previous point,

6 that different kinds don't change into each other.

7 Q Is there a Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis

8 that coincides with point 5 of Section 4 a, "Explanation

9 of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the

10 occurrence of a worldwide flood"?

11 A Yes. Point 5 is particularly characteristic of a

12 branch of Fundamentalism that is the one that is

13 associated with what is now widely called creation science

14 that emphasizes flood geology, as it's called, and

15 catastrophism as a way of explaining the fossil evidence.

16 Q That flood that Fundamentalists talk about, is that

17 the Noachian flood?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Is there an interpretation in the Fundamentalist

20 view of Genesis that coincides with point 6 of Section

21 4(a), "A relatively recent inception of the earth and

22 living kinds"?

23 A Yes. That again is characteristic of a particular

24 subbranch of Fundamentalism which emphasizes the

25 twenty-four hour day creationism, and therefore quite a

90.

1 A (Continuing) young earth.

2 Q Professor Marsden, are there other sections of Act

3 590 of 1981 that in your professional opinion reflect

4 aspects of Fundamentalism in America as you know it?

5 A Yes, there are.

6 Q I'll ask you to focus first on Section 4(b) and the

7 subdivisions therein, please.

8 A Yes. Without going through--

9 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I missed the question.

10 Q Can I ask you, Professor, to focus now on Section

114(b).

12 A Yes.

13 In Section 4(b), without going through the details of

14 it, the general characterization of evolution science

15 there is one that makes evolution science, it seems to me,

16 virtually necessarily a wholly naturalistic process. And

17 it's one that is written as the inverse of the special

18 flood geology kind of science of 4(a).

19 Q In other words, that's establishing a dualist

20 definition in this action?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q I'll direct your attention to Section 6. Are there

23 any particular points in Section 6 that reflect typical

24 literalist Fundamentalism as you understand it?

25 A Right. There's a striking one here in Section 6,

91.

1 A (Continuing) the third line, where -- this is the

2 legislative purpose, the declaration of purpose. One of

3 the purposes is to insure neutrality toward students'

4 diverse religious conviction.

5 Now, it seems to me that the only way that you can

6 suppose that presenting just two positions, or giving a

7 privileged position to just two positions, amounted to

8 neutrality, was if you thought there were only two

9 positions. If you thought there were fifteen positions,

10 you wouldn't say this is ensuring neutrality by giving a

11 privileged position to just one.

12 So this reflects the kind of Fundamentalist thinking

13 that I quoted from the books, particular the book by Henry

14 Morris.

15 MR. SIANO: No further questions, your Honor.

16

17

CROSS EXAMINATION

18 BY MR. CAMPBELL:

19 Q Professor Marsden, I'd like to ask you a few

20 questions about the books which are introduced. I'm

21 sorry, but I did not get all the exhibit numbers.

22 The Morris book, The Troubled Waters of Evolution,

23 that's Exhibit Thirty-One, is that correct?

24 A I believe that's correct, or Thirty.

25 Q Thirty. The Morris book on The Bible and Science.

92.

1 A Thirty-one.

2 Q And finally, the Gish book, Evolution: The Fossils

3 Say No.

4 A Seventy-eight, I believe.

5 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, for the record I'll state

6 that there are two editions to that book, and we believe

7 it's Seventy-eight. The other is Seventy-seven. I

8 believe we questioned him out of Seventy-eight.

9 Q Professor Marsden, where did you get these books?

10 A Where did I get the books?

11 Q Yes, sir.

12 A Well the fact of the matter is that I brought these

13 three books with me on the airplane. My attorney said--

14 One of them is a library book, and they said, "We have the

15 same book." Let's use our copy.

16 Q Where did you get these books that you brought with

17 you?

18 A The ones I brought with me, a couple were in my

19 personal library, and the other one was in Calvin College

20 library.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, may I approach the

22 witness.

23 THE COURT: You may.

24 MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)

25 Q According to plaintiff's Exhibit Number Thirty,

93.

1 Q (Continuing) which is the Morris book, The Troubled

2 Waters of Evolution, would you please read to me the

3 inside cover of that book, please?

4 A The inside cover has pasted in this statement, "This

5 book is not designed or appropriate for public school use

6 and should not be used in public schools in any way." It

7 continues in smaller print, "Books for public schools

8 discuss scientific evidence as supports creation science

9 or evolution science. This book instead discusses

10 religious concepts or materials that support Creationist

11 religion or evolutionist religion, and such religious

12 material should not be used in public schools."

13 Q I'd like you to examine Plaintiff's Exhibit

14 Thirty-one, which is the Morris book, The Bible and

15 Science, and tell the Court whether or not that same

16 disclaimer appears in that book?

17 A Yes. The same disclaimer is in this book. I don't

18 know whether it's relevant. I don't think these are in my

19 copies.

20 Q I appreciate that. Exhibit Number Seventy-eight,

21 which is the Gish book, is a similar disclaimer in there?

22 A Yes. Same thing.

23 Q What research have your done on Fundamentalism in

24 Arkansas in 1981?

25 A What research have I done on it?

94.

1 Q Yes, sir.

2 A In Arkansas, particularly?

3 Q In 1981?

4 A This is the first time I've been to Arkansas, was

5 yesterday afternoon, in 1981. I have tried to keep up

6 with this case, primarily, and I followed Fundamentalism

7 in the country in a general way in 1981.

8 Q Would it be fair to say that you have not done any

9 research on Fundamentalism in Arkansas in 1981?

10 A No, I wouldn't say so, because since being asked to

11 testify, I have considered this law and Fundamentalism as

12 it relates to that law, and talked to numbers of people

13 about that. So I have done some research.

14 Q Fundamentalism is a coalition of various movements,

15 isn't it?

16 A Yes, it is.

17 Q Can you distinguish Fundamentalism as it existed up

18 to 1925 from contemporary Fundamentalism?

19 A The core of the movement is the same, its militancy

20 and opposition to modernism or secular humanism. There

21 are some differences. For instance, today Fundamentalism

22 has a much more mass media aspect. I think that has

23 changed some of the emphases that are associated with the

24 movement.

25 Q Is it your opinion that Act 590 is exclusively a

95.

1 Q (Continuing) product of Fundamentalism?

2 A No, not exclusively Fundamentalist.

3 Q Do Fundamentalists believe in a six day creation?

4 A Many Fundamentalists believe in a six day creation,

5 yes.

6 Q Do you see the words, "Six day creation", in Act 590?

7 A The words, "Six day creation", are avoided in Act

8 590.

9 Q You said they are what?

10 A They are avoided in Act 590. That's a conclusion.

11 I do not see them.

12 Q Fundamentalists have historically opposed the

13 teaching evolution in the school room, haven't they?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Act 590 permits evolution to be taught in the school

16 room, doesn't it?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Can you separate a religious creator from scientific

19 creation?

20 A From scientific creation as defined in this Act?

21 Q Yes, sir.

22 A No. It seems to me that the very word, "creation",

23 entails "creator".

24 Q You have always studied a creator in a religious

96.

1 Q (Continuing) context, haven't you?

2 A Well, creator is used in all sorts of contexts.

3 Q But you've always studied it in a religious context,

4 haven't you?

5 A Not necessarily, no.

6 Q How else have you studied creator?

7 A Well, I've studied-- Do you mean-- Creator of

8 what, in what sense?

9 Q Have you studied the concept of Creator always in a

10 religious context?

11 A No. I've studied-- For instance, creator might be

12 used in the sense of the Creation of the American

13 Republic, which is the title of a book. And the creators

14 of the American Republic would be the people like Thomas

15 Jefferson. So creator in itself has all sorts of meanings.

16 Q You have never studied a creator in a scientific

17 concept have you, or as a scientific concept?

18 A Studied a creator as a scientific concept? I have

19 studied a lot of the relationship between a creator and

20 scientific concepts.

21 Q But you are not a scientist, are you?

22 A I'm a historian, and historians have to do a lot of

23 history of science to some extent.

24 Q But you are not trained a scientist, are you?

97.

1 A I'm not trained as a scientist, no.

2 Q All Fundamentalists don't hold to the six part

3 definition of creation science in Act 590, do they?

4 A That's correct. Not all Fundamentalists would hold

5 to that view. But of course, that's--

6 Q Thank you.

7 Fundamentalists view sanctification in different ways,

8 don't they?

9 A Yes, they do.

10 Q Fundamentalists view free will in different ways,

11 don't they?

12 A They are sub groups within the movement on all these

13 points.

14 Q Fundamentalists view dispensationalism in different

15 ways, don't they?

16 A There are subgroups on that, too.

17 Q Fundamentalists view revivalism in different ways,

18 don't they?

19 A There are subgroups on that, too. Correct.

20 Q Fundamentalists view creation science in different

21 ways don't they?

22 A There are subgroups in their views that, too.

23 Q Act 590 prohibits any religious instruction or

24 references to religious materials, doesn't it?

25 A That's what it says, yes.

98.

1 Q From a historical perspective, hasn't Fundamentalism

2 embraced or championed the scientific method of inquiry?

3 A It has talked a great deal about championing the

4 scientific method of inquiry. It is typical for

5 Fundamentalists to say the facts of science versus the

6 theory of evolution, for instance.

7 MR. CAMPBELL: I have no further questions.

8 MR. SIANO: Very briefly, Your Honor.

9

10

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

11 BY MR. SIANO:

12 Q These books that you brought with you, these are

13 your own copies, aren't they?

14 A None of the books in this courtroom is my copy. I

15 brought-- I have in my hotel room across the street three

16 copies of these books. And since you had these, we

17 decided to use these.

18 Q The ones that you brought with you from Grand Rapids

19 didn't have these little labels in them, did they?

20 A I wouldn't swear to that. I'm pretty sure. I'm

21 sure this one doesn't.

22 Q The Bible and Science, that one doesn't have any

23 label in it? You're certain of that, under oath?

24 A Well, I am-- I am ninety-nine percent sure. I'd

99.

1 A (Continuing) be willing to bet.

2 Q So as far as you can remember, the books you got in

3 the ordinary course of business didn't have these labels

4 in them?

5 A I certainly didn't notice it on the particular three

6 I had.

7 MR. SIANO: I'd say for the record, Your Honor, the

8 books we got, we got in the document production from the

9 organizations themselves, and that's where we got the

10 labels.

11 MR. SIANO: (Continuing):

12 Q You identified Calvin College. Could you just tell

13 me what Calvin College is, since I didn't ask you about

14 that, sir?

15 A Yes. Calvin College is the college of the Christian

16 Reform Church, which is the Dutch equivalent of a

17 Presbyterian Church.

18 Q It is, in fact, evangelical?

19 A Calvin College is an evangelical in what is called

20 reformed credo-denomination. It's a conservative

21 Christian basically.

22 MR. SIANO: No further questions, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: You can step down. Thank you.

24 This would probably be a good time to break for

25 lunch. We'll reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P100-133

100.

1 (December 7, 1981)

2 (1:30 p.m.)

3 MR. SIANO: I'd like to approach the bench, your

4 Honor.

5 MR. WILLIAMS: There is a small point to clarify.

6 (Bench Discussion)

7 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in connection with Mr.

8 Marsden's testimony, there was some question about these

9 labels. In connection with discovery, we obtained copies

10 of these documents from the organizations themselves.

11 Those are the documents which have the labels.

12 The books that Professor Marsden brought with him from

13 Grand Rapids do not have the labels. I offer to stipulate

14 with my adversary just to that. I have asked whether Mr.

15 Williams is willing to do that, and he is unwilling to do

16 that. I think that would be a more efficient way to

17 address this particular narrow issue.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: All I am saying is, they chose the

19 books they wanted to bring in. Those are the ones they

20 brought in.

21 THE COURT: Why don't you stipulate that the books

22 he brought from Grand Rapids didn't have the labels? Is

23 Marsden not available?

24 MR. SIANO: He is here, your Honor. I guess we

25 will have to put him on the stand.

101.

1 THE COURT: Well, bring him and let him testify as

2 to those.

3 Will that satisfy you?

4 MR. WILLIAMS: I am not disputing it occurred. I am

5 just saying they brought the books they wanted to use. If

6 they think it is that relevant, they could have brought

7 these in in the first place.

8 THE COURT: Will you stipulate to that?

9 MR. WILLIAMS: I will stipulate to it.

10 THE COURT: Okay, fine.

11 MR. SIANO: I will state it for the record, and you

12 can state whether you agree. Thank you, Judge.

13

(End of Bench Discussion)

14 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, parties have agreed that

15 copies of the books which Professor Marsden brought from

16 Grand Rapids, titled Troubled Waters of Evolution, by

17 Henry Morris, Studies of the Bible and Science, by Henry

18 Morris, and Evolution: The Fossils Say No, do not have

19 any disclaimatory labels in them. The books which the

20 Plaintiffs obtained in discovery from the creation science

21 organizations in this case, i.e., The Troubled Waters of

22 Evolution, Studies of the Bible and Science, both by

23 Henry Morris, are the copies of those books which have

24 labels, and as so stipulated by the parties.

25 THE COURT: Call your next witness.

102.

1 MR. CEARLEY: Plaintiff calls Professor Dorothy

2 Nelkin. Mr. Dewey Crawford will handle the direct

3 examination.

4 Thereupon

5

DOROTHY NELKIN,

6 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

7 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

8 testified as follows:

9

10

DIRECT EXAMINATION

11 BY MR. CRAWFORD:

12 Q Professor Nelkin, would you state your full name for

13 the record, please?

14 A Dorothy Nelkin.

15 Q By whom are you presently employed?

16 A Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

17 Q Who position do you hold there?

18 A I'm a professor in the Department of Sociology and

19 in a program called Science Technology and Society.

20 Q I'm going to ask that Plaintiff's Exhibit

21 Ninety-Nine be passed to Professor Nelkin, and when that

22 arrives, Professor Nelkin, I'm going to ask you if you can

23 identify that as being your curriculum vitae?

24 (Examining same) Yes.

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

103.

1 Q (Continuing) far as academics, has it not, as far

2 as obtaining your present academic position?

3 A (Nodding affirmatively) Yes, it has. I think women

4 often have unusual, women particularly in my generation

5 often have unusual career patterns.

6 I did not obtain a Ph.D., but instead worked my way into

7 the profession by writing books and by getting some

8 recognition on the basis of work. And Cornell was an open

9 enough academic community to accept that as a reasonable

10 equivalent.

11 Q You are a full tenured professor at Cornell, are you

12 not?

13 A Yes. I have been since 1977. I have been a

14 professor there since 1973 or something.

15 Q And you have also been elected by your colleagues in

16 the sociological profession as president of your academic

17 society in sociology?

18 A I was. I'm past president of the society called the

19 Social Studies of Science. But that is rotating. I am no

20 longer in the position.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I would like to have

22 Plaintiff's Exhibit Ninety-nine for identification

23 received into evidence as Professor Nelkin's curriculum

24 vitae.

25 THE COURT: It will be received.

104.

1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

2 Q Professor Nelkin, will you tell us briefly what your

3 area of research and scholarship is?

4 A Yes. I tend to focus my research on the social

5 implications of science and technology. I study the

6 questions of science and public participation and the

7 relationship between science and the public.

8 I have been particularly interested in my research on

9 the way lay groups, lay groups can be used by— The way

10 science becomes a source of legitimation, a source of

11 credibility for many groups with other kinds of causes.

12 Q Do you have any particular means or methods of

13 approaching these subjects?

14 A Well, I find it very useful to study conflicts, to

15 study controversies, as a means of understanding what

16 people really want, what their demands are, how they

17 articulate these demands. And I have focused my work on

18 controversy.

19 Q Controversies involving science and technology?

20 A Always involving some aspect of science or

21 technology or both.

22 Q Can you give us some examples of such disputes that

23 you have studied or written about?

24 A Well, I've worked on a lot, I've written a lot on

25 technological siting disputes, like the siting of airports

105.

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

2 a great deal on the nuclear debate, both in this country

3 and in western Europe.

4 I've studied the recombinant DNA dispute, a little bit

5 on Laetrile dispute, again focusing on issues of expertise

6 and the way people use experts and use science as a way to

7 deal with these issues.

8 Q Can you explain the methods which sociologists use

9 in, drawing conclusions about controversies or the

10 movements?

11 A Well, sociologists use a great number of methods.

12 My own method is to do extensive interviewing, but I start

13 always by collecting the material of any group, or, not

14 only of any group, but surrounding the issue that I am

15 studying. I try to bury myself in the literature, whether

16 it's legal literature, whether it's the documents produced

17 by various groups, to really understand the issues. And

18 after that I do extensive in-depth interviewing with

19 people representing all sides of the controversy.

20 I seldom concentrate on any one group. I try to

21 understand their relationship to society. it's called, in

22 its logical terms, extended case analysis.

23 Q All right. Did you conduct such a study of the

24 creation science movement?

25 A Yes, I did.

106.

1 Q Would you tell me how you came to do that and when

2 you did that?

3 A I became interested in creation science movement

4 around 1973-74, and started collecting material at that

5 time, but then really began to pursue it as a full time

6 research endeavor, I think it was '74 or '75.

7 I, again, collected a lot of material that was written

8 by the creationists, to try to understand and try to get

9 myself under their skins, so to speak, to try to

10 understand what they were thinking, what their concerns

11 were, the diversity of their concerns. And then, also, I

12 tried to look at a lot of other material from teachers,

13 from scientists, from people in the California school.

14 I focused primarily in California at that time, because

15 that's where there was a lot of activity going on.

16 After that, I went around and interviewed people. I

17 interviewed at the Institute for Creation Research,

18 several Morrises, Duane Gish, Lester Lane. I hung around

19 here and talked to some students and some other people.

20 I also went to the Creation Science Research Center and

21 interviewed the Segraves.

22 In addition, I also talked to teachers in various parts

23 of the country, to educators, to school superintendents,

24 People on the California school board, the revolutionists,

25 Mr. Mayer of the Bible Science Curriculum Center, and

107.

1 A (Continuing) others, to try to understand the full

2 dimensions of the dispute and to understand its dynamics.

3 Q This work was not undertaken in connection with any

4 lawsuit or consulting role for any organization, was it?

5 A No, no. It came strictly out of my own curiosity,

6 to understand how a movement that seemed to represent

7 something which most scientists have assumed was long

8 dormant, since 1925. How and why this had revived. Why

9 did it all of a sudden begin to have some apparent

10 political salience. Why this should re-emerge at this

11 particular point in time.

12 What were the ideas being expressed at the time by the

13 creationists themselves which would bring this kind of

14 activity to the fore once more.

15 Q Did you start off with any particular sympathies or

16 feelings about the movement one way or the other?

17 A Well, in some sense I did, because I thought it was

18 kind of strange, as I mentioned, that this should all of a

19 sudden in an age where science has a wide credibility,

20 where scientific events seem to have been relatively well

21 accepted, it seemed strange that this kind of challenge to

22 contemporary science should arise.

23 On the other hand, I started out — and I think this is

24 evidenced in my other work — with some sense of sympathy

25 for people who are challenging science and who feel that

108.

1 A (Continuing) their values are somehow disturbed by

2 scientific research.

3 And I started out with some genuine sense of sympathy

4 for people who are concerned about their young and are

5 concerned about the values being taught in school.

6 Q After completing your study, did you publish your

7 conclusions?

8 A Yes. I published it in the book called, Science

9 Textbook Controversies: The Politics of Equal Time,

10 published by M. I. T. Press in 1977, was the first edition

11 and it was in paperback in 1978.

12 Q Did you also write several articles for magazines?

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

14 the book.

15 Q As a result of your study, did you form any opinions

16 about creation science?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Would you tell us, from a reasonable degree of

19 scholarly certainty, what those opinions are?

20 A Yes. Very briefly, there were several different

21 conclusions. First of all, I found that the science of

22 creationists, I felt on the basis of my interviews, to be

23 part of a broader fundamentalist movement, which is

24 essentially opposed to modernism and to science as part of

25 modernism. And they are opposed to it primarily for

109.

1 A (Continuing) religious and social reasons.

2 And they were attempting to try to use, as some of the

3 other groups had, science as a way to legitimate what they

4 were saying, using science as a kind of political resource

5 to legitimizes and give credibility to their own views

6 concerning the literal interpretation of the Bible;

7 Also, I found that one of the reasons underlying the

8 whole of their activities were concerns about a growing

9 secularism in society and a concern that this was going to

10 cut down on the constituency would destroy the values of

11 their young and have their youths. It was a very normal

12 concern that their youths were going off in some direction

13 that they themselves felt very uncomfortable with.

14 Q Could you elaborate for me on what you mean when you

15 say they were using science to legitimize their religious

16 views?

17 A Yes. Science generally has had a lot of salience in

18 society. It has an image of neutrality, of objectivity.

19 It is widely used by a lot of groups. I mean, after all

20 the transcendental meditationists call themselves the

21 Science of Creative Intelligence. When I looked at the

22 Laetrile people, they used scientific evidence to document

23 the applicancy of apricot pits.

24 Every group that I have studied tends to draw scientific

25 knowledge, scientific evidence, tries to incorporate them

110.

1 A (Continuing) into them, even if their concerns are

2 religious or social or have to do with freedom of choice.

3 They tend to be a translation of these values into

4 scientific and technical terms.

5 It seems to be a ubiquitous tendency in our society,

6 and I think the creationists, as well, are doing this.

7 This is a propagandistic kind of activity in my mind.

8 Q What do creation scientists find objectionable in

9 science?

10 A Well, there are several feelings that run through.

11 One which is very, very strong is a concern about science

12 representing some sort of flux, some sort of change; a

13 great deal of uncertainty. And, as you know, in our

14 society there is a great deal of concern about uncertainty

15 at the present point.

16 Order is a very fundamental value to the scientist, and

17 A scientist's order is a question of design creates a

18 sense of order.

19 Second of all, there is a profound concern about

20 immorality and concern about creating a moral environment,

21 and an association with the evolution theory and the

22 relationships between man and animals is a sore spot of

23 immorality.

24 Q Have you selected, at my request, a illustrative

25 statement from creation scientists which shows that point?

111.

1 A Yeah. I have a couple of quotes. One from Wendell

2 Bird, who is an attorney who writes.

3 Q Who does he work for?

4 A He's a member of the Institute of Creation

5 Research. And in an argument about evolution in public

6 schools, what creationists can do, he writes, "Christians

7 are commanded to be lights for a crooked and perverse

8 nation, and are to stand against the devil with the armour

9 of God. Christians have a responsibility to ensure light

10 and to oppose evil in the public school system, because

11 our country is shaped powerfully by the public school

12 curriculum and our tax dollars finance public education."

13 Q Is that a part of an article describing how

14 Creationists can get creation science in the public

15 schools?

16 A Well, the subtitle above that is, "The

17 Responsibility: Creationists Should Request Instruction

18 in Scientific Creationism."

19 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to

20 the reference to that document. There has been no

21 authentication of that article. I have not seen it. If

22 it is an exhibit, it has not been referred to as one as

23 such.

24 Further, I want to enter an objection to this line of

25 inquiry on the grounds, again, of relevancy. This witness

112.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) is painting with a very broad

2 brush that all of these things have occurred. I don't

3 think there has been a sufficient showing that a

4 sufficient study has been made to, first of all, make

5 these conclusions; secondly, to relate to this lawsuit

6 that we are concerned with here today.

7 THE COURT: I don't know how many objections that

8 amounts to. Let's take them one at a time. I think what

9 she's reading from is part of the plaintiffs' pre-trial

10 appendix to the brief. I've read it somewhere else when I

11 was reading some material for the trial, and I think it's

12 in that.

13 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, it's Exhibit

14 Eighty-three for identification. It's an excerpt from a

15 periodical which ICR publishes called Impact. It's a

16 self-authenticating document under federal rules covering

17 newspapers and periodicals. It's also information on

18 which Professor Nelkin has, in part, formed her

19 conclusions and comes in as material forming the basis of

20 an expert's opinion and is also admissible for that reason.

21 THE COURT: I agree with that. But he is saying he

22 hasn't seen the document. I think it is in information

23 that has been furnished, at least, to me.

24 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we provided them with all

25 copies of exhibits that were marked for identification.

113.

1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) It's page 126 of Exhibit for

2 Identification Eighty-three, which was served on the

3 Attorney General's office.

4 THE COURT: in response to the other objection, I

5 think the material is relevant. I think she is qualified

6 to express opinions as an expert.

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

9 Q We're not going to belabor the point. There was a

10 second vocation I think you selected?

11 A Yes. In my interviews I found that the creationists

12 were relating evolution theories to everything, from

13 Communism to sexual promiscuity to the decline of the

14 family, and at that time to streaking.

15 Henry Morris in Scientific Creationism writes, "The

16 results of two generations of this evolutionary

17 indoctrination have been devastating. Secularized schools

18 have begotten a secularized society. The child is the

19 father of the man and if the child is led to believe he is

20 merely an evolved beast, the man he becomes will behave as

21 a beast, either aggressively struggling for supremacy

22 himself, or blindly following aggressive leaders."

23 I think that essentially documents what we have found or

24 I have found in my own research.

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

114.

1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) that Exhibit Eighty-three,

2 from which she previously read, and Exhibit Seventy-six,

3 which have both been marked for identification, be

4 received into evidence.

5 THE COURT: They will be received. And Mr.

6 Williams, I will note your objection to those two

7 documents.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, your Honor.

9 A The third thing that comes through is the concern

10 about secularism and implication for the literal

11 interpretation, that this would essentially defy the

12 literal interpretation of Genesis and consequently it

13 in a loss of faith. And this comes through very clearly

14 in a quote from Robert Kofahl in the Handy Dandy Evolution

15 Refuter. That's Exhibit Eighty-eight, I think.

16 Q It's page 141.

17 Would you read the quotation you selected from the Handy

18 Dandy Evolution Refuter, Professor Nelkin?

19 A "The reason God the Creator worked for some fifteen

20 hundred years—"

21 Q Professor, excuse me. Would you slow down a little

22 bit? People are having trouble understanding you.

23 A Okay. Let me skip down a little so it won't take so

24 long.

25 "But to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved, a

115.

1 A (Continuing) sinner must believe what the Bible

2 says about his personal sin and guilt before a holy God

3 and about what Christ has done to save him. Anything,

4 therefore, which stands in the way of faith in the Bible

5 as the Word of God can keep sinful men and women from the

6 Savior whom they must know or perish. Supposedly

7 scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the

8 Bible can cause some people to doubt the Bible and thus

9 hinder them from coming in humble faith to Jesus Christ

10 for salvation."

11 I think that's the essence of the quote.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would ask that Exhibit

13 Eighty-eight marked for identification be received into

14 evidence.

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

16 Honor.

17 THE COURT: I will receive Exhibit Eighty-eight, but

18 I don't understand how that relates to the creation

19 science theory. Is that the product of the Institute, or

20 one of—

21 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

22 Q Would you tell us who published the Handy Dandy

23 Evolution Refuter? Which organization does this come

24 from, Professor Nelkin?

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

116.

1 A (Continuing) is, I believe, if I remember right,

2 Kofahl is a member, is or was a member of the Institute

3 for Creation Research. And I make a strong association

4 between the Institute for Creation Research, which has

5 been a primary organization among scientific creationists

6 and Act 590.

7 Q I'm going to explore that point with you in just a

8 moment, Professor Nelkin.

9 Your testimony is that that book is by a prominent

10 spokesman of the creation science movement?

11 A Yes.

12 Q How do creation scientists respond to the concerns

13 that you've just articulated?

14 A Well, first of all, their aim and their intention,

15 as far as I could discern, was really to convince people

16 to essentially believe their beliefs, convergent in the

17 sense of convergence of ideas. They want people to

18 believe their definition of reality. And in order to do

19 that, they really felt it was incumbent upon them in

20 today's age to call into question scientific ideas and to

21 give their own ideas a sense of scientific credibility.

22 How they do that is partly, mostly through negative

23 argument, to try to undermine, to try to present arguments

24 that would undermine evolution theories. And to argue

25 therefore, if you can undermine evolution theories, then

117.

1 A (Continuing) the creationism appeared as the only

2 alternative.

3 Their methods of research, however, to somebody who were

4 very familiar with scientific methods of research don't

5 quite fit. They, first of all, start with a priori

6 assumption. Rather than keeping an open mind about the

7 evidence, they really use evidence in order to prove what

8 they would like to prove.

9 Q Professor Nelkin, have you studied ordinary

10 scientists?

11 A Yeah. I don't know if you want a quote on the way

12 they approach things on their a priori assumptions or

13 not. Would that be useful to you?

14 Q Certainly, go ahead. Identify what you are reading

15 from.

16 A Oh, yeah. This from, again, from Henry Morris.

17 Scientific Creationism is the name of the book. It is

18 Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, California.

19 Q I believe that is Exhibit 76.

20 A The exhibit is 76, yes. "It should be emphasized

21 that this order is followed, not because of scientific

22 data are considered more reliable than Biblical doctrine.

23 To the contrary, it is precisely because Biblical

24 revolution is absolutely authoritative and persistent that

25 the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the

118.

1 A (Continuing) same testimony as that of the

2 scripture."

3 "There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of

4 science can contradict the Bible and, therefore, there is

5 no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any

6 aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a

7 verdict in favor of evolution." Very straightforward

8 statement.

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

10 evidence.

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

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

13 to the objection.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like to add one

15 other thing. I think the point does need to be made, and

16 I am sure the Court is aware of this, but ICR, any group,

17 is not on trial.

18 What we are trying is the constitutionality of this Act.

19 At this point, I have not seen evidence going to whether

20 this Act is constitutional or not.

21 There has been a lot of so-called background, which is

22 totally irrelevant from a legal perspective. What does

23 the Act require? That is what we are concerned about.

24 What does the Act on its face require? The Act has not

25 even been implemented yet.

119.

1 MR. WILLLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 What they are, in effect, saying, as I understand it is,

3 the Act can't be implemented because of some of these

4 problems with some of the writings. The Act hasn't been

5 implemented yet and they can't challenge it except as to

6 its constitutionality on its face.

7 THE COURT: I appreciate the argument you are

8 making. I read it in the Brief, and I make the same

9 ruling on it.

10 I think, in order to save a lot of time and to save a

11 lot of effort on your part, if you would just tell me you

12 object on the ground that it is not relevant or on the

13 grounds previously stated, that will help. You don't need

14 to make an argument each time.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, your Honor.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

17 Q Let me address that point. I think the record

18 already reflects that many of the publications of the

19 Institute for Creation Research are published in two

20 editions; is that correct?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Is Evolution: The Fossils Say No by Duane T. Gish

23 an illustration of that?

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

25 one for general public.

120.

1 Q I think the Attorney General's office has already

2 made the point that when we asked the ICR for those

3 documents and they produced them to us, they put—

4 MR.WILLIAMS: I object to that characterization. I

5 never made that point. I made the stipulation in response

6 to a request.

7 THE COURT: Wait just a second. He is going to

8 withdraw that statement.

9 Go ahead and just ask her the question.

10 MR.CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

11 Q You are familiar with the way scientists operate?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Are you familiar with any other set of texts which

14 carry labels in them designating whether it is religious

15 or science?

16 A No, I have never heard of it before. I can't

17 imagine that just simply semantic changes in books which

18 really carry the same message would really make any

is difference, and I have never seen any scientific books

20 which are written several in editions except for efforts

21 to popularize them. But that does not try to say that one

22 is scientific and one is not.

23 Q Let me turn now and ask you some specific questions

24 about the scientific-creation roots. You heard Professor

25 Marsden testify earlier today?

121.

1 A Yes.

2 Q Did you hear him mention the American Scientific

3 Affiliation?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Could you give us a brief description of the

6 creation-science groups and their development?

7 A Okay. The American Scientific Affiliation was

8 developed, I believe, in 1941 or the early 1940's. At

9 that time, most of the creationists, as I understand, were

10 members of that affiliation. They began to split with it

11 in the late 1950's, early 1960's, because it was really

12 not fundamentalist enough with respect particularly to

13 science.

14 There were several things that occurred at that period.

15 First was the public concern about science education,

16 about the lag of the United States behind the Soviets, the

17 Russians. In particular, that was evidenced by Sputnik,

18 and that caused the National Science Foundation to develop

19 a whole series of federal programs in physics and in

20 biology, which attempted to create science textbooks for

21 the public schools that were more in tune with the latest

22 developments in contemporary science.

23 There was a Darwin centennial in 1959 in which a big

24 case was made to the fact that in biology textbooks in

25 particular there was an extraordinary lag between what was

122.

1 A (Continuing) known within the scientific community

2 and how this was portrayed in the public schools.

3 On the basis of that, the Biology Science Curriculum

4 Study was developed and created books more in keeping with

5 contemporary and well accepted research.

6 So then you began to have public school textbooks in the

7 early Sixties which were developing evolution theories.

8 There were several other things. The Supreme Court

9 ruling in 1963 on prayer in schools was an issue which

10 irritated a number of people.

11 In California, and that's where a lot of the action is

12 at this time or was at that time, Max Rafferty was very

13 concerned about godlessness in the school system.

14 Q Who is Max Rafferty?

15 A Max Rafferty was Superintendent of Schools for the

16 State of California at that time, a fundamentalist, and

17 extremely concerned about the lack of religion in the

18 public schools. He used words like `godlessness' and

19 `secularism' and was very concerned, so he had a little

20 form of political support.

21 At the same time the creationists began, Henry Morris,

22 in particular, began to write books that began to have a

23 dissemination among certain groups.

24 At that time, also, the Creation Research Society split

25 away from the ASA, the American Scientific Affiliation, to

123.

1 A (Continuing) form their own group. I believe it

2 was in 1963. They had an oath, which I don't have with me.

3 Q Is this a copy of that?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Let me pass you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for

6 identification which, along with the other exhibits for

7 identification, have been provided to the Attorney

8 General's office, and I will ask you, please, if you can

9 identify that.

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, at this time, if I might,

11 I would just like to make an objection on the grounds of

12 hearsay. All this that this witness is testifying to is

13 to hearsay.

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

15 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

16 Q Did you identify Exhibit 115?

17 A I can't defend myself against hearsay.

18 Q If you would, please, just describe for us what

19 Exhibit 115 is.

20 A Exhibit 115 is a brochure from the Creation Research

21 Society, a Xerox of a brochure, with a brief history of

22 the organization organized in 1963, firmly committed to

23 scientific special creation.

24 Q Is there an oath which Creation Research Society

25 members must take?

124.

1 A There is a position statement, and then on the

2 application form, to become a voting member you have to

3 have a degree in some recognized area of science.

4 In addition, all members must subscribe to the

5 following: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and

6 because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its

7 assertions are historically and scientifically true in all

8 of the original autographs. To the student of nature,

9 this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a

10 factual presentation of simple-historical truths.

11 Second, "All basic types of living things, including

12 man, were made by direct creative acts of God during

13 Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever

14 biological changes have occurred since Creation have

15 accomplished only changes within the original created

16 kinds."

17 Third, "The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly

18 referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical

19 event, worldwide in its extent and effects.

20 Fourth, "Finally, we are an organization of Christian

21 men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and

22 Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and

23 Eve as ones man and one woman, and their subsequent fall

24 into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of

25 a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come

125.

1 A (Continuing) only through accepting Jesus Christ as

2 our savior."

3 That is the oath or what members have to subscribe to in

4 the ISCRS.

5 Q Is that a leading creation-science organization?

6 A Yes, although it did split once again. These groups

7 tend to split over certain issues. There was a leadership

8 dispute and the CSRC, the Creation Science Research Center

9 then formed in the late Sixties, and that became, by and

10 large, a publishing organization.

11 Then there was a copyright dispute and there was also a

12 dispute over strategy, and it split once more. Henry

13 Morris formed the ICR. It's like the government with all

14 these acronyms. The Institute for Creation Research,

15 which went to Christian Heritage College, which was a new

16 organization in El Cajon, California, supported by the

17 Scott Memorial Baptist Church, and it became the research

18 institute, the research arm and teaching arm also, in the

19 scientific area of Christian Heritage College, which at

20 that time its president was Tim LaHay.

21 Q Could you tell us, please, if there are other

22 organizations that come to mind?

23 A The Bible Science Association is another one and

24 that's been much more of a mass based organization, which

25 serves as a means to disseminate a lot of the material.

126.

1 A (Continuing) Most of the documents, most of the

2 lectures, most of the activities of the people in the ICR,

3 which is now the most active organization, are the

4 lecturers in almost entirely Bible colleges and other

5 religious organizations, and also their writings are

6 published primarily through religious sources.

7 Q Are those the leading national organizations

8 dedicated to promoting creation-science?

9 A Those, at this moment, are the leading

10 Organizations. I think they have subgroups in various

11 states, but these are the leading major national

12 organizations, yes.

13 Q You told us you conducted your study in I think you

14 said around '74 or '75?

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

16 Q Have you had occasion to update your research since

17 that time?

18 A Well, when one does research like that and moves on

19 to other things, what one does is to continually collect

20 material and stick it in the file. I don't really have

21 time to look at it terribly carefully. I was called on

22 the Sacramento case. Was it a year ago—January. The

23 attorney general there had called me. I could not

24 participate in it because I was off to France on

25 sabbatical. But I did have — Again, as it began to come

127.

1 A (Continuing) up, I began to review the material I

2 had collected in the meantime. And then obviously knowing

3 that this was coming up, I have been intensively immersed

4 in material recently. So, I feel pretty up to date.

5 Q Has anything in the material you have reviewed

6 recently changed your conclusions?

7 A No. It has only reinforced it. The only difference

8 I seek really, is it seems to me that in some sense the

9 creationists are a little more politically astute. They

10 have changed — The effort to completely separate, which I

11 really can't quite encompass, I can't quite understand how

12 they can do this, the effort to completely separate

13 biblical creationism from scientific creationism is

14 demarcated just a little bit. There seems to be some

15 conflict within the organization, and I think that is

16 reflected in this split, a conflict within the

17 organization about how to maintain an appeal to a

18 basically religious constituents on the one hand, and gain

19 scientific credibility on the other.

20 I seem to read in their literature at this point a sense

21 of contradiction as they are pulled in two directions.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: I think I failed to offer into

23 evidence Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for identification. It's

24 the Creation Research Society oath, and I ask that that be

25 received.

128.

1 THE COURT: That will be received.

2 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like my objection

3 made on the grounds previously stated, plus no

4 authentication.

5 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

6 Q Did you, based on your interviews, were you able to

7 create a composite picture of the creation-science leaders

8 based on the research?

9 A Well, it's not really a composite picture in any

10 kind of technical or statistical sense. However, I was

11 told an awful lot of times that these were people who were

12 brought up in fundamentalist families. They were bright

13 kids who went off to college and got trained as

14 scientists. They continually had some trouble reconciling

15 what they were learning with the fundamentalist

16 background. Resorted often to a theistic evolution,

17 essentially saying that God was responsible for change.

18 But, then, somewhere later, felt kind of uncomfortable

19 with all of this and turned to creationism when that

20 alternative occurred. They were attracted to this as a

21 way to reconcile their own self doubts. This is a story I

22 heard again and again in my interviews.

23 Recently got reconfirmed in something that I read by

24 Gary Parker where he says that God told him this

25 essentially. God essentially changed his mind and opened

129.

1 A (Continuing) up new kinds of possibilities with the

2 science in creationism, so the internal conflict didn't

3 really register.

4 Q Professor Nelkin, have you read Act 590?

5 A Yes, I have read Act 590.

6 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether Act 590

7 reflects a connection with the creation-science

8 organizations which you've just described?

9 A Yes, in a couple of ways. Going through, it looked

10 awfully familiar, a lot of it. An awful lot of it seems

11 to have come almost word by word, except in a somewhat

12 different order, from a resolution that was written up, a

13 model resolution that was written by—Was it Wendell

14 Bird—Bird from Institution of Creation Research.

15 In checking over that, the wording was almost

16 identical. The order of the items was somewhat different.

17 In terms of the definition of creationism, it is the

18 kind of definition of creationism I have seen again and

19 again in creationist writings. The same items appear,

20 slightly different wording, but they are fundamentally no

21 different than the statements that come out of the

22 organizations, such as the Institution for Creation

23 Research.

24 Q Could I ask that Exhibit 106 for identification be

25 passed to you, and ask if you can identify that as being

130.

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

2 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I think I've got the

3 wrong exhibit number. If I may, on re-direct, I will put

4 that in through her, and I think that will save some time.

5 No more questions.

6

CROSS EXAMINATION

7 BY MR. WILLIAMS:

8 Q Ms. Nelkin, isn't it true that your predominant area

9 of study into the creation-science movement, as you have

10 termed it, came from approximately 1973 up through 1977?

11 A Yes, my primary time in which I was studying that

12 movement, yes.

13 Q And since 1977, say, one of your average weeks, how

14 much time have you spent in studying creation-science?

15 A Very little on a regular basis until very recently,

16 and then it's been full-time again.

17 Q Until how recently?

18 A I picked it up for a couple of weeks in January, a

19 year ago. Then I picked it up, the material up again—Had

20 a lot of it on hand so that it was not hard to get

21 at—about three or four weeks ago.

22 Q But even during that time you weren't spending

23 full-time, were you?

24 A I was also teaching my classes. Researchers in

25 universities don't have full time for research. We do

131.

1 A (Continuing) other things. But in another sense,

2 also I've been teaching about the dispute, looking at the

3 controversy in my classes each year, so I've kept up on

4 the material to do that.

5 Q As a matter of fact, when you wrote your book in

6 1977, at that point, really, your research effectively

7 ended, didn't it?

8 A For the purposes of what I was writing then, yes.

9 Since then, I have resumed it.

10 Q For the purposes of testifying in two lawsuits?

11 A No. One lawsuit. I did not testify in the other

12 lawsuit because I was in Paris at the time it was held.

13 Q But you did look at it at times because of the

14 lawsuit?

15 A I looked at it, the material because of that, yes,

16 and for the purpose of testifying in this lawsuit, and

17 also because of considerable interest, again, because of

18 the lawsuit. So, I've taken it up again, yes.

19 Q When you began studying what you call the science

20 textbook controversy— First of all, the question of the

21 science textbook controversies includes something more in

22 your mind than merely creation-science, does it not?

23 A When I was studying those controversies, there was a

24 simultaneous dispute going on called "The Man, a Course of

25 study" dispute, which raised a lot of the same issues.

132.

1 A (Continuing) So, I used that, as well as another

2 example.

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

4 A It was a social science curriculum developed by the

5 National Science Foundation do teach at the younger school

6 level. I think it was fifth and sixth grades.

7 Q Describe, if you would, the general approach of "The

8 Man, a Course of Study.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I don't

10 understand the relevance of this. Professor Nelkin's book

11 was called The Scientific Textbook Controversies. She

12 studied two controversies; one over creationism and one

13 over some humanities textbooks that were also

14 controversial at that time.

15 It is a second controversy. If your Honor wants to hear

16 it, fine, but I really don't see the materiality of it.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, there are two purposes.

18 First of all, in Plaintiffs ` Exhibit 1 for identification,

19 an article by Ms. Nelkin, this is gone into in some

20 depth. There appears to be, to some degree, an effort to

21 kind of intertwine the two controversies. I want to make

22 clear that they are not intertwined.

23 Second, in "Man, A Course of Study", there were some

24 concepts studied which were highly controversial. They

25 were formulated by some scientists from the National

133.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Science Foundation, funding,

2 at least. Fifth and sixth graders were studying such

3 questions about what is human about human beings and they

4 were studying animal behavior and how it related to humans.

5 The concepts, even Ms. Nelkin has admitted, were highly

6 controversial and somewhat problematic. There has been an

7 argument made by the plaintiffs in this case that you

8 shouldn't force on high school students this false ploy

9 between what they see as religion and science, that high

10 school students are too impressionable.

11 I would points out that if fifth and sixth graders are

12 not too impressionable to look at these issues in the view

13 of the scientists, who Ms. Nelkin I think acknowledges

14 competent scientists, neither should high school students

15 be too impressionable to look at the facts on both sides

16 of the question of origins.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, it seems very collateral

18 to me.

19 THE COURT: I think it would be easier just to

20 listen to the testimony. I think, really, the relevance

21 of that is kind of remote but if you want to go into that,

22 that's fine.

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

24 your Honor.

25 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat your question? I

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P134-166

134.

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

2 argument.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: That was a statement. That was not a

4 question. Let, me ask you the question now.

5 THE WITNESS: All right.

6 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

7 Q "The Man, A Course of Study", could you just give me

8 a brief sketch of the sort of issues that were being

9 present to fifth and sixth graders in that curriculum?

10 A This is an effort to teach students about values.

11 It did have an evolutionary component because it made

12 assumptions that there, were genetic relationships between

13 man and animals, and it looked at animal behavior. It was

14 widely considered to be an interesting course.

15 Its methodology was somewhat controversial because it

16 allowed—It was not rote teaching. It was teaching which

17 involved a lot of participation, a lot of discussion by

18 students.

19 Some of the major concerns came up about whether this

20 was an appropriate methodology through which to teach

21 students or whether children should be simply told by

22 their teachers what is right and what is wrong. That was

23 a controversial aspect of that dispute.

24 Q And the scientists who formulated that based on your

25 studies felt this would be an appropriate course of study

135.

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

2 A Yes.

3 Q They didn't feel that fifth and sixth graders were

4 too impressionable to handle these questions; is that

5 correct?

6 A No. I think it was the assumption that fifth and

7 sixth graders are pretty intelligent and thoughtful human

8 beings and could, yes, deal with it.

9 Q The controversy over "Man, A Course of Study", do

10 you know whether—Well, first of all—that course was ever

11 protested in Arkansas?

12 A I don't remember. It was protested in a number of

13 states. Arkansas could have been one of them, but I

14 really don't remember whether Arkansas was, in fact a

15 state in which it was protested.

16 Q Isn't it true that you don't necessarily see "Man, A

17 Course of Study" in the creation-science movement, as you

18 have termed it, to be one and the same? Those are

19 interrelated in terms of the same people were involved?

20 A There is some overlapping in the people involved in

21 the two studies. John Conlan, for example, the

22 representative, got involved and was also very supportive

23 of the creationist movement. And his aide, I can't

24 remember, a British guy, also got involved. Yes, there

25 was some relationship. The Galbraiths in Texas also got

136.

1 A (Continuing) very agitated about that, similarly

2 agitated about the teaching of the evolution theory. Yes,

3 there were some connections.

4 Q The groups you previously identified as being the

5 leading creation-science groups, did any of them take a

6 formal position on "Man, A Course of Study", to the best

7 of your knowledge?

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

9 remember.

10 Q In your article entitled Science-Textbook

11 Controversies, which has been previously admitted as

12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for identification, you state that,

13 referring to textbooks published by the Biological Science

14 Curricula Study Committee, you said, quote, All three

15 reflected the fact that modern biological research is

16 based on evolutionary assumptions, close quote?

17 A Yes.

18 Q So, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that

19 somehow creation-science was based on some sort of a

20 priori assumptions. Is not evolution also based on some a

21 priori assumptions?

22 A What is the beginning part again?

23 Q You were talking about three textbooks. Three

24 textbooks were developed, each emphasizing a different

25 aspect of current biological research. Molecular biology,

137. Page Missing

138.

1 A (Continuing) data and to understand.

2 Q Let me ask, you, in Exhibit 1 you state that

3 creation-scientists believe, quote, that all basic types of

4 living things, including man, were made by a direct

5 creative act of God during the creation week."

6 A Yes.

7 Q Can you tell me where does creation-science, as it

8 is defined in Act 590, say that all living things were

9 created in one week.

10 A Act 590 denies—

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

12 A I think it does not state that exactly in that way,

13 and it does not also want to use the word "God", but I

14 find it very difficult to distinguish the notion of a

15 creator and world by design without— I mean, I think that

16 is the semantic equivalent.

17 Q But you studied this, not from you own personal

18 opinion but you studied it as a social science, did you

19 not?

20 A Yes.

21 Q So I want to ask you, not your personal opinion but

22 what you have been able to determine from studying this

23 question.

24 A My opinion is based on what I studied.

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

139.

1 Q (Continuing) created within one week?

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

3 Q Where in Act 590 does it say that, quote, God, close

4 quote, did the creating?

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

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

7 A No.

8 Q You further state in Exhibit 1 that many

9 nonscientists believe that science is authoritative, exact

10 and definitive?

11 A Yes.

12 Q And, further, that few textbooks are careful to

13 stress the distinction between facts and interpretation?

14 A Yes.

15 Q —Or to suggest that intuition and speculation

16 actually guide the development of scientific concepts?

17 A (Nodding affirmatively)

18 Q First of all, that's an acknowledgment by you, is it

19 not, that things such as intuition and speculation do lead

20 to scientific concepts?

21 A I think there is a great deal of speculation in

22 science, and then it's tested, systematically tested;

23 approached with skepticism and tested, yes.

24 Q Can't the shortcomings you have pinpointed on

25 textbooks lead to false impression that what are

140.

1 Q (Continuing) scientific theories are facts?

2 A I think there is a lot of room for improvement in

3 science popularization. I've written a great deal about

4 this. I think it's a very difficult thing to do to convey

5 both the subtlety and the complexity of science and yet

6 convey it at a level at which it can be understood and

7 which the innuendoes and the procedures and the kinds of

8 insights that go into science are conveyed. It's a major

9 challenge to the scientific community.

10 Q Who was Julian Huxley?

11 A Julian Huxley was a biologist in the nineteenth

12 century.

13 Q Would it be fair to say he was a proponent of

14 evolution?

15 A Well, and he and other people have used—There are a

16 lot of people who have used evolution theory for

17 purposes—special purposes. I am not sure scientists can

18 do anything about that. Scientific theories are amenable

19 to being exploited and used.

20 Q So evolutionary theory can be abused?

21 A Every science and every religious theory can be

22 abused by the public if somebody cares to do so, yes.

23 Q As you understand or what you know about Julian

24 Huxley, was he someone who adopted or adhered to the

25 theory of evolution?

141.

1 A I believe so.

2 Q Are you aware that he called the concept of

3 evolution a naturalistic religion?

4 A (Nodding affirmatively)

5 Q So, at least, Huxley saw some sort of religion being

6 based on evolution, did he not?

7 A There were a lot of nineteenth century scientists

8 who really looked to religion as a way to document the

9 existence of God, yes. That was characteristic of a lot

10 of Darwin's contemporaries and, in fact, his

11 contemporaries in the scientific community were—had a lot

12 of problems with Darwinian theory, yes. In the nineteenth

13 century, definitely.

14 Q In your article that I just quoted from, is not one

15 of you conclusions, "that questions which have normally

16 been resolved by professional consensus are being brought

17 into the political arena"?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Is your conclusion not further that, "The processes

20 resulting in democratic values such as freedom of choice,

21 equality and fairness enter into science policy"?

22 A Yes, and when it comes to the determination of

23 scientific theory—

24 Q I am asking if that is your conclusion?

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

142.

1 Q I don't want to take it out of context. Let me read

2 you the quote.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: What are you reading?

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

5 Q "As questions that are normally resolved by

6 professional consensus are brought into the political

7 arena, and as democratic values such as freedom of choice,

8 equality and fairness enter into science policy, the

9 consequences of such resistance to science may be

10 painful." First of all, is that correct?

11 A Yes. I want to underline the word `policy'. I

12 don't want that to be shown in the record to say science .

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

14 A But I want to emphasize that.

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

16 MR. CRAWFORD: If Mr. Williams intends to

17 interrogate Professor Nelkin at some length about this

18 article, I would like to give her a copy of it for her

19 reference.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: I've just finished my questioning on

21 the article, Mr. Crawford.

22 THE WITNESS: May I add a point to that, because I

23 think it,- again, is out of context. I do not think that

24 values of democracy and fairness enter the judgment as to

25 what is valid scientific theory.

143.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 Q But they do into valid science policy?

3 A Into science policy, where money should be allocated

4 for science, et cetera. But into theories of science,

5 science is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy.

6 Achievement, bodies of knowledge, an acceptable set of

7 procedures, these are the things that define science, not

8 democracy, not audience applause.

9 Q I want to refer you now to Exhibit 2 for

10 identification of the plaintiffs' case. This is your

11 article entitled, "Science, Rationality and the

12 Creation/Evolution Dispute".

13 Do you not state in this article that an argument that,

14 quote, science is natural, close quote; it is simply not

15 convincing on historical grounds?

16 A Yes. The argument the scientists make, I think, is

17 a defensive one that exaggerates the total neutrality and

18 objectivity of science, and it allows people to abuse

19 science by having, by taking political recourse to that

20 concept.

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

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I am sorry to keep

23 intruding, but if he could just identify where he is

24 reading—

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Page 12 of the article.

144.

1 Q That, in fact, "Neutral, apolitical criteria have

2 very little meaning in the context of science education";

3 isn't that right?

4 A Historically, yes.

5 Q You state, do you not, that in discussing, at the

6 top of page 15, the conflict between creation science and

7 evolution, you state, quote, "As each side defends its

8 position and criticizes the other, their arguments are

9 strikingly similar. Indeed, the debate often sounds like

10 a battle between two dogmatic groups as the anti-dogmatic

11 norms of science fade with the effort to convey the

12 validity of a scientific theory. At times, in the course

13 of the dispute, it becomes difficult to distinguish

14 science from politics and ideology, a fact which only

15 reinforces creationist claims"?

16 A Yes, because the dispute has taken—

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

18 A Sure.

19 Q What you are saying here, is it not, is that there

20 is a parallel between the arguments made by the

21 creationists and the evolutionists?

22 A Yes. What I'm saying, though, in a larger sense is

23 that scientists have not, because they have been somewhat

24 isolated from such political challenges, are not very

25 experienced in dealing with such challenges, and I think

145.

1 A (Continuing) that is a real problem in this day and

2 age.

3 So that when they tend to get confronted by a great

4 number of attacks, they tend to respond very, I feel, much

5 too defensively and instead of just sticking to their

6 guns, essentially fall into the trap of creating parallel

7 arguments.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, this has been previously

9 marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 2. Unless the

10 plaintiffs have some intention of offering it into

11 evidence, I would like to offer it into evidence as a

12 defendant's exhibit.

13 MR. CRAWFORD: I have no objection.

14 THE COURT: It will be received.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

16 Q Ms. Nelkin, are you aware that some scientific

17 journals have established a policy of refusing any

18 consideration of any articles on creation science?

19 A I am not aware it is policy. I know there's been

20 problems in peer reviewing them.

21 Q Let me refer you back to Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs'

22 Exhibit 1—Excuse me. Do you recall an article you wrote

23 on "Creation vs. Evolution: The Politics of Science

24 Education"?

25 A Yes.

146.

1 Q Do you recall in that article you discussed the fact

2 that the National Association of Biology Teachers, their

3 journal stopped publishing any creationist articles by

4 November of 1972?

5 A Yes. It was deluged with articles that stated from

6 preconceptions that simply—

7 Q I am not asking where they came from. I am asking

8 if you are aware whether, in fact, they stopped accepting

9 articles?

10 A Yes, I remember the article and the debate at that

11 time.

12 Q Thank you very much.

13 Ms. Nelkin, you do not believe in the existence of a

14 God, do you?

15 A No.

16 Q But you believe that a religious person can be a

17 competent scientist, don't you?

18 A Certainly.

19 Q in your study of science, have you come to a

20 conclusion that we now have a purity of science so that

21 society no longer affects science and the scientific

22 method?

23 A Do I believe that?

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

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

147.

1 A (Continuing) come to that conclusion.

2 Q As a matter of fact, would you say the opposite is

3 true, that society to some degree does tend to affect

4 science?

5 A That is not the opposite, but to some degree there

6 is, yes, certainly.

7 Q You also have looked, have you not, at the way

8 courts have generally handled scientific questions?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And you have some doubts personally about the

11 ability of a court to handle a scientific question, don't

12 you?

13 A That is a very complicated question to answer

14 briefly. I think there is a tendency for a lot of

15 technical questions that come to the court to be

16 translated into scientific and technical terms; that a lot

17 of these cases, Vermont Yankee, for example, for one

18 thing, have become very difficult in terms of the ability

19 of the courts to gain sufficient technical competence to

20 make judgments as to whether, in fact, the agencies are

21 doing their jobs.

22 I am very familiar with the Bazelon-Levanthal argument

23 as to the extent to which courts should be buttressing

24 their technical competence or whether they should simply

25 refer these cases back to the agencies that do have the

148.

1 A (Continuing) technical competence or to the

2 legislature to handle them.

3 I have generally come out on the latter side, the

4 Bazelon side to this, that the practical notion of

5 training lawyers to be both scientists and lawyers at the

6 same time, and judges also, to have them technically

7 competent in all fields that are going to come before

8 them, really doesn't work out very well.

9 Q So you've come up on the side of referring it back

10 to the administrative agency or the legislature where it

11 came from?

12 MR. CRAWFORD: I object.

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

14 MR. CRAWFORD: I heard the word `legislature' that I

15 had not heard before.

16 THE WITNESS: That was in the Vermont Yankee case.

17 I don't think that applies to every —I certainly don't

18 think it applies to this case, but I'm looking at the

19 Vermont Yankee case in particular.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Ms. Nelkin. First of all,

21 we have an objection. Your Honor, if I could ask the

22 witness—

23 MR. CRAWFORD: I heard what she said.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

149.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 Q Do you think academic freedom includes necessarily

3 the freedom to teach anything an individual wants to teach

4 at any particular time?

5 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I am going to

6 object. We have not tendered Professor Nelkin as an

7 expert on academic freedom. We tendered her as an expert

8 on sociology of science and controversies involving

9 science. I think to take her into the field of academic

10 freedom and areas in which she doesn't necessarily claim

11 expertise is inappropriate.

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, she is a professor at

13 Cornell University. I am not asking her for a legal

14 judgment; I am asking her as a member of the academic

15 community.

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

17 THE WITNESS: So the question is, do I think—

18 Would you repeat the question, please?

19 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

20 Q Do you think that academic freedom includes

21 necessarily the freedom to teach anything that an

22 individual wants to teach at any particular time?

23 A No.

24 Q Do you think that a teacher has to agree with a

25 theory before they can effectively teach it?

150.

1 A No.

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

3 A Let me quality that. I teach in a private

4 university, at the university level only. I have never

5 taught in the public schools, and I really do not want to

6 comment—I cannot comment on the question of academic

7 freedom in the public school context. There is nothing

8 either in anything I have studied or my own personal

9 experience that would allow me to do that with any

10 confidence.

11 Q But in teaching concepts, many times a university

12 like Cornell would be similar to any public institution,

13 would it not?

14 A I teach mostly graduate students over the age of

15 twenty. I would imagine, having never taught but having

16 had teenage kids myself, there must be some difference in

17 the way one teaches.

18 Q Do you think the evolution model of origins should

19 be subject to criticism?

20 A I think all science should be subject to criticism.

21 It's fundamental.

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

23 it?

24 Yes. That's an unintended pun. Excuse me.

25 Q Do you object to the creationist or creation science

151.

1 Q (Continuing) position of origins being discussed in

2 a humanities or social science class?

3 A I have no objection do the history of religious

4 theory being taught in a history course.

5 Q Don't you believe it is possible for a scientist to

6 do superb scientific work, and then someone else label it

7 as religion?

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

9 Q Do you think it is possible for a scientist to do

10 superb scientific work and for someone else to label that

11 as religion?

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

13 a loaded word on `superb'. On what criteria are you using

14 the word `superb'? I mean, what's `superb'? I can't

15 answer the question because of the way it's framed.

16 Q Do you recall during your deposition when I asked

17 you a question to that effect, and you said, quote, I can

18 very well conceive of a first rate scientist doing superb

19 science, and somebody else comes along and says, "No, I

20 think that is a religion"?

21 A Yes. I believe that was at the end of six hours of

22 grilling in a hot room at LaGuardia Airport, and I think

23 by that time I am really not sure what I said, but that's

24 all right.

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

152.

1 Q (Continuing) Science-Textbook Controversies, ever

2 made a scientific judgment about the validity of

3 creationism or evolution theories?

4 A Have I ever made a scientific judgment on the basis

5 of biological science—Its validity in terms of—I have

6 not, no. I am not a biologist.

7 Q But isn't it true that you actually began with the

8 presupposition that creation-science was not science and

9 was religion?

10 A Yes.

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

12 A It is not a scientific judgment in the sense that—

13 Yes, I did make a judgment.

14 Q The organizations you mentioned, ICR and some of the

15 other acronyms, do you have any personal knowledge as to

16 whether any of those groups had any input in drafting Act

17 590?

18 A I gather there was an effort on the part of ICR to

19 have an input. I don't know whether Ellwanger or any of

20 his people actually talked —No, I don't know. I don't

21 know the specifics of the relationships that went into

22 drafting that legislation. It's very clear from the

23 language that Ellwanger had certainly read material by

24 Bird and had certainly read the material in ICR. Whether

25 he had personal contact with the individuals who wrote

153.

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

2 Q So in other words—I am not sure I understand your

3 testimony. In terms of what happened here in Arkansas in

4 1981 as opposed to what you were studying back in 1977,

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

6 Q I am asking about 590. I am asking about the passage

7 of 590.

8 A Okay. In the passage of 590—In the drafting of

9 590, it is completely evident to me from looking at the

10 text that Ellwanger had drafted it or whoever had drafted

11 it had seen creationist material from the California

12 creationists.

13 Q So you think from looking at it—

14 A Whether he talked to the people there, I don't know

15 whether he actually was on the telephone or met with those

16 people. I don't know the personal relationship. I know

17 that he would have had to have seen the documents and used

18 them because they are almost word for word.

19 Q What you are doing there—I asked you a question, do

20 you have any personal knowledge. You are trying to, on

21 the basis off comparison and somewhat conjecture you are

22 trying to-say what you think happened; isn't that correct?

23 A No, no, no. Personal knowledge can come from

24 reading.

25 MR. CRAWFORD: I object to the argumentative nature

154.

1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) of the question. I believe

2 she answered it.

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

4 knowledge.

5 THE COURT: I thought she had answered it. I gather

6 she does not.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

8 Q You will agree you are not qualified as an expert to

9 make a decision as to whether creation-science is a valid

10 scientific model?

11 A I would rather that the discussions of the

12 scientific content be left to biologists who are much more

13 competent than I am. They will be here in droves, so I

14 think I would rather leave all the scientific questions to

15 them.

16 Q I am not asking you a question as to whether you

17 would. I am asking you a question—perhaps you didn't

18 hear—that you would agree that you are not competent to

19 make a decision—You are not qualified as a scientific

20 expert to make a decision as to whether creation-science

21 is valid science?

22 A That's right.

23 Q According to your studies, is it not true that what

24 constitutes science can be either a question of

25 philosophy, sociology, or history, depending upon whose

155.

1 Q (Continuing) study you look at?

2 A Say that again.

3 Q According to your studies, is it not true that what

4 constitutes science, depending upon whose study you look

5 at, is a question of philosophy, sociology or history?

6 A Have I ever said that? I don't, I really don't

7 understand your question.

8 Q Let me refer you back to your deposition where I

9 asked you this question: "Is it correct to say that what

10 constitutes science is a philosophical question", and you

11 gave me this answer: "Well, it depends on whose study.

12 It can be a philosophical, a sociological question or a

13 historical question".

14 What was the context of that, because I really don't

15 understand what I said at the moment?

16 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, from what page

17 is he reading?

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Page 89.

19 THE WITNESS: What was the context of the—What were

20 we talking about at that point?

21 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

22 Q I was asking you what constitutes science.

23 A All right. Science constitutes a body of knowledge

24 and a set of procedures that are widely accepted by the

25 scientific community at a given time. In terms of

156.

1 A (Continuing) historical, this may change, in terms

2 of history, but at this point, at any given point in time

3 it is the body of knowledge that exists and a set of

4 procedures that are widely accepted by a scientific

5 community.

6 Q In other words, if you told me that answer on

7 November 22, 1981, you are now changing that answer as to

8 what constitutes science?

9 A I don't think it contradicts what I said there. I

10 said that there are historical— I mean, I think if you

11 asked that question as to what constituted science in the

12 nineteenth century or the eighteenth century, the body of

13 knowledge and the set of procedures at that time might

14 have been somewhat different, yes. Certainly the body of

15 knowledge would have been different than two hundred years

16 ago.

17 Q You have looked at science and you have to

18 understand science to write about it, to some degree,

19 don't you?

20 A I understand methodology, the approach to science.

21 I do not understand all the technical details of it.

22 Q To the best of your knowledge, based on your study,

23 are theories of origin testable?

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

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

157.

1 Q (Continuing) origin testable, to the best of your

2 knowledge?

3 A To the best of my knowledge, they are not directly

4 testable by observation.

5 Q Is evolution based on the presupposition of no

6 creator?

7 A It is based on the presupposition that there are

8 natural processes at work. It is totally irrelevant as to

9 whether —Nobody would ever ask that question.

10 Q I asked it on November 22nd. I asked you this

11 question on your deposition on page 94: "Is evolution

12 based on the presupposition of no creator?" Answer:

13 "Yes. Evolution theory is based on the supposition that

14 there is no creator who at a given period of time has

15 created the world, close quote. Do you recall giving that

16 answer?

17 A Okay, yeah, I suppose I did give that answer but,

18 possibly, I guess I was confused. There is really no

19 presupposition. It's almost irrelevant, but I think, yes,

20 if you ask biologists whether they presuppose underlying

21 evolution theory that there was a creator that created the

22 universe in six days, they would say no. They would

23 assume that does not exist.

24 Q But at the time you gave this answer, that was

25 correct to the best of your knowledge, was it not?

158.

1 A I guess, yes.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, may I pass the

3 witness a copy of the deposition? She was asked to

4 elaborate on the answer.

5 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it in context.

6 Again, it's page 146 of 147 pages.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking you the question that

8 was asked there, Ms. Nelkin.

9 THE WITNESS: And I said, "I think the existence or

10 non-existence" — I am reading from the-same thing you are

11 reading — "is not relevant."

12 MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to ask, your Honor—I

13 asked her about the specific question, and she said she

14 gave it. Now if Mr. Crawford wants to bring up anything

15 else on redirect, I think that's entirely appropriate.

16 THE WITNESS: I did not give—

17 THE COURT: Wait a minute.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: I will object to Mr. Crawford

19 referring Ms. Nelkin to a page in the deposition which I

20 did not refer to. If he wants to bring it up on

21 redirect, I think that's certainly appropriate.

22 THE COURT: Well, it doesn't make any different when

23 it's brought up if it's convenient. We are not trying it

24 before a jury.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that, your Honor.

159.

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

2 THE WITNESS: May I ask my lawyer a question?

3 MR. CRAWFORD: Just answer the question.

4 THE COURT: I think it's probably best, Mr.

5 Williams, if you go ahead and ask the questions, and she

6 can answer those. Then, Mr. Crawford, you will get a

7 chance to ask her some questions.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

10 Q Is the presupposition of no creator subject to being

11 tested, to your knowledge?

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

13 Q Is that presupposition based an a priori assumption?

14 A The presupposition there is a creator?

15 Q That there is no creator in evolution.

16 A As I said in my deposition, it's totally

17 irrelevant. It would not even come up.

18 Q I am asking a question. Is that presupposition of

19 no creator in evolution based on any a priori assumption?

20 A Ask it again carefully at this point.

21 Q Is the presupposition of no creator in evolution

22 based on an a priori assumption?

23 A Some scientists that I know do believe in God and

24 others do not.

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

160.

1 Q (Continuing) if the presupposition of no creator in

2 evolution theory is based on an a priori assumption?

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

4 Q I am asking you a question. Is it based on an a

5 priori assumption, Ms. Nelkin?

6 A Yes, I guess it's an a priori assumption. If one

7 believes there is no creator, then one believes there is

8 no creator.

9 Q To the extent that there may be some scientific

10 evidence in support of the creation-science model of

11 origins, would you favor its discussion in the classroom?

12 A That's a big if.

13 Q But I am asking you if there is.

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

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

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would ask that the

17 witness be instructed to answer my question.

18 THE WITNESS: My belief is that it is a

19 contradiction in terms. It's very hard to answer a

20 question in which I believe there is a contradiction of

21 terms. It's too hypothetical for me to be able to answer.

22 Q On November 22, when I asked you that question—On

23 page 95, I asked you this question: "If there were some

24 scientific evidence in support of the creation-science

25 theory of origins, would you favor its discussion in the

161.

1 Q (Continuing) classroom?" You gave me this answer:

2 "If there were really valid material, again that is not an

3 effort to prove the existence of God, of course."

4 Is that the correct question and answer?

5 A That is in the testimony, and after reading that I

6 was kind of appalled at being led into saying that.

7 Q Did I drive you to say it?

8 A No, but again that was pretty fatiguing

9 circumstances and one gets clearly sloppy at that time.

10 I don't believe, again, that it's relevant. It's too

11 hypothetical when you are talking about religion.

12 Q Do you recall when I took your deposition I told you

13 if you didn't understand any question I asked, please tell

14 me and I would rephrase it?

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

16 Q Do you agree with the creation-scientists who say

17 that evolution is not a fact but a theory?

18 A Evolution is a theory, yes.

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

20 A No. I think it is a separate domain, a separate

21 domain of belief.

22 Q Let me refer you to page 102 of your deposition

23 where I asked this question: "Can religion be based on

24 science?" Answer: "Yes, but I think people have a lot of

25 faith in science." And you continue.

162.

1 A I said no, based on faith I didn't say yes. At

2 least in the copy I've got. Is there a discrepancy in the

3 copies?

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

5 A Question: "Do you think religion can be based on

6 science?" Answer: "No, based on faith. " Question: "Can

7 religion be based on science?" Answer: "Yes, but I think

8 people have a lot of faith in science."

9 Q So did you not tell me in answer to my question that

10 yes, religion can be based on science?

11 A There are a number of typographical errors that have

12 come through in this. I can't believe that inconsistency.

13 The first thing, I said no, it's based on faith, and

14 then the second, I said yes. Apparently, the same

15 question, at least, as it was typed. But I said, "Yes, I

16 think people have a lot of faith in science, not as a way

17 to justify it. I believe people who have religious

18 beliefs should not have to justify them in terms of

19 science, and if they do justify them in terms of science

20 it is a way to gain a wider credibility and to try to act

21 as missionaries and convert others to those beliefs."

22 The question may have been distorted or I may have

23 interpreted it the second time in a different way.

24 Q On page 103, you continued, I asked you the question

25 again: "Do you think it would be possible to base a

163.

1 (Continuing) religion on science?" Answer: —

2 A And I said it would be inappropriate. It would be

3 possible—Anything is possible, but I said it would be

4 inappropriate.

5 Q So your answer there was that religion can be based

6 on science; isn't that correct?

7 A No, my first answer was—

8 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, the testimony

9 has been brought out and your Honor can draw your own

10 conclusions about it. This is going on at some length.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

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

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

14 Q Do you recall that I asked you about that and you

15 said that there were some minor religions that you think

16 might be based on evolution?

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

18 Q Could be?

19 A Yeah, I think that there's lots of people who can

20 make and use science in any way they choose, and there are

21 religions who do base themselves on—Transcendental

22 meditation, for example, calls itself a science of

23 scientific intelligence, yes. There are a lot of

24 religions that claim to base themselves on science, yep.

25 but that doesn't mean I am saying it's appropriate.

164.

1 Q I understand you are not putting your imprimatur or

2 saying that's a correct thing to do, but you are just

3 acknowledging that it has, in fact occurred.

4 Do you think a teacher has a right as a matter of

5 academic freedom to profess his or her professional

6 judgment in the classroom?

7 A Again, I would rather—There is a whole section on

8 this, I believe, on academic freedom, and I would rather

9 have that kind of question delayed to that section of the

10 trial.

11 Q Attorneys for the plaintiffs have made that

12 objection, and it's been overruled. So I would like you,

13 if you could, to answer my question.

14 A You are saying at the college level at which I

15 teach—Yes, we are allowed to interject our own opinions

16 in classrooms, yes.

17 Q Do you think if a teacher has reviewed the data in a

18 field and has done so in a responsible fashion, and has

19 concluded there is support for the theory of creation

20 science, that that teacher should be free to discuss it in

21 the classroom?

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

23 no.

24 Q I asked you that question, and you gave me this

25 answer: "I guess so, but I would say he or she had not

165.

1 (Continuing) done his homework very well."

2 But you did say, "I guess so", so that they should as a

3 matter of academic freedom be able to teach that; isn't

4 that correct?

5 A Well, I hadn't thought that through very well at

6 that time. A lot of these questions came rapid fire over

7 six hours.

8 Q Your research on creation-science, you say, as I

9 understand it, that creationists argue that Genesis is not

10 religious dogma but an inerrant scientific hypothesis

11 capable of evaluation on scientific procedures; is that

12 correct?

13 A Say that again. Creationists—

14 Q —that Genesis is not religious dogma but an

15 inerrant scientific hypothesis capable of evaluation on

16 scientific procedures.

17 A That evolution theory is not scientific? No, it's

18 not scientific dogma.

19 Q No, no.

20 A All right, repeat the whole question right from the

21 beginning.

22 Q Has your research shown that creationists argue that

23 Genesis is not religious dogma but an inerrant scientific

24 hypothesis capable of evaluation on scientific procedures?

25 A That's what creationists claim, yes.

166.

1 Q Does Act 590 allow Genesis to be used in the

2 classroom?

3 A Yes. Not—If it's scientifically—Apparently, —It

4 is based on the assumption that one can create textbooks

5 that will document the scientific validity of that.

6 Q Could you show me in Act 590 where it says they can

7 use Genesis?

8 A In their definitions, they don't use the word

9 `Genesis' but they essentially lay out the definitions of

10 creation-science based on Genesis.

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

12 A That's my opinion, yes.

13 Q Have you read Section 2, which prohibits any

14 religious instruction or any reference to religious

15 writings?

16 A Yes, but I find the whole thing so internally

17 contradictory that I have real problems with it.

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

19 A Yes.

20 Q One of the studies quoted - in your book, or

21 referenced, says that, "Groups committed to particular

22 assumptions tend to suppress dissent evidence and

23 criticism, only encourages increasing activities in

24 support of the existing beliefs." Do you recall that?

25 A Yes, I recall that.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P167-199

167.

1 Q Do you recall where that came from?

2 A It came in the analysis. It referred back to how

3 creationists could consistently ignore things like the

4 evidence in evolution theory by radiocarbon dating. It

5 seemed to me it was a very interesting example of the

6 hypothesis developed by the psychologist, Festinger, about

7 how you can't continually suppress evidence.

8 Q Let me make sure. That finding was actually made by

9 Festinger. Did Festinger relate that to creation

10 scientists?

11 A No, he did that with respect to another group. But

12 the point of his argument was to establish a general

13 principle of how a group, because of certain social

14 reinforcement and other kinds of reasons are able to

15 essentially rationalize evidence that contradicts their

16 beliefs.

17 Q That statement would be true for, perhaps, a lot of

18 groups, not just creationist scientists; isn't that right?

19 A Certainly.

20 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether textbook

21 publishers, if this Act should be upheld or similar acts

22 should be upheld, would publish texts in conformity with

23 this Act, that being balanced treatment, treating the

24 scientific evidences for both evolution and

25 creation-science?

168.

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

2 treatment.

3 Q No, I am not asking if there should, but whether

4 textbook publishers would publish texts to comply with the

5 Act?

6 A Oh, I think some of them would if the act were

7 passed in states where there is a big textbook market.

8 There is money in it.

9 Q And while you are a sociologist, that is properly

10 considered a form of science, is it not?

11 A There is some argument about that.

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

13 A Of a type, of a kind.

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

15 A Yeah.

16 Q And as a scientist you want, to be as accurate as

17 possible, isn't that right?

18 A I try very hard to be.

19 Q Your book that you wrote, page 19, said that, "In

20 Arkansas, Governor Faubus defended anti-evolution

21 legislation throughout the Sixties"?

22 A Yes.

23 Q On what basis did you make that conclusion?

24 A You are asking about the evidence that I dredged up

25 some five or six years ago, and I don't remember the exact

169.

1 A (Continuing) nature of the evidence.

2 Q How many times did Governor Faubus make any

3 statement in support of anti-evolution legislation in the

4 1960's?

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

6 book.

7 Q But you did make the assertion that he defended it

8 throughout the 1960's; isn't that correct?

9 A (Nodding affirmatively.)

10 Q You don't know now—

11 A I don't remember how many times or what— I don't

12 remember the exact reference, the exact data, from which I

13 drew that argument. That was researched a long time ago.

14 Q Isn't it typical or normal when you are relying on—

15 First of all, in the 1960's did you come to Arkansas and

16 examine this question?

17 A No. The focus of my research was —When one does

18 research, one focuses on a certain aspect of a subject and

19 not—try to build up from secondary sources a lot of the

20 surrounding material. If one had to do primary research

21 on every aspect of a book, there would be no studies done.

22 Q But you did not footnote, did you, giving any

23 authority for that assertion that you made?

24 A I don't remember if there is a footnote. Is there

25 no footnote on there? I don't remember whether there is or

170.

1 A (Continuing) not.

2 Q Ms. Nelkin, I would like to show you this book. Is

3 this a copy of your book?

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

5 Q Directing your attention to page 70, do you not

6 state that, "Other Bible schools, such as Bob Jones

7 University in Arkansas, teach courses—"

8 A Which is not in Arkansas. That got changed

9 immediately to South Carolina in the second edition. Yes,

10 there are occasionally small mistakes that are made that,

11 hopefully, get corrected right away. As you know, during

12 the deposition my copy of the book did not have Arkansas

13 and yours did.

14 Q But there is Arkansas in here so at some point you

15 must have written Arkansas to get it in here; isn't that

16 correct?

17 A Yes, I am sure. It was a mistake and it was

18 corrected right away. Unfortunately, past the point where

19 it could be corrected on the first edition.

20 Q In other words, the two things in your book

21 specifically about Arkansas, one is in error and one you

22 have no authority for; isn't that correct?

23 A No. I didn't say I had no authority for it. I said

24 I cannot remember where I got the material on Arkansas.

25 The error, certainly by saying Bob Jones University is in

171.

1 A (Continuing) Arkansas, that was just an error.

2 There were also some spelling errors that I found

3 afterwards.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. No further questions.

5 THE COURT: Court will be in recess until 3:25 p.m.

6 If you would— Do you have any re-direct?

7 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know, your Honor. If you

8 would, give me just a moment.

9 THE COURT: If you do, just have the witness take

10 the seat in the witness stand.

11 (Thereupon, Court was in recess

12 from 3:10 p.m. until 3:25 p.m.)

13 MR. CRAWFORD: I have no more questions. I would

14 like to introduce plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for

15 identification, which she was interrogated about and is

16 now marked as an exhibit. I would ask that it be received.

17 THE COURT: Fine, it will be received.

18 (Thereupon, Plaintiffs' Exhibit

19 Number 1 received in evidence.)

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Also, for the record, your Honor, the

21 Bird resolution which she referred to and I was unable to

22 find, it turns out it had already been admitted as part of

23 Exhibit 83, pages 131 to 135. That has already been

24 admitted.

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

172.

1 MR. SIANO: Yes. Plaintiffs call Professor Langdon

2 Gilkey.

3 Thereupon,

4

LANGDON GILKEY

5 a witness called on behalf of the plaintiffs, after having

6 been first duly sworn or affirmed, testified as follows:

7

DIRECT EXAMINATION

8 BY MR. SIANO:

9 Q Will you state your name for the record?

10 A Langdon Brown Gilkey.

11 Q Address?

12 A 5713 South Harper Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

13 Q What is your present occupation and place of

14 employment, please?

15 A I am a professor of theology at the Divinity School

16 of the University of Chicago.

17 MR. SIANO: I offer into evidence Plaintiffs'

18 Exhibit Number 90, Doctor Gilkey's resume.

19 THE COURT: That will be received.

20 (Thereupon, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 90

21 received in evidence.)

22 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

23 Q Doctor Gilkey, can you give us some background on

24 your area of research and scholarship at the University of

25 Chicago?

173.

1 A My main responsibility is to teach protestant

2 theology, but I have taught the historical, that is to

3 say, the history of Christian theology. I teach a number

4 of protestant theologians of various sorts, both

5 contemporary and ones who preceded us.

6 I teach a history of the development of modern theology

7 since the middle of the eighteenth century. I've been

8 particularly interested in the relations of religion and

9 culture, not as a sociologist or historian, but as a

10 theologian; the relations of religion to science, the

11 relations of religion to politics; relations of religion

12 or the Western religions to the ideas of history, and so

13 forth.

14 I teach courses on those subjects, as well as courses on

15 particular theologians.

16 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would offer Doctor Gilkey

17 as an expert in the field of theology.

18 THE COURT: Any voir dire?

19 MR. CAMPBELL: No voir dire.

20 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

21 Q Doctor Gilkey, did I engage your services in 1981 as

22 an expert?

23 A Yes.

24 Q With respect to what subject matter?

25 A With respect to, first of all, the Act 590 and to

174.

1 A (Continuing) the relation of that act to the

2 general subject matter of religion, and to the subject

3 matter of Christian theology and particularly the subject

4 matter of the doctrine or idea of creation.

5 Q Have you written any books or periodicals on the

6 topic of creation?

7 A My thesis and my first book was on the subject of

8 creation, a book called Maker of Heaven and Earth. I have

9 subsequently found myself reinterested in that subject

10 over and over again since creation remains with us,

11 fortunately. So it keeps arising.

12 In the context of science it has come up repeatedly,

13 needless to say. And I have written some articles on that

14 subject and now find myself involved in it again.

15 Q Doctor Gilkey, getting to your area of expertise,

16 would you please describe for us what is religion?

17 A Definitions of religion are famous for being

18 difficult to produce. That everybody will agree with.

19 That is partly because of the wide variety of religions

20 and partly because, obviously, there is a certain

21 perspective on defining religion.

22 I will offer one here that is on the basis of my own

23 study and reflection, and I propose it as an adequate

24 one. People may disagree with it but I will be willing to

25 discuss that matter.

175.

1 A (Continuing)

2 I will propose that religion involves three different

3 elements or aspects. First of all, in order for anything

4 to be called a religion has these three. Anything that we

5 ordinarily call a religion does illustrate these three.

6 First of all, a view of reality, especially of ultimate

7 reality; a view that emphasizes, first, the basic problem

8 of human existence—for example, death or sin, or rebirth

9 in some religions. Secondly, and perhaps most important,

10 has an answer to that fundamental problem, an answer that

11 is very clearly connected with what is regarded as

12 ultimate reality.

13 These answers are expressed in a number of ways,

14 depending on the kind of religion we are talking about.

15 They can be expressed in myths or stories at certain

16 levels.

17 They can be expressed in what are called truths, for

18 example, in Buddhism. They can be expressed in teaching,

19 they can be expressed in doctrines, and, finally, in

20 dogmas.

21 Q That is the first element?

22 A That is the first element. The second element is

23 that there is a way of life and then a mode of behavior

24 that is involved. Generally, it finds its source in what

25 is regarded as ultimate reality, to which every person in

176.

1 A (Continuing) the religion submits themselves,

2 assents, promises to participate in. Obviously, how much

3 they do or how little is a different matter, but that is

4 part of it.

5 Q Let me ask you, do creeds form a part of this ethic?

6 A Some religions have creeds, some don't, but that's

7 not universal. I suggest that every religion has

8 something like that. They may call it teachings, truths,

9 this, that and the other, and some religions will have

10 definite creeds. That comes more under Number 1, so to

11 speak, with regard to their view of reality.

12 Q What is the third element?

13 A The third element is the community, a community

14 structured in a quite definite way with differences of

15 authority, differences of responsibility, a community that

16 meets at particular times, and as a part of a way of life

17 comes into some kind of relationship with what is regarded

18 as ultimate reality.

19 This may be meditative; it may be esthetic; it may be

20 what we call in our tradition worship. It may be prayer;

21 it may be this, that and the other. There are all kinds

22 of ways.

23 Q You used the phrase "our tradition", I take it you

24 are speaking of Western religion?

25 A I am speaking there of religions of the West and, in

177.

1 A (Continuing) particularly, of Christianity, though the

2 word `worship', of course, applies to many other types of

3 religion, but if one said, `What do we do to come into

4 contact with God', we think immediately of worship and

5 prayer.

6 Q Is there an additional element to religion when you focus

7 on Western religion?

8 A Well, one of the essential elements of Western religions,

9 and I am thinking here particularly of Judaism, Christianity

10 and Islam, if you wish to call that Western, is that they

11 are monotheistic.

12 The meaning, the functional meaning of monotheism is that

13 everything relative to the religion focuses on God.

14 Q Monotheistic is one god?

15 A One god, that's right, and focuses on God and one God.

16 That is to say, God is the ultimate reality; God is the

17 source of the ethic; God is that power that legitimates the

18 community.

19 Q Could you describe for me in a little more detail how

20 Western religion is related to God and God related to

21 Western religion?

22 A Well, as I say, God here in Western religion is regarded

23 as the source of ultimate reality; that is, God dominates

24 the view of reality and of ultimate reality as the creator,

25 as the divine source of all that is.

178.

1 A (Continuing) God is the source of the revelation on which

2 the religion is based; God is the source of the law which

3 those within the religion support or wish to follow; God is

4 the source of the salvation that is the answer to the

5 deepest human problem.

6 And the deepest human problem in our tradition is regarded

7 as separation from God.

8 Q Would it be fair to say that in Western religions what has

9 to do with God is religions and all that has to do with

10 religion has to do with God?

11 A Yes. All that is religious, the meaning on monotheism,

12 `Thou shalt worship no other God', all that is religious is

13 related to God. Correspondingly, what is related to God is

14 religious.

15 Now, this includes not only the acts of God in revealing

16 himself or in saying, but also very specifically the acts of

17 God in creating and preserving the universe.

18 For this reason, it is quite appropriate that the first book

19 of our scriptures has within it as its first part a story of

20 the creation of the whole visible universe by God. And the

21 first article of the traditional Christian creed, the

22 Apostles Creed, reads, "I believe in God, the Father

23 Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth", stating this point

24 as well.

25 Q You described the first book of our scripture. Are

179.

1 (Continuing) you referring to the Genesis Book in

2 the Old Testament?

3 A I am referring to the Genesis Book in the Old

4 Testament. It is the first book of the Christian

5 scripture and it is also the first book, of course, of the

6 Hebrew Scripture, the Torah.

7 Q Is it your testimony, sir, that a creative being is

8 necessarily a god in Western tradition?

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor. He is leading

10 the witness. He has not said that before. I don't think

11 he has indicated or alluded to that.

12 MR. SIANO: I will rephrase my question.

13 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

14 Q Do you, sir, have an opinion, to a reasonable degree

15 of professional certainty, as to whether or not a creative

16 being is necessarily a god?

17 A A creator is certainly a god; that is, a being that

18 brings the universe into existence.

19 Q Why, sir, is a proposition that relates to God or to

20 creator a religious concept?

21 A Well, as I've said, in the Western tradition all

22 that relates to God has to do with religion and vice

23 versa. Secondly, the idea of a creator, that is, one who

24 brings the world into existence, fashions it, creates a

25 system of causes within which we find ourselves, is a

180.

1 A (Continuing) being who transcends that system of

2 cause, is not a finite cause, is not merely a part of

3 nature— This has been very deep in the traditions of

4 both Judaism and Christianity—transcends both nature and

5 the human society and human history, and as its founder,

6 in this sense this is a transcendent, a supernatural

7 being, such a being is God.

8 Q Would the source of our understanding of creator

9 also relate to this religious character?

10 A The idea of a creator, particularly the idea of a

11 creator out of nothing, has its source in the religious

12 traditions of Judaism, subsequently of Christianity, and

13 then subsequently to that of Islam. And the form of the

14 concept has its source there.

15 In fact, one might say this is where all of our ideas

16 about what God is or who God is comes from this book and

17 subsequently from that to this tradition.

18 Q Do Western notions of God differ significantly from

19 anyone else's, any other group's notion of God as the

20 creator?

21 A They differ very significantly. Of course, it is

22 obvious and we all know that the word `god', that is to

23 say the words which we would translate `god' into that

24 English word are not confined to the Jewish, Christian,

25 Islamic traditions, the People of the Book. But the idea

181.

1 A (Continuing) of a creator out of nothing, the idea

2 of a creator at an absolute beginning is a unique

3 conception confined to that tradition.

4 There are many creators. There are creators in Hindu

5 mythology and religion. There are creators in Chinese and

6 Japanese traditions. There, of course, were creators in

7 the Babylonian tradition, the Greek tradition, and so

8 forth. None of them have quite that character. That is

9 characteristic of our tradition and has its ultimate

10 source in Genesis.

11 Q Does whether or not this creator is named god, is

12 that relevant to whether it is a religious concept?

13 A No. As I say, if one specifies a creator being one

14 who has supernatural power, intelligence, will, and those

15 are both involved in the concept of design; that is, the

16 power to bring it into being and the will and the

17 intelligence to shape it into our world, such a conception

18 is what we mean by god and a large part of what we mean by

19 god. It is not all of what we mean by god in our

20 tradition, but if you say this much you are talking about

21 a deity and, therefore, this conception is that of a deity.

22 Q Can you translate the meaning of the phrase "ex

23 nihilo" for me?

24 A Yes. The phrase "ex nihilo" appeared in the first

25 centuries—Actually, as far as I know, at the end of the

182.

1 A (Continuing) second century—in the Christian

2 tradition. It came as an interpretation on the meaning or

3 the implication of the Genesis account, of a number of

4 Psalms and some references in the New Testament where the

5 word `creation' was used and where the idea of making was

6 used. This was what it meant. It means that God created

7 the world out of nothing, not out of God, not out of

8 matter, but out of nothing. That is to say, everything

9 was produced by God. That is the fundamental meaning. It

10 means, also, an absolute beginning.

11 Q Is it your opinion, sir, that the phrase "creatio ex

12 nihilo" is a religious concept?

13 A Yes. In the first place because it refers to God.

14 And I have made that point as clearly as possible that

15 what refers to God, particularly in our tradition, is

16 religious. Propositions of that sort are religious

17 propositions.

18 Secondly, one might make the argument, and I am prepared

19 to do so, that of all statements about God, that is the

20 most religious. What I mean by that is that by various

21 definitions there are not other actions there; all other

22 actors are brought into existence by this act. There are

23 no other forces at work.

24 For example, in the concept of the incarnation, there

25 is, let us say, Mary present already; there is a needy

183.

1 A (Continuing) human race, and so forth and so on.

2 God acts, but there are other actors on the scene. The

3 same with the Last Judgment, the same with other doctrines

4 or teachings of the Christian religion.

5 However, creator, God is the only actor. One is only

6 talking about God at this point. The only agent is the

7 divine. In this sense it is the paradigmatic religious

8 statement.

9 Q I show you what has been previously admitted as

10 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29, Act 590 of 1981. I ask you, sir,

11 have you ever seen that statute before?

12 A Yes.

13 Q In fact, I conveyed the statute to you?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And asked you examine it; is that correct?

16 A Yes.

17 Q I ask you, to a reasonable degree of professional

18 certainty, do you have an opinion as to whether the

19 creation-science model as set forth in Section 4 (a) of

20 Act 590 is a statement of religion?

21 A I find it unquestionably a statement of religion.

22 Q What is the basis for that opinion?

23 A The basis for that is that, with the possible

24 exception of Number 2, that is to say, the insufficiency

25 of mutation in natural selection, which is predominantly a

184.

1 A (Continuing) negative statement, the other

2 statements, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, imply, entail, necessitate a

3 deity as the agent involved in what is being said. The

4 sudden creation of the universe from nothing requires

5 there be a being there who preceives the universe, though

6 the word `preceives' is interesting at this point, who

7 preceives the universe, who is self-sufficient, who is

8 necessary, who is eternal and who has a design, an

9 intelligent design, in mind and the power, above all, to

10 do that.

11 The conception of species, kinds of plants and animals

12 created at the beginning means that they were not evolved

13 from anything else or created from anything else but

14 created by a precedent creator.

15 Separate ancestry of man and apes, as has been pointed

16 out, has the same implication.

17 If the Flood is regarded as the catastrophe referred to,

18 the Flood has a divine origin. That is to say, if the

19 meaning of the word `catastrophe' is forces and causes far

20 beyond any normal, natural causes, then number 5 implies

21 the same.

22 Now, mind you, that depends on what is meant by the word

23 `catastrophism'. We could talk about Saint Helens as a

24 catastrophe. That is not what I'm referring to.

25 Something quite beyond the ordinary causality or the

185.

1 A (Continuing) recurring causality of our experience

2 with the universe.

3 Q You don't find a definition of catastrophism

4 anywhere in that section, do you?

5 A Right, but I suspect from the history of these

6 ideas, that it has the reference that I've implied, though

7 I am not sure.

8 A relatively recent inception of the earth certainly

9 requires a divine creator.

10 Q Are you aware—Your testimony earlier was that a

11 creative force is necessarily a deity of some kind. Is

12 that a fair statement?

13 A I would think that the moment you say "force"—I

14 think I said "being"—I think that when you say "a

15 creative force"—that I am not necessarily maintaining

16 that this involves a deity or is involved in religion,

17 though creative forces have the kind of attractiveness,

18 let us say, that we begin to get religious about. So I

19 don't want to exclude creative forces from religion.

20 For example, in a good number of so-called primitive

21 religions, the creative force of fertility was certainly

22 an object of very intent religious belief and of religious

23 interest.

24 Q So you, are saying `a creative being' then?

25 A I would rather put it this way. Not all creative

186.

1 A (Continuing) forces can be regarded as religious.

2 A good number of them, in fact, have been regarded as

3 religious.

4 A creative being, that is, a being who brings things

5 into being, who shapes the universe as we know it, is a

6 religious concept, has appeared in that. And I might say

7 that the reason the study by people, as has been pointed

8 out in this courtroom, in a religious context is that that

9 is where it is. It doesn't appear anywhere else.

10 It comes up in all kinds of ways in human history. Such

11 kinds of concepts always involve with deities, always

12 involve with what we call religion.

13 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I have placed before the

14 witness, but I will not mark as an exhibit unless my

15 adversaries feel it is necessary, the Defendants' Proposed

16 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

17 I direct Doctor Gilkey's attention to Proposed Finding

18 Number 35.

19 Q I will ask you if you will please read that.

20 A "Creation science does propose the existence of a

21 creator to the same degree that evolution science

22 presupposes the existence of no creator." I would dispute

23 that, but that is neither here nor there.

24 "As used in the context of creation-science as defined

25 by Section 4 of Act 590, the terms or concepts of

187.

1 A (Continuing) `creation' and `creator' are not

2 inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense,

3 the term `creator' means only some entity with power,

4 intelligence and a sense of design."

5 "Creation science does not require a creator who has a

6 personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion,

7 justice and so on which are ordinarily attributed to a

8 deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not

9 require that the creator still be in existence."

10 Q Doctor Gilkey, I would like to ask you, as a

11 theologian, are you aware of a concept—As a religious

12 premise, are you aware of the concept of a creator-deity

13 who was not also not loving, compassionate and just?

14 A There are a number of them, of course. In many—

15 Q If I might, sir, in Christianity particularly.

16 A Right. Well, I was going to back up just a moment.

17 That is to say, there are a number of polytheistic faiths

18 which have spoken of a creator deity, who may or may not

19 be the deity who saves.

20 In a monotheistic faith, of course, this is impossible.

21 Actually, it is interesting to me that this conception of

22 a creator being who is not the god who saves—I would say

23 the creator being is inevitably a deity—but a creator

24 being who is not the god who saves has appeared within

25 Christian history as its first and most dangerous major

188.

1 A (Continuing) heresy.

2 Now, I am hoping that was intended by counsel here, but

3 this was the Marcionic heresy and the Gnostic heresy,

4 which the church with great vehemence reacted against in

5 the first two centuries.

6 Q Would you spell the names of them?

7 A Yes. Marcion is Capital M-a-r-c-i-o-n. The

8 Gnostic, capital G-n-o-s-t-i-c. Both of them were not

9 very friendly to the Old Testament for various reasons,

10 wished Christianity not be associated with it, presented a

picture of malevolent or, at least, not very benevolent,

12 deity who created the world and of another god who came in

13 to save it.

14 The main thrust of the earliest theology of the church

15 and the source of the so-called Apostles' Creed in a

16 Hundred and Fifty, which is the first example of it that

17 is known, was to combat this and to say that the god we

18 worship is the maker of heaven and earth, and the god who

19 made heaven and earth is the father of the being who saved

20 us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Thus, comes out, "I believe in

21 God, the Father, the maker of heaven and earth and in his

22 son, Jesus Christ, our Lord."

23 Q So what you are saying then, Doctor Gilkey, is that

24 as a result of these two heresies, Marcion and Gnostic

25 heresies, the Christian church developed what we now know

189.

1 Q (Continuing) as the Apostles' Creed?

2 A It is pretty clear that there was a teaching summary

3 that was used quite consistently, probably from Eighty,

4 Ninety and so forth, on. This became more and more

5 consistent because there are hints of it in the earliest

6 documents at the turn of the century.

7 As far as we know, it was formulated into a creed at

8 Rome against Marcions to say, `No, we do not believe in

9 two gods, a creator god is distinct from a saving god. We

10 do believe in one god.' They regarded that, of course, as

11 within the Jewish tradition. They regarded it as the

12 Christian way of speaking of that, and so that became the

13 thrust of that creed. That is the main article of the

14 creed.

15 Q Is it, none the less, your view, Doctor Gilkey, that

16 the concept of these two heresies are, none the less,

17 religious concepts?

18 A Oh, yes, absolutely.

19 Q Directing your, attention to Section 4 (a) of Act 590

20 again, do you, in fact, there have a model of creation if

21 you extract from that-the concept of the creator?

22 A As I have indicated, each one, with the exception of

23 2—

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think we have to object

25 to that question. I think that calls for, at least, a

190.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) legal if not a scientific

2 conclusion as to whether you have a model of origin in the

3 scientific sense, and this witness is testifying only as a

4 religious expert as to whether there would be a coherent

5 scientific model.

6 MR. SIANO: I don't think I quite understand the

7 nature of the objection. Let me speak to both sides of

8 what I think I hear.

9 It is the plaintiffs' argument, your Honor, that the

10 model of origins being proposed as scientific creationism

11 is, in fact, a religious model from Genesis.

12 We propose to have the witness testify on whether or not

13 this model exists without the deity. And the witness has

14 already testified that a deity is an inherently religious

15 concept.

16 I think he is entitled to testify whether, without the

17 deity, there is a model of any kind.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Model of religious origin, perhaps,

19 but he is not competent to testify as to whether it's a

20 scientific model of origins because, as I understand it,

21 he has not been qualified as an expert on science. I

22 think the term is somewhat ambiguous. He is talking about

23 a model of origins. He needs to make clear whether he is

24 talking scientific or religious.

25 THE COURT: Are you talking about a religious model

191.

1 THE COURT: (Continuing) of origins?

2 MR. SIANO: Let me ask a few more questions and see

3 if it clears up the problem.

4 Q Doctor Gilkey, Section 4 (a) sets forth what it

5 describes as a creation-science model. In your view, is

6 that a religious model or a scientific model?

7 A My view is that, for various reasons which I will be

8 willing to spell out, but as will quickly be pointed out,

9 and which my expertise is slightly less than what I like

10 to talk about, this is not the scientific model at all. I

11 am willing to talk about that.

12 As I have indicated, I think there is no question but

13 that the model in 4 (a) is a religious model. I have

14 already testified to that effect.

15 The question as I understand it now is, is there a model

16 there that is not a religious model, and I think that is a

17 legitimate question considering what I have just said. It

18 follows up from that.

19 And I would like to argue that there is simply no idea

20 there at all without the figure and the agency of a

21 supernatural being. - In this sense, there is no

22 explanation. There is a claim that it can be shown that

23 the universe appeared suddenly. There is the claim that

24 species are fixed and change only within those fixed

25 limits.

192.

1 A (Continuing) There is the claim for the separate

2 ancestry of man and of ape. There is the claim for the

3 explanation of the earth formed by catastrophism, and a

4 relatively recent inception of the earth.

5 These are all, so to speak, claims. I don't think they

6 are true but that's neither here nor there. They are

7 claims, but they are not a theory.

8 In order for there to be a theory, in each case, as I've

9 said, there must be an agent. The moment you have the

10 agent, you have deity. If there is no deity, there is no

11 theory. If there is a theory, it is religious.

12 Q Doctor Gilkey, have you written on the topic of the

13 difference between religion and science?

14 A I have.

15 Q Could you describe to me briefly what the nature of

16 those writings have been?

17 A I have written several articles on this subject. I

18 have written a book called Religion and the Scientific

19 Future on the interrelations of religion and science.

20 Q Could you, therefore, state for me in your

21 professional opinion what the differences between

22 religious theories and scientific theories are?

23 THE COURT: Wait a second. I am making a couple of

24 notes and I would like to finish these before we go any

25 further.

193.

1 Q Doctor Gilkey, can you state for us, please, in your

2 professional opinion what the differences are between

3 religions theories and scientific theories?

4 A Well, let me begin by saying that I think that all

5 theories which purport to explain or seek to explain, and

6 that is he general use of the word `theory' that I presume

7 we are using here—all theories do have certain things in

8 common. They appeal to certain types of experiences and

9 certain kinds of facts. They ask certain types of

10 questions and they appeal to certain authorities or

11 criteria.

12 Thus, they have a certain structure. That is, they go

13 by the rules of the road. They have in what in some

14 parlances are called canons. That is to say, rules of

15 procedure. I would like to suggest that while both

16 religious theories and scientific theories have this

17 general structure in common, they differ very much with

18 regard to the experiences and facts that they appeal to,

19 to the kinds of questions they ask, the kinds of

20 authorities they appeal to and, therefore, to their own

21 structure.

22 And I would like to make some comments at the end, the

23 experiences and facts that science has, so to speak, in

24 its own consensus come to agree this is what we appeal to

25 are first of all, observations or sensory experiences.

194.

1 A (Continuing) They are, therefore, repeatable and

2 shareable. They are in that sense quite public. Anybody

3 who wishes to look at them and has the ability and

4 training so to do can do so. These are objective facts in

5 that sense, and experiences are somewhat the same.

6 I would say that most religions, and certainly our

7 traditions, when they appeal to those kinds of facts

8 appeal to those facts rather as a whole to the world as a

9 whole, as illustrating order or seemingly to a purpose or

10 goodness, and so forth. So, they can appeal to those

11 kinds of facts. That isn't quite so public, because

12 someone might say, "It's very disorderly to me," and so

13 on. It's not quite so public.

14 But also religions appeal to what we call inner facts,

15 facts about experience of guilt, facts of being, facts of

16 anxiety, death, and the experience of the release from

17 those anxieties or miseries, or what have you.

18 These are public in the sense that they are shared by

19 the community but they are not public at all in that

20 sense. They are not objective in that sense.

21 The kinds of questions that they ask are significantly

22 different, it seems to me. That is to say, science tends

23 to ask `how' questions. What kinds of things are there?

24 What kinds of relations do they have? What sort of

25 processes are there? Can we find any laws within those

195.

1 A (Continuing) processes? Can we set up a set of

2 invariable relations if P then Q, if this, then that.

3 This is the kind of question. These are `how' questions,

4 process questions, if you will.

5 Religion asks, might ask some of these questions, but

6 basically it is asking `why' questions. It is asking

7 questions of meaning. Why is the world here? Why am I

8 here? Who am I? What am I called to do? What is it my

9 task in life to be? Where are we going? How are we to

10 understand the presence of evil? These are quite

11 significantly different kinds of questions.

12 Correspondingly, science appeals to the authority, and

13 this is decisive, of logical coherence and experimental

14 adequacy. It also appeals through coherence with other

15 established views and to some things that are called

16 fruitlessnesses. There is also a sense of elegance.

17 Now, when you work that out in terms of its cash value,

18 you have, as has been said before, the consensus of the

19 scientific community on these matters. And there almost

20 always is a consensus of the community making such a

21 judgment.

22 This is an earned authority. It is not granted by some

23 other power. It is earned by expertise, by training, by

24 excellence at work. Religions generally appeal to

25 revelation of some sort, not always to the same sort, but

196.

1 A (Continuing) some manifestation of the divine or

2 some place where the divine is encountered.

3 For example, in Buddhism, what is called the higher

4 consciousness might be a very important authority.

5 Subsequently to that, of course, are those who mediate

6 that authority, to the interpreters of the Book, to the

7 spokesman for the church, for the community, to those who

8 have an intimate and direct and unique relationship to God.

9 It can take all kinds of forms—To a particular kind of

10 religious experience and so on. Notice these are not in

11 that way public. They are not generally earned. They are

12 given; they are granted.

13 Q The authority in Christianity, is there one

14 particular reference or source of authority?

15 A Well, of course, this has been the subject of a good

16 deal of friendly debate. That is to say, this was an

17 issue with the Gnostics we were speaking of, whether the

18 apostolic churches—The scriptures were not then

19 canonized, but whether the apostolic churches were the

20 authority or just anybody.

21 Later it came to be agreed the scriptures, the apostolic

22 scriptures, and they were given authority because they

23 were believed to be written by the Apostles, the apostolic

24 scriptures and the apostolic church were the dual and not

25 separable authorities.

197.

1 A (Continuing)

2 By the time one gets to the Reformation, there is a real

3 argument over this. Are both tradition and authority an

4 ascription authority or solely scriptural, that is,

5 scripture alone, which, of course, was the Lutheran and

6 then the Calvinist position, and has been a basis for

7 Protestantism. So that in each case the authority

8 appealed to is regarded as the place where the divine is

9 in some way manifesting itself or is speaking, and that is

10 the basis of the authority.

11 Q Does modern protestant Christianity include the

12 Bible as the scriptural source of authority?

13 A I would say it better.

14 Q Is that a yes answer?

15 A That is a yes answer.

16 Q As a religious source of authority, do the concepts

17 inspiration and revelation also form a part of it?

18 A Yes, and there is a good deal of debate about what

19 they mean. Revelation is a fairly consistent word

20 throughout the history of Christian, and I think I could

21 say Jewish, thinking.

22 The meaning of inspiration has varied a good deal.

23 Now, we were talking about the kinds of questions. I

24 wanted to go on and talk about the kinds of theories.

25 In science, theories are generally laws; that is to say,

198.

1 A (Continuing) universal, necessary, automatic,

2 impersonal, "if P then Q" kinds of statements.

3 One of the most basic rules of scientific inquiry is

4 that no non-natural or historical cause, that is, no

5 supernatural cause, may be appealed to.

6 Thus one could say, I would rather take the canon as the

7 scientific inquiry. It's not a presupposition; it's a

8 canon; it's a rule of the road.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will have to interject

10 an objection on the grounds that this witness has not been

11 qualified as an expert on science. He is qualified as a

12 theologian. His testimony has gone at some length now,

13 and I thought it was going to be brief. Therefore, I

14 would have to object to this line of testimony and move to

15 strike the previous testimony to the extent he is

16 discussing what is science.

17 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, the witness has written on

18 the differences between science and religion, and speaks

19 as a philosopher on this topic. His resume so reflects

20 those topics.

21 THE COURT: That's what I recall. I think he is

22 qualified to offer his opinion.

23 MR. WILLIAMS: He is offered only as a theologian,

24 your Honor, by the plaintiffs.

25 MR. SIANO: I might broaden that offer if that

199.

1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) might give Mr. Williams some

2 comfort, your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Go ahead.

4 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

5 Q You were taking about theories.

6 A Yes. It reflects, as I said, a universal necessary

7 concept of law or separate and variable relations. It

8 does not and cannot, and I think this is also true in the

9 discipline of history and, perhaps, of the law, cannot

10 appeal to a supernatural cause in its explanations.

11 It is verified by a particular shamble, objective,

12 sensory kind of experiment and has its origin in that, or

13 as better put falsified. Non-falsifiable by those.

14 And where religious theories concern God in our

15 tradition they use a quite different kin of language, a

16 symbolic language, about God. They invoke personal

17 causes, intentions, will. God created the world with a

18 design, God created the world in order that it be good,

19 God created the world out of compassion or out of love,

20 and so forth and so on. These are familiar ways of

21 speaking of these kinds of acts.

22 Above all, perhaps most important, they have to do,

23 religious theories have to do with the relation of God to

24 the finite world and to human beings.

25 If they specify only relations between persons or only

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P200-233

200.

1 A (Continuing) relations between forces of nature,

2 they cease being religious theories.

3 But when they specify the relationship to God, then they

4 become religious theories and obviously God is very much

5 in the picture.

6 This is very different from a scientific form of

7 theory. They are testable, if that's the right word, in

8 terms of experience and, perhaps, in terms of a new mode

9 of living. That is to say, being released, being

10 redeemed, having a new kind of courage, a new kind of

11 benevolence, and so forth and so on. That is the kind of

12 fruitfulness that religious ideas have where it's quite

13 different than anything scientific.

14 Q Now, are you, sir, aware of the field of religious

15 apologetics?

16 A I am.

17 Q Could you please state for me what your

18 understanding of the concept of religious apologetics is?

19 A Apologetics has been used for a long time to

20 describe certain kinds of religious speaking and religious

21 writing, or writing by religious persons, with a religious

22 purpose.

23 It refers to an argument by members of a community to

24 those outside the community, seeking to show the

25 meaningfulness and the validity of the doctrines, the

201.

1 A (Continuing) truths, the position of the community.

2 This is a very old tradition. One finds it, of course,

3 in the earliest writings, some of the earliest writings of

4 the Christian church in a group who were, in fact, called

5 the apologists, and quite deliberately sought to speak to

6 the Roman empire and to argue for Christianity on the

7 basis of what Romans could accept.

8 One finds this in the medieval period. Saint Thomas

9 Aquinas was probably the great example of this in some of

10 his documents. They are not theological documents; they

11 are arguments to the world about the truth of certain

12 elements, particularly the truth of the Creator. Certain

13 elements, one finds them in Jewish documents as well. You

14 find them also in the modern world.

15 Q The purpose of apologetics is that one purpose of

16 it—to spread the faith?

17 A Yes, yes. I am not sure that `evangelize' is quite

18 the right word. Generally, we use the word `evangelize'

19 with preaching. This is argument. It is certainly to

20 convince people, persuade people, and so forth, of the

21 validity of the faith, that one represents.

22 Q Does religious apologetics always speak with a

23 religious framework or does it use language and concepts

24 from other fields?

25 A Well, in seeking to speak to those without the

202.

1 A (Continuing) faith it must find some kind of

2 common ground. This may be a common ground in morals; it

3 may be in the customs of a community; it may be in certain

4 forms of philosophy; it may be—And in the scientific age,

5 this may be the best way to do it—It may be science.

6 That is to say, when it seeks the common ground of

7 scientific facts in order to persuade others of the

8 validity of one's own idea.

9 In that case, one could say the ideas do not arise out

10 of the facts, but they are brought to them to show the

11 ideas made more sense of the facts than any other idea.

12 Q Is what you are, saying, Doctor Gilkey, that even

13 though a religious apologist may speak in science, his

14 purpose is religious?

15 A At this point, I would say the religious apologist

16 probably tends to disagree with some of the theories of

17 science, seeks to except the facts that science has

18 developed and to show that his or her own idea makes more

19 sense of those facts.

20 Q His or her own religious idea?

21 A Yes, his or her own religious idea, correct.

22 Q Do you have a view, sir, an opinion, sir, to a

23 reasonable degree of professional certainty, as to whether

24 creation-science is engaged in religious apologetics?

25 A I certainly do have such an idea. I look at the

203.

1 A (Continuing) logic of it, and it seems to me

2 precisely what I have described. And there is a concept

3 here of a sudden creation at the beginning of separate

4 kinds by a deity. That is an old traditional conception

5 within the Christian community, given here a particular

6 interpretation, I may say, which is presented as making

7 more sense of the various facts or some of the facts that

8 are claimed to be scientific facts.

9 This is the structure, the logical structure, of

10 apologetics. Now, let me say there is nothing wrong with

11 apologetics. I've done it, and I'm not at all ashamed of

12 that. I don't know how good it was but I have done it.

13 I think the only problem with apologetics is when you

14 seek to dissemble that you are doing apologetics, when you

15 quote an authority, when one has two hats on and hides one

16 of them. This is what's the problem on it.

17 Q Now, are you aware, sir, of whether or not —Strike

18 the question.

19 Is the sectarian nature of the creation-science argument

20 in any way related to this opinion you have of its

21 apologetic nature?

22 A Yes, though let me say, apologetics are not

23 necessarily sectarian. That is to say, a good number of

24 apologetics take the very general position that is shared

25 by all members of a particular religious tradition.

204.

1 A (Continuing)

2 In that sense one could say the tradition as a whole is

3 sectarian vis-a-vis other traditions, but that is not the

4 usual meaning of the word.

5 In this case I would say that is definitely the case.

6 The apologetic that is carried on here in the name of

7 creation gives, and insists upon giving, a particular

8 interpretation of that concept of creation. In a sense it

9 is doubly particular, so to speak. It is particular to

10 the Christian tradition as opposed to others, though

11 Jewish persons may agree with it but on the whole they

12 know this is a Christian idea. It is significantly

13 different from ideas in other religions, for example,

14 Hindu ideas, Buddhist ideas and, not least important,

15 American Indian ideas. But also within the Christian

16 tradition it is particularistic, and that is why I am

17 happy to be a witness. It is particularistic in that it

18 identifies the concept of creation with a particular view,

19 sets it over against evolution and says, `This is what

20 creation means.' And it is a very particular view. It's

21 been made evident here, a literal interpretation of

22 creation, of creation in recent time, of fixed species,

23 and so forth and so on.

24 Q In your examination of Act 590, Doctor Gilkey, are

25 you aware of whether or not the Act sets up a dualist

205.

1 Q (Continuing) approach to origins?

2 A It seems to me it very definitely does. And that

3 is to say, I agree with the testimony that said its kind

4 of neutrality presupposes that there are only two views

5 and these are mutually exclusive.

6 I think on both counts, that is to say that there are

7 only two views and on the account that they are mutually

8 exclusive, are both factually wrong.

9 That is to say, there are many other views of origins

10 than these two views. There are other views within the

11 history of religions; there are other views within

12 philosophical speculation, although those don't have a

13 deity, as I've said.

14 One could list any number of views of origins that are

15 significantly different than either one of these. This is

16 simply wrong.

11 Secondly, the view that these two are mutually

18 exclusive, it seems to me, is, in fact, false. There are

19 people who believe in God who also accept evolution.

20 Now, that possibility depends upon something that I

21 think is not evident in the document. That is to say,

22 that science is our most reliable way of publicly

23 knowing. — I certainly believe that. I couldn't come by

24 airplane and leave by airplane if in some sense I didn't

25 believe that.

206.

1 A (Continuing)

2 On the other hand, it is a limited way of knowing, and I

3 am speaking here as a theologian, as well as a

4 philosopher. That is to say, it can't and doesn't wish to

5 and doesn't purport to speak of all things, of all the

6 things that are.

7 It is difficult for science to get at our inner-personal

8 being, which I firmly believe. It is, as I said, by its

9 own rules, rules out discussions of a deity. In this

10 sense it is not at all saying, as a science, there is no

11 deity. It does not presuppose there is no creator.

12 It presupposes that a scientific statement cannot speak

13 of such a thing. Now, that's a quite different matter.

14 Some may conclude that is no creator. That is a religious

15 or philosophical judgment, not a scientific judgment.

16 The limitation of science is very important in this

11 whole case. One might say science asks questions that can

18 be measured, shared, mutually tested in certain ways, but

19 doesn't ask a number of important questions.

20 Personally, those are the questions that interest me.

21 That is why I am a theologian.

22 MR. SIANO: One moment, your Honor.

23 No further questions.

24

25

207.

1

2

CROSS EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. CAMPBELL:

4 Q Professor Gilkey, can you distinguish between

5 primary causality and secondary causality in discussing

6 origins?

7 A Yes. And I must say I am glad you brought that

8 up. This is a distinction that arose during the medieval

9 period and was made particularly prominent by St. Thomas

10 Aquinas to distinguish between two different types of

11 questions about origins.

12 Another important issue in this: Not all questions

13 about origins are religious questions; not all questions

14 are about ultimate origins.

15 One could ask, `What is the origin of —Well, let's

16 see— the city of Chicago'? That is a profane question

17 if there ever was one.

18 One can ask about the ultimate origins of the universe.

19 That is a quite different kind of question.

20 Q Let me ask you this. Scientists cannot talk about

21 first causality, can they?

22 A Well, I was getting to your question. The first

23 kind of question is a typical question about secondary

24 causality. That is to say, out of what set of finite

25 forces and causes of various sorts did something we now

208.

1 A (Continuing) see around us arise?

2 This is a question of secondary causality. It appeals

3 to no ultimate supernatural kinds of causes. It stays

4 within the world of finite or natural historical causes.

5 If one asks, `Where did that whole system come from' one

6 is asking the question not of particular origins but of

7 ultimate origins.

8 This is a philosophical but primarily a religious

9 question — and I will be willing to say why I think that

10 is; I think I already have —in which one moves beyond the

11 available system of experience to ask about its origin.

12 And that is what Thomas meant by first causality.

13 Q Scientists cannot talk about first causality, can

14 they?

15 A I, actually—I would like to appeal to the point

16 that was made that I don't want to pretend to say

17 everything scientists do or don't talk about. However, I

18 think in obedience to their own canons, they, so to speak,

19 will not do. If they do they are straying a little bit, a

20 good deal beyond what it is intelligent for a scientist,

21 any scientist to talk about.

22 As Aristotle said, `Nothing can come from nothing'.

23 Therefore, one always has to presuppose scientifically

24 that is something before what we are talking about.

25 Science does talk only about secondary causes.

209.

1 Q And cannot talk about first causality without

2 getting into theology or philosophy; isn't that correct?

3 A I believe that is correct. That is right.

4 Q The question of how a finite form of life arises

5 out of secondary causality could be secondary or could be

6 a scientific question, couldn't it?

7 A Precisely.

8 Q Secondary causality is what we would ordinarily

9 call, and I believe you referred to, as natural,

10 historical and human causes?

11 A (Nodding affirmatively)

12 Q In your opinion primary causality would always be

13 divine cause, wouldn't it?

14 A Well, I think that is pretty near a tautology.

15 That is to say, when you are talking about something quite

16 beyond the system of causes that are available to us that

17 we would in our own day call natural, then the minute one

18 is talking that kind of thing one is talking about what is

19 generally agreed to be a divine figure, a deity.

20 Q And so long as we are talking about secondary

21 causality, we are talking about an area that can be dealt

22 with in science; is that correct?

23 A Correct.

24 Anytime that scientific inquiry leaves the area of

25 secondary causality and discusses ultimate origins, it has

210.

1 Q (Continuing) left the laboratory and is entered

2 into theology and philosophy?

3 A I would think so.

4 Q Do you think that primary and secondary causality

5 are discussed in the Bible?

6 A Oh, no. No, no. Those are words that

7 came—Actually, the word `causality' probably has origins,

8 I think one could say, in Aristotle. It certainly came

9 down into Roman philosophy and was a way that those of a

10 philosophical bent who were Christians who wished to

11 express what creatio ex nihilo meant made the distinction

12 between primary and secondary causality.

13 Q Do you think primary and secondary causality can be

14 implied from Genesis and Psalms?

15 A Well, I would say that some authorities, for

16 example, St. Thomas Aquinas who certainly outranks me,

17 would say that that is the case.

18 Now, that is obviously a controversial issue. Some

19 people say it is not Biblical; it has no place in

20 Christianity, and so forth. Others would say that's a

21 pretty good shot at expressing what Genesis has in mind.

22 Q It could be implied then?

23 A Oh, yes, yes.

24 Q Do you see the Bible as a guide in your own life?

25 A I certainly do.

211.

1 Q Would you use the Bible as a guide to your

2 understanding of the world?

3 A Myself understanding, being a theologian, would be

4 yes. That is what I meant by saying you had better have

5 the Bible as a basis.

6 Now, there are other things, for example, the tradition

7 of one's faith to take into account, but the primary

8 source for a Christian theologian is the Scriptures.

9 Q So your opinion of your own religion would also be

10 influenced by the Bible?

11 A Yes. Let me qualify that to say that when I teach

12 other religions I seek to present the other religions as

13 much in their own point of view as I can. But I think it

14 is useful to remind your students that you are a white,

15 male, Protestant character and that they had better watch

16 it.

17 Q Would your opinions on philosophy likewise be

18 influenced by the Bible?

19 A Oh, yes, indeed.

20 Q And your opinions on science?

21 A Yes. I hope everything is.

22 Q Do you think the scientific community is the only

23 body that can tell us what is and what is not in science?

24 A No, no. There are historians of science who are

25 doing a very good job at the present of reminding

212.

1 A (Continuing) scientists of a lot of things they've

2 sought to forget.

3 Q Do you recall our discussion concerning whether or

4 not the scientific community could tell us what is and

5 what is not science when I took you deposition on the—

6 A Well, let me put it this way. I think —Let me

7 back up a bit if that is permissible —that any discipline

8 or any community has the right to seek to define itself

9 and has a kind of authority in that definition.

10 So, myself, I would go, first of all, to the scientific

11 community if I were asking what is science. What do they

12 think science is? Now, the qualification to that is, to

13 take an example of my own discipline, religion, I think

14 we've had revealed to us a good deal that we didn't want

15 to study about ourselves by others, by the sociologists,

16 by the psychologists, by the philosophers, and so forth

17 and soon, and in many cases they were right.

18 So that I think that what a discipline is, for example,

19 anthropology, chemistry, and so forth, is, first of all,

20 something in which the members of the discipline and those

21 who have studied it, philosophers and the historians of

22 the discipline, have sort of first rank. But I wouldn't

23 leave it entirely up to them because we always tend to

24 look at our own discipline with a more loving eye than

25 other disciplines look at that discipline.

213.

1 Q So, then, the scientific discipline should decide

2 what is and what is not science?

3 A They should certainly make up their minds about

4 it. I think if they are unclear about it, then we are in

5 real trouble.

6 But let me say, when I am asked, what is the relation

7 between religion and science, I would certainly like to

8 talk with as loud a voice as scientists would on that

9 relation.

10 Q You mentioned a moment ago that scientists have

11 tried to forget certain things and historians have

12 reminded them of them. What things are you talking about?

13 A Well, the relatedness of science to the culture as

14 a whole, the ways in which scientific ideas have

15 developed, and that sort of thing. The, how shall I put

16 it, the cultural relatedness of scientific concepts.

17 Q Scientists had kind of gotten off path?

18 A No, not the scientists. This isn't really their

19 business. One could say the interpretation of science,

20 and it was similar to the interpretation of my own

21 discipline where most theologians thought that everything

22 that we said came directly from on high. And it took some

23 historians to point out that there was influence, the

24 medieval period, the Renaissance, and so forth and so on.

25 Q If the scientists-and this is a hypothetical

214.

1 Q (Continuing) question—felt that there was some

2 evidence to support creation or creation-science as it is

3 spelled out in Act 590, do you think he should be free to

4 discuss that in the classroom?

5 A What classroom?

6 Q In the classroom.

7 A Well, I suppose he could only discuss it in the

8 classroom he found himself in, but I have already made

9 clear that I don't think it is merely evidence that makes

10 something scientific.

11 I am not sure I understand what scientific evidence is.

12 think I understand what a scientific theory is, and my

13 own view is that science is located in its theories and

14 not necessarily in its facts, which are quite public.

15 I would say that creation is not a scientific theory and

16 cannot be taught in that way, so —

17 Q I understand your position. What I am asking is,

18 if a scientist felt that there was legitimate scientific

19 evidence to support creation-science as it is defined in

20 Act 590, would you favor his being able to present that in

21 the classroom?

22 A If he or she felt and was prepared to argue that

23 this was a scientific theory under the rubrics of the

24 general consensus of what a scientific theory was, then I

25 think they should make that argument.

215.

1 A (Continuing)

2 Now, they can make that public, the scientific

3 community, that it is a scientific theory.

4 Q And you think that he should be free to discuss

5 that in the classroom?

6 A Whether that is a biological theory or not in the

7 classroom of biology, I am not sure. I think that-Well,

8 it seems to me that one of the important things is that a

9 profession be able to determine what is or what is not

10 within its general bounds. The general association of

11 biologists, I would say, would be able to be the final

12 authority as to whether something is a biological theory

13 or not.

14 I think these certainly could be well discussed in

15 comparative world views or some other such course. I

16 don't think there is anything wrong with that at all.

17 Q Do you recall in your deposition when I asked you

18 the question. —

19 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, page and line, please.

20 MR. CAMPBELL: This is page 57, beginning on line

21 11.

22 Q I asked you this question. This is a hypothetical

23 question. "If a scientist felt that there was some

24 evidence to support creation science as it is spelled out

25 in Act 590, do you think that he should be free to discuss

216.

1 Q (Continuing) it in the classroom", and your

2 answer, "of course, of course. I don't have any question

3 about that, and the only adjudicating supporters are his

4 or her peers."

5 A Right.

6 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, that is not the complete

7 answer.

8 MR. CAMPBELL: I was going on, Mr. Siano.

9 Q "Now they are not in the classroom, but the

10 principle. I would say the same about a teacher of law.

11 I believe that. I think that is a part of science, that

12 one should be quite open to new interpretations. Now we

13 can discuss whether this is possibly scientific and I am

14 willing to state my opinion on that, though not as a

15 philosopher of science."

16 "MR. SIANO: And not as a scientist."

17 And your answer, "Not as a scientist, correct, but let's

18 leave that one out. I agree with that thoroughly,

19 absolutely."

20 Do you recall that answer?

21 A (Nodding affirmatively).

22 Q Do you think that science should be more interested

23 in how to think about an idea rather than trying to

24 emphasize that a particular idea is true?

25 A As I understand the scientific method, the

217.

1 A (Continuing) concentration is almost entirely on

2 the how to think about an idea. That is to say, as the

3 scientific movement developed, the emphasis became more

4 and more on methods rather than conclusions.

5 Conclusions were regarded as always hypothetical,

6 approximate, to be criticized, to be changed. What

7 remained solid was the methods and, as I've said, the

8 canons that makes a theory legitimate and so on within the

9 scientific world.

10 So I would say yes, as a method they do concentrate on

11 the how.

12 Q And in teaching how to think about an idea, should

13 alternative viewpoints be considered?

14 A Within the realm of that idea, yes, certainly.

15 That is to say, I think alternative scientific theories

16 certainly should be created, be discussed. And if this

17 one can make a case—I don't think it can, but if it can

18 make a case that's another thing. Requiring that it be

19 taught is another issue.

20 Q Despite the fact that parts of the definition of

21 creation-science as it appears in Section 4 (a) of Act

22 590, is, in your opinion, consistent with Christian and

23 Jewish traditions—

24 A Let's be careful of the Jewish there.

25 Q If there were some legitimate scientific evidence

218.

1 Q (Continuing) to support a part of that definition,

2 shouldn't it be discussed openly?

3 A Certainly, openly. I am not sure it is a

4 scientific concept. I would argue that (a) represents a

5 scientific concept. I don't think it has its place—

6 Q I understand your response. What I am saying is,

7 if there was some legitimate scientific evidence to

8 support one of those parts, should not it be discussed

9 openly?

10 A My point has been that, say, evidence, scientific

11 or otherwise, a common experience, supports an idea,

12 notion, that's not science. That's, I suppose one could

13 say, only philosophy. This makes sense of this. This

14 makes it intelligent. That is not the scientific method.

15 So that the conception, scientific facts proving or

16 making probable or simply an idea, is not an example of

17 scientific methods.

18 Now, `openly' I don't know just what that means. I

19 think this is a concept that certainly should be openly

20 discussed. Whether it should appear as a part of a

21 scientific discipline is quite another matter to me.

22 Q That would be for the scientists to determine?

23 A Correct. The scientific community to determine.

24 Q And if a member of a scientific community felt that

25 there was legitimate evidence to support a part of

219.

1 Q (Continuing) creation-science as it is defined in

2 Act 590, he should be free to discuss that?

3 A Yes, I think that the responsibility of any

4 scientist is to be a part of that community, listening to

5 its general views and consensus; of course, quite free to

6 disagree with it, and there should be the ability to

7 present something as a scientific theory.

8 Q Would you say that creation is essentially a part

9 of — I believe you were the one who used the words

10 Jewish and Christian traditions; is that correct?

11 A Right. I am glad you said that because my

12 correction of you was only to be uneasy to be stating

13 something that Jews believe that I have no business

14 stating they believe. That it came out of the Jewish

15 scriptures, there was little question. That is probably

16 the meaning of what I meant, but I don't wish to state

17 what the beliefs of the various synagogues of our country

18 are or should be.

19 Q Is creation a part of Greek religion?

20 A Ideas of creation are there. They are

21 significantly different ideas about creation. They

22 usually picture one god, for example, Zeus, as arising out

23 of other gods. In fact, he was regarded as one of the

24 children of a former god and winning a victory over other

25 gods and, perhaps, establishing order, and so forth and so

220.

1 A (Continuing) on. This is not the conception of

2 absolute beginning.

3 Q So the concept of creation as it is known in the

4 western religious circles would be different than that

5 concept of creation in Greek religion?

6 A Very significantly, and this is the thrust of a

7 good number of the early arguments of the church, as I

8 indicated.

9 Q Likewise, would Western religious views of creation

10 differ from the Buddhist religion?

11 A Oh, very definitely.

12 Q And, likewise, would the Western view of creation

13 differ from Babylonian religion?

14 A Yes. Not as much as with Buddhist.

15 Q So if creation-science were taught to a Greek, a

16 Buddhist or a Babylonian student, that student would not

17 view it as inherently religious, would he?

18 A Oh, he would. They would view it as a Christian

19 view. That is very specifically what they would view it

20 as.

21 Q They would not view it as religious in their own—

22 A Oh, they wouldn't view it as Buddhism, certainly.

23 They would view it as simply wrong. They would have no

24 question about that. In fact, if you go to Japan, and

25 China and talk with Buddhists, you will find this is one

221.

1 A (Continuing) of the points they really will tackle

2 you on. "This is an absurd idea", they would say.

3 There is no question of its Christian character when it

4 appears within another context. They would regard it as

5 religious but not as true. And mind you, not everything

6 religious is true.

7 Q They would only view it as religion if we were

8 talking about ultimate origins, wouldn't they?

9 A No. I haven't said that everything religious has

10 to do with ultimate origin, but then everything having to

11 do with ultimate origin is religious, which is a quite

12 different statement.

13 Q If there are empirical scientific evidences which

14 support a science or a theory of science, it would not

15 matter if it were religious apologetics or not, would it?

16 A Well, that is a pretty hypothetical case because I

17 can't, at the moment, think of a genuinely scientific

18 theory which remaining a scientific theory becomes a part

19 of religious apologetics.

20 Q But if there were?

21 A Well, give me an example.

22 Q I am just asking you a hypothetical.

23 A Well, I don't understand. I've got a blank in my

24 mind. You cannot help me out?

25 Q You cannot answer that question?

222.

1 A I cannot conceive of a case in which a theory in

2 science that remains a theory in science—Now, there are

3 many which might be regarded as excluding certain

4 religious theories, but I can't conceive of a case which

5 would become, remaining a theory in science, an aspect of

6 religious apologetics.

7 Q If there were scientific evidence to the view that

8 the earth was less than four billion years old, that

9 scientific evidence would not be religious apologetics,

10 would it?

11 A No. It would lead the scientists to ask, how are

12 we going to understand this. Now, they might pop up with

13 the idea of an absolute beginning. Then they are not

14 submitting a scientific explanation.

15 I am not saying there aren't explanations. I think none

16 of us know what possible kinds of explanations. I would

17 say that would be an interesting event which would call

18 for a total reworking of all scientific theories that I

19 know anything about and the production of other scientific

20 theories giving it in terms precisely of secondary

21 causality.

22 Q Can there be such a thing as atheistic apologetics?

23 A Yes. Of course, Bertrand Russell was a very good

24 example of that.

25 Q I believe you mentioned that scientists ask `how'

223.

1 Q (Continuing) questions; is that correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And scientist are interested in observable

4 processes?

5 A Yes, they are. Yes, we all are, but they use those

6 as testing devices in quite particular ways. That doesn't

7 mean they are confined to observable processes.

8 Q You stated that religion asks `why' questions?

9 A Among other questions.

10 Q And you opined, I believe, that the definition of

11 creation-science as it appears in Section 4 (a) of Act 590

12 was inherently religious; isn't that correct?

13 A I would like a little heavier word than `opine'.

14 Q Well, is it your opinion—That's got more letters.

15 A Okay, I'll settle for that. I would assert that.

16 That would be a better way of putting it.

17 Q In looking at the definition of creation-science as

18 it appears in Section 4 (a), there are six parts of that

19 definition. I would like for you to review that with me,

20 and tell me where the `why' question is in the definition

21 of creation-science as it appears in Section 4 (a).

22 In other words, where is the `why' question in "sudden

23 creation of universe, energy and life from nothing"?

24 A Well, as I say, there are other questions in

25 religion than `why' questions.

224.

1 Q I understand, but you did say that religion asks

2 `why' questions primarily?

3 A Yes, but that is not the only kind of question.

4 `Where did it all come from' is also a religious question,

5 as I have stated, I think, as clearly as I could. Where

6 did it all come from, and that is number one.

7 Q Where are the `why' questions, though, in the

8 definition of creation-science as it is defined in Section

9 4(a) of Act 590?

10 A Well, there are all kinds of answers to `why'

11 questions in number 1, inclusively in number 1, and that's

12 why—

13 Q I didn't ask where the answer are. I asked where

14 the question was.

15 In other words, aren't you assuming in making your

16 assertion that the definition of creation-science in

17 Section 4 (a) is religious? Aren't you assuming that your

18 definition of creation-science is actually answering `why'

19 questions?

20 A I said it was answering them, so I don't find the

21 question in any religious doctrine.

22 Q You do not find a question asked in the definition

23 of creation-science?

24 A I haven't claimed that in a statement of a creed

25 you find the question to which the creed is the answer.

225.

1 A (Continuing)

2 What you find in statements of religious belief are answers.

3 Now, I said you can get at the meaning of those answers by

4 asking kinds of questions.

5 Therefore, I said that, number one, states an answer.

6 Q I understand, but we talked about the `why'

7 questions that religion asks. Can you testify that there

8 are no `why' questions -

9 A I can testify there aren't any questions at all

10 there, and I would say in any statement of a creed there

11 aren't questions; there are answers. And I tried to make

12 that quite clear.

13 Theology is not, thank the good Lord, confined to

14 questions.

15 Q Is it your opinion that science cannot answer the

16 `why' questions?

17 A It depends on what you mean by `why'. There has

18 been general agreement since—and I think I am right—the

19 seventeenth century, at least since the impact of Galileo

20 and the reinterpretation of that by Descartes, an agreement

21 that purpose kinds of causes, causes that appeal to

22 purpose—What Aristotle called final causes—Why is this

23 going on—were not relevant to scientific inquiry.

24 And I take it that this has been generally agreed. If

25 you mean why did this happen—If you mean by that question

226.

1 A (Continuing) `what forces brought it about' and

2 one could use that, in ordinary speech, then, of course,

3 `why are we having rain today', well, the answer is

4 because of a cold pressure front and so forth and so on.

5 That kind of `why' question, but the kind of `why'

6 question that is quite different, `why did it happen to

7 rain on my wedding', is not the kind of question the

8 weatherman will be able to answer.

9 Q Is there such a thing as religious humanists?

10 A Yes, there certainly is. At least, there is a

11 group that calls themselves humanists that has written a

12 couple of manifestoes in my lifetime, I think, and a group

13 called the Ethical Culture Society and perhaps some other

14 groups that are exclusively humanist and that also are

15 happy to claim the word `religious' connected with them,

16 and I suppose the great founder of positivism, Auguste

17 Comte, sought to found a humanistic or positivistic

18 religion in the nineteenth century.

19 Q Once evolution begins to examine ultimate origins,

20 it is not within science, is it?

21 A I would say so.

22 Q Are you saying it is not or it is?

23 A It is not within science. Yes, I am agreeing with

24 a portion of your question, it has moved out of science

25 into a wider arena.

227.

1 Q Into the area of theology and philosophy?

2 A Right, correct.

3 Q As one who has studied religions, are there any

4 religions which have taken evolution from its original

5 scientific state and adopted it as part of their belief

6 system?

7 A They have taken evolution—Yes, I would say so, and

8 I would say some of the forms in the nineteenth and

9 twentieth century of what you would call, although they

10 may or may not have liked that word, religious humanism,

11 have taken that form.

12 Perhaps the great formulator of this was Herbert

13 Spencer, though he wouldn't have, wanted to be called

14 religious, and he said he was an agnostic.

15 Nevertheless, here was a picture of the whole of the

16 universe, and so forth and so on, and there have been a

17 number of evolutionists, Julian Huxley, that was appealed

18 to here and who is a good example of that. A good number

19 of them have taken that position.

20 This is perfectly possible for this idea. There is a

21 number of ideas to leave its particular residence, so to

22 speak, within a particular discipline, subject to its

23 canons and to expand out to doing the job of a religious

24 idea.

25 Q In some sense, is evolution atheistic?

228.

1 A No. That is to say, I would say any scientific

2 method—This is not a presupposition; this is a canon. It

3 does not talk about God.

4 In the same way history is atheistic. That is to say, a

5 historical account of he Second World War won't talk about

6 the judgment of God.

7 I suppose law is atheistic in exactly that sense. An

8 account of a murder which explained the murder by an act

9 by God, by God rubbing this fellow out, let's say, is not

10 an admissible theory.

11 In this sense, these are what we mean by secular

12 disciplines. That is to say, they do not bring in a

13 divine cause as an explanatory factor in what they are

14 trying to explain.

15 This does not mean, and I think the example of the

16 history of law made perfectly clear, this sort of factor

17 is not there. This is not a presupposition. It is a rule

18 of the road, a rule of that kind of talking.

19 Q Is evolution consistent with Buddhism?

20 A Now, there I will have to speculate on that. I

21 don't put myself forward as an expert on Buddhism. I

22 would say no, not consistent with historic Buddhism in the

23 sense that historic Buddhism has held to the set of ideas

24 that are also true of historic Hinduism, namely, that time

25 goes in a circle.

229.

1 A (Continuing)

2 Now, that is a significantly different idea than

3 nineteenth century and twentieth century evolution where

4 time is lineated and there is no set cyclical.

5 Within those concepts, one cay say that both Hindu and

6 Buddhist conceptions state of the world as coming to be in

7 the cycle and then going out of existence again, and then

8 coming in.

9 This is not evolution. That is not at all the same idea.

10 Now, the main problem with Buddhism is they are

11 convinced of the unreality of things rather than the

12 reality of things. Now, if you want to discuss that, we

13 can do it but I think that would try the patience of

14 everybody in the room.

15 Q You mentioned that evolution is not consistent with

16 historical Buddhism, but would it be with contemporary

17 Buddhist beliefs?

18 A As somebody said, almost anything is possible.

19 People in the history of religion have put the two most

20 seemingly antithetical ideas together to create theory

21 that one beforehand could have believe they were going to

22 do it. I would say this would take an awful lot of work

23 on the part of some enthusiastic Buddhist to put the two

24 together, but it could be done.

25 Q Is evolution consistent with Taoism?

230.

1 A My answer would be substantially the same. That is

2 to say, Taoism and Buddhism and Hinduism are forms of—

3 Well, I am risky here—Pantheism, Monism, where each have a

4 cyclical view of time, insofar as they have any view,

5 and probably you have very much the same situation there.

6 Q If evolution is expanded into a world view, will we

7 get into metaphysics?

8 A It depends on how it's done. That is to say, a

9 metaphysical idea is partly determined not by what it

10 talks about but the way it does about constructing itself.

11 And those within the philosophical community who still

12 think metaphysics interesting and possible, and they are

13 not everybody, would probably be very much interested in

14 the grounds, the warrants, the reasons why an idea was

15 advanced as being.

16 So, it isn't so much the content of the idea as its

17 method or I should say both of them.

18 Insofar as you mean by metaphysics a view of a whole and

19 a recent view of a whole, I would say say. Yes, that is

20 exactly what, for example, the great philosophy of Alfred

21 North Whitehead is. One could say it is an expansion of

22 some evolutionary idea into a total view of the universe.

23 Q And once evolution is discussed in terms of

24 metaphysics, it is no longer science, is it?

25 A It has a cousin once removed relation to science.

231.

1 A (Continuing) Let's put it that way. It is

2 certainly not at that point dependent upon science.

3 Q Is scientific inquiry generally set within a

4 framework of presupposition?

5 A Again, I am glad you asked that question because I

6 think it is good to try to clarify that point. I'd say

7 there are two different kinds of presuppositions we are

8 talking about here.

9 One of them is that set of presuppositions, and it would

10 be rather hard quickly to state them accurately so that

11 there's no disagreement, that having characteristic of

12 Western culture, arising out of the Jewish and the

13 Greek-Roman background.

14 Now, these are genuine presuppositions of the scientific

15 method, it seems to me, and that is quite rightly used.

16 There was a very well known book by E. Burt, The

17 Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Empirical Science,

18 which I think stated the point very well.

19 The puzzle would be the reality of the empirical world.

20 The reality, therefore, — The cognitive value of sense

21 experience. The fact that the world involves, we don't

22 know what kind, but some sort of order.

23 These are presuppositions of the scientific method.

24 There are other things that I call canons or rules of the

25 road that are really quite different.

232.

1 A (Continuing)

2 They themselves, perhaps, have presuppositions, but they

3 are not quite presuppositions.

4 Q Is falsification a presupposition?

5 A No, that's an aspect of method, I would say. That

6 is what is meant by testing. That is not a

7 presupposition; this is a canon. Every idea that is

8 scientific must be tested, and what we mean by that is, it

9 is not falsified. Or, at least, that's Popper's theory

10 of that.

11 Q Do you recall your deposition when I asked you

12 questions concerning presuppositions, beginning on page

13 135 of your deposition, I asked this question: "Assuming

14 a scientific inquiry is based on some, within a framework,

15 of presupposition, could a theory ever be truly

16 falsified?"

17 Mr. Siano interjected, "And that's a hypothetical

18 question", which I responded, "Do you understand what I am

19 asking?"

20 Mr. Siano again interjected his comments, "you started

21 out assuming, and that is what I asked, if it is a

22 hypothetical question. Is it a hypothetical question?"

23 I responded, "Yes, it can be a hypothetical question.

24 Actually, it is a philosophical question."

25 Mr. Siano: "It may be a philosophy of science question."

233.

1 The Witness: "It is totonegy. It is just utterly

2 totogeny."

3 THE WITNESS: Tautology.

4 MR. CAMPBELL: It is misspelled in the deposition.

5 THE WITNESS: I know. I think that one went right

6 over the reporter's head and bounced around.

7 Q (Continuing) This is your answer: "Falsification

8 itself has presuppositions, which is your answer. Without

9 presuppositions that lie in the back of scientific

10 methods, there is no meaning to the word `falsification'.

11 You have to agree to having a mode of falsifying what kind

12 of data are relevant, what kinds of experience gets us in

13 touch with those data, what type of methods are relevant.

14 What have to agree on that."

15 MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, this answer goes on for

16 two and a half pages. Would you like me to—

17 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, since the only appropriate

18 use of this deposition is to impeach Mr. Gilkey, I would

19 suggest that Mr. Campbell now continue to read the answer

20 if he intends to impeach my witness.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: I am certainly not trying to impeach

22 the witness, your Honor. I am just trying to refresh his

23 memory with regard to this area of falsification.

24 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I haven't heard anything —

25 THE COURT: I think you can ask him the question.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P234-266

234.

1 MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)

2 Q Do you remember making that statement?

3 THE COURT: Well, let him answer —I mean, whatever

4 point you are making, why don't you just ask the question

5 without referring to the deposition?

6 THE WITNESS: I remember making that statement. I

7 am under the impression that I have just repeated it, but

8 I may be wrong.

9 Q So falsification does have some presuppositions?

10 A Oh, yes, yes, and I have tried to make clear that

11 those general presuppositions that I spoke of first, lie

12 back not only of, let's say, the conclusions of science

13 but the method of science. That is to say that sensory

14 experience places into touch with what we wish to find out

15 about. This is not a universally held view. In many

16 cultures sensory experience is regarded as the pathway to

17 illusion.

18 Now, that presupposition is there if you and I are going

19 to agree that a sensory observable experiment will falsify

20 an idea. We have got to agree on that point.

21 That is what I meant by the terms of falsification or in

22 the other side verification. They have got to be agreed

23 on, and I think has been becoming increasingly clear to

24 the scientific community since the rise of the empirical

25 sense as to meaning what we mean, that some kind of

235.

1 A (Continuing) shareable experiment will test this

2 thing. You say and I say.

3 Q Does the history of science reveal that in actual

4 practice science is based upon creative leaps of

5 imaginative vision?

6 A I would certainly say so, though as I said to you

7 in the deposition, that takes a certain knowledge of the

8 biography of great scientists that I don't pretend to have

9 within my—Well, I hesitate to say educated guess, but my

10 somewhat educated guess is, of course.

11 Q Weren't these creative leaps of imaginative vision,

12 from an historical standpoint, considered unscientific and

13 illogical at the time that they were being taken?

14 A Correct in many cases; not in all, many.

15 Q Were the men and women who have taken creative

16 leaps of imaginative vision in science, to your knowledge,

17 generally considered to be in the mainstream of the

18 scientific community in their times?

19 A When they took the leap, to use your phrasing, I

20 would say no. Shortly after they landed, yes.

21 Q Professor Gilkey, isn't the phrase, "creative leap

22 of imaginative vision" actually your phrase?

23 A I don't know whether I ought to claim it or not. I

24 don't remember.

25 Q Do you recall writing an article on the "Religious

236.

1 Q (Continuing) Convention of Scientific Inquiry",

2 which appeared in Volume 50, Number 2, of the Journal of

3 Religion, July, 1970? Do you recall whether or not you

4 used the phrase, "creative leaps of imaginative vision" in

5 that article?

6 A Yes. I am just wondering whether I thought it up

7 myself or picked it up somewhere else. I am not sure

8 about that. It's a rather catchy phrase, so I suspect

9 I got it from somebody else.

10 Q Was Copernicus within the mainstream of the

11 scientific thinking of his day?

12 A That's a very touchy question. There was

13 certainly— He didn't arise like the universe, ex nihilo.

14 Let's make that clear. There were things that lay back,

15 in my view. I am no expert on this. There are many

16 people who are. I think that there were many ideas, many

17 possibilities, Aristotelian, Platonic, Ptolemaic, and so

18 forth that lay back of those. He certainly rearranged

19 things in a new way and this was, with some qualification,

20 a quite new set of ideas. It certainly appeared in his

21 time as a new set of ideas. It was not completely new

22 under the sun, however.

23 Q Likewise, was Galileo in the mainstream of

24 scientific thinking in his day?

25 A By that time, much more, though the mainstream is a

237.

1 A (Continuing) very small river at that point. We

2 mustn't think of it in terms of the present. That is, the

3 number of scientists who were coming in that tradition is

4 really minimal. We now think of science as a very large

5 part of the intellectual community. That was not so

6 then. So, within that Galileo certainly builds on

7 foundations it seems to me more than Copernicus did.

8 Newton much more than Galileo.

9 Q Would it be fair to say that Copernicus, Galileo and

10 Newton all were somewhat outside the contemporary

11 scientific community at their time?

12 A Well, I hate to bring up an old word, but one is

13 almost saying with figures like that, a chronological

14 statement. That is to say, each one of those is producing

15 a really quite new synthesis of what was known and, of

16 course, giving new elements to it.

17 This is why they are so important. This is why we know

18 their names. This is why Newton was such a transcendent

19 figure really in the seventeenth and especially, perhaps,

20 the eighteenth century.

21 So that creative leap, imagination, everything, are

22 completely appropriate. This doesn't mean, as I say, they

23 arrived de novo. Newton built on Galileo; Galileo built

24 on names that preceded him, including some Roman

25 philosophers, and so forth and so on, and lots of things

238.

1 A (Continuing) that had been going on.

2 But I will be quite happy to talk about the creative

3 leaps of imagination. Now, the issue of testing is a

4 little different than a leaping, let's say.

5 MR. CAMPBELL: I understand. I have no further

6 questions. Thank you, sir.

7

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

8 BY MR. SIANO:

9 Q Doctor Gilkey, what is your understanding of the

10 meaning of the word `secular'?

11 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor. That's not

12 in the scope of direct.

13 THE COURT: That's overruled.

14 MR. SIANO: It's not outside the scope of cross.

15 Let me rephrase the question.

16 Q Because a concept is secular, is it necessarily

17 atheistic?

18 A Not at all, not at all. The separation of church

19 and state legally specifies what one might call the

20 secular world. It is a world of the law, a world of

21 government, a world of our vocations that are not grounded

22 in, established by authoritatively ruled by in any way

23 religious doctrines or religious authority.

24 Now, that world is a world of American experience

25 generally since the founding of the Constitution and by no

239.

1 A (Continuing) means is it irreligious. So, that,

2 now, I've testified and I've got to emphasize the fact

3 that inherently science has a secular character. It

4 cannot be appealed to a supernatural cause.

5 In this sense it is a secular endeavor. Now, that

6 doesn't mean it is atheistic, and that is why empirically

7 there are scientists who are believers in God and there

8 are scientists who are not believers in God. I suspect,

9 though this is speculating, that those believing or not

10 believing is based on other grounds than their science.

11 In this sense if evolution is a secular theory, and I

12 believe it is, this doesn't mean at all and historically

13 it has not meant, that it was an atheistic theory. In

14 fact, two of the closest friends of Darwin argue with him

15 at this point, Asa Gray and Wallace did. And there have

16 been a number of theistic evolutionists.

17 MR. SIANO: No further questions, your Honor.

18 THE COURT: May this witness be excused?

19 MR. SIANO: Yes, your Honor.

20 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, your Honor.

21 THE COURT: We will reconvene at 9:00 a.m.

22 tomorrow. Court will be in recess.

23 (Thereupon, Court was in recess at

24 5:10 p.m.)

25

241.

1

VOLUME II INDEX

2 Witness:

3 On Behalf of the Plaintiffs:

4

5 MICHAEL E. RUSE

6 Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 244

7 Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 301

8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Novik Page 369

9 Recross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 376

10 JAMES HOLSTED

11 Direct Examination by Mr. Kaplan Page 379

12 Cross Examination by Mr. Williams: Page 405

13 GARY B. DALRYMPLE

14 Direct Examination by Mr. Ennis Page 406

15

16

17

18

19

VOLUME II - EXHIBIT INDEX

20

21 EXHIBIT OFFERED RECEIVED

22

23 Plaintiffs' No. 94 245 245

24 Plaintiffs' No. 98 407 407

25 Plaintiffs' No. 86 442 442

242.

1 (December 8, 1981)

2 (9:00 A.M.)

3 THE COURT: Mr. Williams, I have gone over the

4 Motion in Limine and the brief. Do you have anything else

5 you'd like to say in connection with that?

6 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think the Motion

7 is largely self-explanatory. I would just reiterate that

8 the legislature has not seen fit to try to define what a

9 scientific theory is. Therefore, it does not fall to this

10 Court to have to find that either. And on this ground we

11 think that the evidence on that point should be properly

12 excluded.

13 THE COURT: Perhaps you are right about that,

14 that I won't be called upon to decide whether or not this

15 is science, but as I understand the thrust of the

16 plaintiffs' case, they first undertake to try to prove the

17 Act is, or the definitions in the Act, what is set out in

18 Section 4(a), is not science but religion. And I can't

19 very well tell them they can't put on evidence of that.

20 I don't know whether they can actually sustained

21 that position or not.

22 MR. WILLIAMS: The point that I wanted to make

23 in the Motion in Limine is that what the Act says, that

24 the scientific evidence for both creation-science and

25 evolution-science are to be taught, it never tries to

243.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) elevate or state that

2 either is a scientific theory, as such. So that really is

3 the only purview of the issue in this case, and it really

4 is irrelevant.

5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I will deny the Motion in

6 Limine.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, one other preliminary

8 matter that I would like to bring up now. Yesterday—

9 This may already be in the record, but to make sure that

10 it is, I want to move into the record those portions of

11 Mrs. Nelkin's deposition that I quoted to her yesterday to

12 the degree that they were inconsistent with her earlier

13 testimony.

14 This is pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil

15 Procedure and Rule 801 of the Rules of Evidence.

16 THE COURT: Okay, sir. Do you— I don't quite

17 understand. Did you read the parts that you wanted to

18 yesterday?

19 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. The parts which I read into the

20 record.

21 THE COURT: Well, they will be in the record anyway.

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I want to make sure they are

23 going in as evidence and simply not for the purpose of

24 impeachment.

25 Counsel for plaintiffs yesterday made an assertion at

244.

1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) one time that some of

2 the quotes being read from the deposition could only go to

3 impeach the witness.

4 THE COURT: I think he was complaining about the

5 method of using the deposition and not whether or not

6 it— Once it's in the record, it's in there.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: I just wanted to make sure. Thank

8 you, your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Mr. Cearley, are you ready to call your

10 next?

11 MR. CEARLEY: Yes, sir. Michael Ruse will be the

12 first witness, your Honor, and Mr. Jack Novik will handle

13 the direct examination of the witness.

14 Thereupon,

15 MICHAEL E. RUSE,

16 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

17 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

18 testified as follows:

19

DIRECT EXAMINATION

20 BY MR. NOVIK:

21 Q Would you state your full name for the record?

22 A Michael Escott Ruse.

23 Q Have you been sworn?

24 A I have.

25 Q What is your address? Where do you live?

245.

1 A I live at 44 Edinburg Road, North, Ontario, Canada.

2 Q Are you a Canadian citizen?

3 A I am indeed.

4 Q And what is your occupation?

5 A I'm professor of history and philosophy at the

6 University of Guelph, Ontario.

7 Q What is your particular area of academic specialty?

8 A I'm a historian and philosopher of science.

9 Typically, history and philosophy of biology. I also

10 teach other areas in philosophy, philosophy of religion

11 and philosophy of education. General philosophy.

12 Q Doctor Ruse, is this your curriculum vitae?

13 A Yes.

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, this has previously been

15 marked as Exhibit Ninety-Four for identification. Our

16 copies of the exhibits are not yet here. I'd be glad to

17 pass you a copy. We will fill it in with the—

18 THE COURT: Okay. It will be received. And if you

19 would, make sure it's in the record.

20 MR. NOVIK: Yes, sir, I'll do that.

21 In light of Doctor Ruse's qualifications as described

22 in the curriculum vitae, which has previously been made

23 available to the defendants, I move that Doctor Ruse be

24 qualified as an expert in philosophy of science and

25

246.

1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing) history of science, in

2 particular, the philosophy and history of biology.

3 THE COURT: Mr. Williams.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: No objection, your Honor.

5 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

6 Q Doctor Ruse, will you please describe to the Court

7 your understanding, as a philosopher and historian of

8 science, of what science is today?

9 A Well, Mr. Novik, I think the most important thing

10 about science, if I was going to extract one essential

11 characteristic, is that it be predominantly brought in the

12 law. In other words, what one's trying to do in science

13 is explained by law, whereby "law" one means unguided,

14 natural regularities.

15 Q When you say "law", you mean natural law?

16 A I mean natural law. I mean Boyle's Law, Mendel's

17 Law, Cook's Law.

18 Q Doctor, is there any one single definition of

19 science?

20 A I wouldn't say there is one single definition of

21 science, but I think the philosophers today would

22 generally agree on that point.

23 Q Are there other attributes of science that

24 philosophers today would generally agree are important in

25 defining what is a science and what is not?

247.

1 A Well, you say philosophers. Let's broaden it. I

2 hope we can include historians. And I'd like to think

3 that scientist agree with what we say.

4 Yes. I think what one's got to do now is start teasing

5 out some of the attributes of science, starting with the

6 notion of law.

7 Particularly, science is going to be explanatory.

8 Another thing there, another very important aspect of

9 science is it's going to be testable against the empirical

10 world. Another characteristic, and perhaps we can stop

11 with these, is that it's going to be tentative. It's

12 going to be, in some sense, not necessarily the final word.

13 Q Would you explain to the Court what you mean in

14 saying that science must be explanatory?

15 A Yes. When I talk about science, or when

16 philosophers and scientists talk about science being

17 explanatory, what we mean is that in some sense we can

18 show that phenomena follow as a consequence of law.

19 Perhaps I can give you an example to sort of explain a

20 little bit more what I mean. And let's take a very

21 mundane example. I like to take mundane examples because

22 one of the things I really want to point out is that

23 science isn't that different from the rest of human

24 thinking.

25 Suppose, for example, you've got, say, a baseball which

248.

1 A (Continuing) is being pitched from the pitcher to

2 the hitter, and the ball goes along and then suddenly it

3 dips down. The guy swings and the ball is not there,

4 not— You know, I suspect the pitcher, you know, might

5 start thinking in terms of divine intervention.

6 But a scientist would be saying things like, well, now,

7 why did this happen. Well, let's look at Galileo's Laws;

8 let's look at laws to do with air resistance together with

9 initial conditions like the speed the ball was thrown and

10 so on and so forth.

11 Q In connection with these characteristics of science

12 that you've identified, can you tell us what you mean by

13 testable?

14 A Yes. Again, it all follows, I think, very much from

15 the nature of law. A scientific theory is not a

16 hypothesis of a body of science. It must, in some sense,

17 put itself up against the real world. That is to say, one

18 must be able to do experiments, either in the lab or out

19 in nature and try and get inferences from the main body of

20 science, and then to see whether or not they follow and

21 whether or not they actually obtain in the world.

22 I think one would want to say that any science that's

23 worth its salt is certainly going to have a lot of

24 positive evidence in its favor. More than that, I think a

25 very important aspect of science is that somehow it must

249.

1 A (Continuing) be sort of self-generating. In other

2 words, a scientific hypothesis, a scientific theory is not

3 only going to explain what it set out to explain, but it's

4 going to lead to new areas as well, and one has got to be

5 able to test it in this respect.

6 Q Is it fair, then, to say that a science has to

7 generate new facts which then can be tested against a

8 theory?

9 A Well, it's not generating the facts, but it's

10 generating inferences about expected facts. Do you want

11 an example or two?

12 Q No. That's fine.

13 In connection with the attributes of science and

14 this issue of testability, does the concept of

15 falsifiability mean anything to you?

16 A Yes. The concept of falsifiability is something

17 which has been talked about a great deal by scientists and

18 others recently. It's an idea which has been made very

19 popular by the Austrian-English philosophist, Karl Popper.

20 Basically, the idea of falsifiability is that there must

21 be, as it were, if something is a genuine scientific

22 theory, then there must, at least, conceivably be some

23 evidence which could count against it. Now, that doesn't

24 mean to say that there's actually going to be evidence. I

25 mean, one's got to distinguish, say, between something

250.

1 A (Continuing) being falsifiable and something being

2 actually falsified.

3 But what Popper argues is that if something is a genuine

4 science, then at least in the fault experiment, you ought

5 to be able to think of something which would show that

6 it's wrong.

7 For example, Popper is deliberately distinguishing

8 science from, say, something like religion. Popper is not

9 running down religion. He's just saying it's not science.

10 For example, you take, say, a religious statement like

11 God is love, there's nothing in the empirical world which

12 would count against this in a believer. I mean, whatever

13 you see— You see, for example, a terrible accident or

14 something like this, and you say, "Well, God is love.

15 It's free will," or, for example, the San Francisco

16 earthquake, you say, "Well, God is love; God is working

17 his purpose out. We don't understand, but nothing is

18 going to make me give this up."

19 Now, with science, you've got to be prepared to give up.

20 Q I was going to ask you for an example of

21 falsifiability in the realm of science.

22 A Well, let's take evolutionary theory, for example.

23 Suppose, I mean, contemporary thought on evolutionary

24 theory believes that evolution is never going to reverse

25 itself in any significant way. In other words, the dodo,

251.

1 A (Continuing) the dinosaurs are gone; they are not

2 going to come back.

3 Suppose, for example, one found, say, I don't know,

4 somewhere in the desolate north up in Canada, suppose one

5 found evidence in very, very old rocks, say, of mammals

6 and lots and lots of mammals and primates, this sort of

7 thing, and then nothing for what scientists believe to be

8 billions of years, and then suddenly, mammals come back

9 again.

10 Well, that would obviously be falsifying evidence of

11 evolution theory. Again, I want to make the point, you've

12 got to distinguished between something actually being

13 shown false and something being in principle falsifiable.

14 I mean, the fact that you've got no contrary evidence

15 doesn't mean to say that you don't have a theory. I mean,

16 it could be true.

17 Q The last characteristic you mentioned was that

18 science was tentative. Can you explain that

19 characteristic of science?

20 A Yes. Again, this is all very much bound up with the

21 points I've been making earlier. What one means when one

22 says that science has got to be tentative is that

23 somewhere at the back of the scientist's mind, he, or

24 increasingly she, has got to be prepared to say at some

25 point, "Well, enough is enough; I've got to give this

252.

1 A (Continuing) theory up." It doesn't mean to say

2 you are going to be every Monday morning sort of

3 requestioning your basic principles in science, but it

4 does mean that if something is scientific, at least in

5 principle, you've got to be prepared to give it up.

6 Q Doctor Ruse, in addition to those four

7 characteristics, natural law, explanation, testability and

8 tentativeness, are there other characteristics of science,

9 methodological characteristics of science which serves to

10 distinguish science from non-scientific endeavors?

11 A Yes, I think there are. of course, one starts to

12 get down from the body of science and starts to talk more

13 about the community of scientists. Fairly obviously,

14 scientists have got in some sense to try to be objective.

15 One has got to, even though scientists might have personal

16 biases, personal issues, at some level you've got to try

17 to filter these out in science.

18 Science has got to be public. In other words, if you've

19 got some sort of scientific ideas, you've got to be

20 prepared to let your fellow scientists see it.

21 Science has got to be repeatable. Fairly obviously,

22 again I say, science has got to try to be honest. I mean,

23 obviously not all scientists all the time have been all or

24 any of these things. But speaking of science as sort of a

25 general body of knowledge and a body of men and women

253.

1 A (Continuing) working on it, these are the sorts of

2 ideals we are aiming for. They are not that different

3 from philosophers and lawyers.

4 Q How does science deal with a new observation or new

5 experimental data which is not consistent with a theory

6 that science has generally accepted to be true for a

7 period of time?

8 A Well, you know, it's a little difficult to answer

9 that question because what can one say. It depends on the

10 scientific theory which is threatened. It depends on the

11 new evidence.

12 I guess a good analogy would say science is something as

13 happens here. Suppose, for example, there was some

14 question about whether or not somebody is going to be

15 convicted of a crime. Well, you have them up, you have a

16 trial, and then let's suppose they are found guilty. Now,

17 they are found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. You

18 accept the supposition. That doesn't mean to say that

19 never, ever could you open up the case again.

20 For example, if somebody else was found the next week

21 committing exactly the same crime, you'd probably look

22 very hard at the first one. So, I mean, there are things

23 that would make you change your mind.

24 And I think it's the same with science. I mean, if you

25 just establish something, and then something pretty

254.

1 A (Continuing) massive comes up fairly soon

2 afterwards, then you're going to rethink it.

3 On the other hand, suppose somebody has been convicted

4 twenty years ago, and his mother on the deathbed says,

5 "Well, he didn't really do it." Well, you might say, "I'm

6 not too sure about that."

7 It's the same with science. If you've got something

8 which is really working, really going well, lots of

9 evidence for it, you get something which seems to be a bit

10 against it, I mean, you don't ignore it. You say, "Let's

11 try and explain it."

12 On the other hand, you don't suddenly say, ooh, I've

13 lost everything. I've got to start again.

14 Q Do scientists work at trying to fit the new data

15 into the old theory?

16 A They work at trying to fit it in. What can I say.

17 mean, sometimes they, I suspect that first of all they

18 are going to look very carefully at the data again. Other

19 scientists are going to see if the data really is what

20 it's supposed to be, try new experiments, so on and so

21 forth.

22 Q Doctor Ruse, have, you ever seen reference to

23 observability as an attribute of science?

24 A Well, I've certainly seen reference to it in the

25 scientific creationist literature.

255.

1 Q How do creation scientist use the term

2 "observability"?

3 A Well, they seem to make it an essential

4 characteristic of science, and they tend to use it in the

5 sense of direct eyewitness observation.

6 Q Now, as a philosopher of science, do you believe

7 that observability is an attribute of science?

8 A It's funny you say that. Certainly empirical

9 evidence is important, but I wouldn't want to say that

10 direct empirical evidence is important for every aspect of

11 every science. We don't see electrons, for example.

12 Q Why is science not limited to the visible, to what

13 you can, to what an observer can actually see?

14 A Well, because— This takes us right to the heart of

15 the way science works. I mean, scientists pose some sort

16 of hypothesis, some sort of idea, suppose about the nature

17 of the electrons, something like this. From this he tries

18 to derive inferences, ultimately trying to find something

19 out about the real world, and then you argue back to what

20 you haven't seen.

21 I mean, you don't see that I've got a heart, but you can

22 infer that I've got a heart from all of the observable

23 characteristics like the fact that it thumps and so on and

24 so forth.

25 Q Speaking of your heart, I note—

256.

1 A Yes. It's thumping quite a bit at the moment.

2 Q —I note that your latest book is titled Darwinism

3 Defended. Does the title of that book suggest that

4 evolution is in question and that evolution is in need of

5 defense?

6 A Certainly I hope not. Certainly— Well, let me put

7 it this way. I do not want to imply that the happening of

8 evolution, as we understand it today, is in any sense

9 under attack by credible scientists.

10 I am concerned, I'm talking in the book about

11 mechanisms, forces and so forth.

12 Q Do I understand you to be drawing a distinction

13 between the happening of evolution and the mechanics of

14 evolution?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And what is that distinction?

17 A Well, the happening of evolution is claims about the

18 fact or the supposition that we all today, and the fossil

19 record is a function of the fact that we all evolved,

20 developed slowly over a long time from, to use Darwin's

21 own phrase, one or a few forms.

22 The mechanism, the cause of evolution is — what shall I

23 say — it's, I won't say why, but it's the 'how did it

24 happen' sort of question.

25 Q When scientists today speak of the theory of

257.

1 Q (Continuing) evolution, are they referring usually

2 to the theory that evolution happened, or are they

3 referring to the theory about how evolution happened?

4 A Well, I guess I'd have to say it tends to be used

5 somewhat ambiguously. Sometimes you see it one way;

6 sometimes you see it the other way. To a great extent, I

7 think you have to look at the context in which the

8 discussion occurs.

9 But I think usually it's true to say that scientists

10 today are concerned about the mechanisms. They accept

11 that evolution occurred.

12 Q Do you know of any scientists other than the

13 so-called creation scientists who question the happening

14 of evolution?

15 A No, I don't really think I know anybody I would call

16 a scientist. I say scientist in the sense of

17 professional, credible scientist. Now, certainly the

18 creation scientists want to argue that it didn't occur.

19 Q You say that scientists today agree that evolution

20 happened.

21 A Yes.

22 Q Why is that so?

23 A Well, quite simply, the evidence is overwhelming.

24 Q What is the history of the consensus in the

25 scientific community that evolution has happened?

258.

1 A Well, like everything, I think in Western

2 intellectual thought, you could well go back to the

3 Greeks. But probably the story, at least as affects us,

4 of the scientific revolution picks up off Copernicus' work

5 showing that the earth goes around the sun and not vice

6 versa.

7 I think it's true to say that Copernicus' ideas and the

8 ideas of the Copernicans spurred a number of things which

9 led ultimately to evolution thought.

10 For example, on the one hand, one had the fact that even

11 Copernicus' ideas put certain pressure on the Bible taken

12 literally. For example, in the Bible, it talks of the sun

13 stopping for Joshua, implying the sun moves. And people

14 pointed out— In fact, Luther and Calvin pointed out,

15 even before Copernicus published, that this seemed to go

16 against the truth of the Bible.

17 And as people began to accept Copernicanism, they

18 started to say, "Well, you know, if one part is not

19 literally true, maybe another part isn't either." That

20 was one thing.

21 Another thing was although the Copernican theory, per

22 se, doesn't talk about how things actually came about,

23 certainly it set people thinking this way. And certainly

24 during the eighteenth century, there was an awful lot of

25 speculation and hypothesizing about the way in which the

259.

1 A (Continuing) universe might have come about through

2 natural law.

3 And in particular, there was a very popular hypothesis

4 known as the nebular hypothesis which was developed

5 including part of this by the great German philosopher,

6 Immanuel Kant, which suggested the fact this universe of

7 ours has evolved gradually by natural law from clouds,

8 clouds of gases.

9 So in physics one is getting what I say analogical

10 directions. Then in the biological sciences themselves,

11 people are finding more and more evidence which were

12 leading them to think that maybe Genesis wasn't quite all

13 that could be said.

14 For example, more and more fossils were being found, and

15 people were starting to realize that these fossils simply

16 weren't just curiously shaped pieces of stone, so on and

17 so forth.

18 To cut a long story short, I think by the end of the

19 eighteen century a lot of people were starting to think

20 that maybe organisms had, in fact, developed slowly.

21 In fact, one of the first people to think up the idea

22 was Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who used

23 to write unbelievably bad verse all about how we all

24 evolved up from the oak tree and everything like this.

25 Probably the first really credible scientist to put

260.

1 A (Continuing) everything together was a Frenchman by

2 the name of Lamarck, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, who

3 published a work on evolutionary science or evolutionary

4 theory in 1809.

5 After that, people started new evolution ideas. They

6 didn't much like them, but they talked about them more and

7 more. Certainly in the Anglo-Saxon world, evolutionism

8 got a big discussion with the publication in 1844 of a

9 book by an anonymous Scottish writer known as Robert

10 Chambers.

11 So again the people went on talking and talking and

12 talking. Finally in 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin

13 of Species. And I think it's true to say that within a

14 very short time, and I mean a very short time, certainly

15 the scientific community was won over to evolutionism.

16 And from that day on by the professional body of

17 scientist, certainly by biologist, I don't think evolution

18 has ever been questioned.

19 Q When you say the scientific community was won over

20 to evolution, I take it you mean that shortly after the

21 publication of Origin of Species, the scientific community

22 accepted that evolution happened, is that correct?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Charles Darwin also proposed a theory of describing

25

261.

1 Q (Continuing) the mechanics of evolution, did he not?

2 A He did indeed.

3 Q What theory was that?

4 A Well, it was the theory of natural selection.

5 Q Now, do scientist today generally agree about how

6 evolution happened?

7 A No, not at all. In fact, sort of looking about the

8 courtroom at the moment, I can see several people who, as

9 it were, when they get outside start to disagree very,

10 very strongly indeed about the actual causes.

11 Q Can you describe the nature of that debate about the

12 mechanics of evolution that is ongoing today?

13 A Yes. I would say that if you like to use sort of a

14 boxing metaphor, in one corner you've got the more

15 orthodox Darwinians who think that natural selection is

16 still a very, very major factor.

17 I don't think anybody, even Darwin himself, ever thought

18 that natural selection was all there was to it. But

19 certainly, you've got some people who want to argue that

20 natural selection still plays the major role.

21 On the other hand, you've got some people who want to

22 argue that there are other factors which are probably very

23 important random factors, some important genetic drift —

24 I'm sure you will be hearing more about that — and other

25 sorts of factors which could have been involved in evolution.

262.

1 Q Doctor Ruse, you testified earlier that creation

2 scientists often confuse the difference between the

3 happening of evolution and the how of evolution, is that

4 right?

5 A I did indeed.

6 Q Would you please explain what you meant by that,

7 please?

8 A Well, what they do is they'll, say, take a passage

9 where a scientist, a biologist, something like this, is

10 talking about the question of causes, the question of

11 reasons, this sort of thing, and they will quote just this

12 one sentence or half a sentence, one paragraph, and then

13 as it were, automatically assume and lead the reader to

14 assume that what's under question here is the actual

15 occurrence of evolution itself.

16 So one gets, I think, this sort of mixing of the two.

17 Q Doctor Ruse, are you familiar with creation science

18 literature?

19 A Yes.

20 Q In your book, Darwinism Defended, do you analyze

21 creation science literature?

22 A Well, I analyzed one work in particular. This is a

23 work edited by Doctor Henry Morris of the Institute for

24 Creation Research.

25 It's one— It's not only edited by him, but I think

263.

1 A (Continuing) there are some thirty other

2 scientists, including Doctor Gish, who were either,

3 co-authors or co-consultants.

4 This is the work which was published in 1974 call

5 Scientific Creationism. It's a work which was published

6 in two versions. One was the public school edition, and

7 the other was the Christian school edition or the

8 Christian edition.

9 I analyzed the public school edition. It seemed to me

10 that this was about as frank and as full a statement of

11 scientific creationism as one was likely to find.

12 Q That was analyzed in your book?

13 A That's analyzed in the final two chapters in my

14 book, yes.

15 Q In addition to the book, Scientific Creationism—

16 Excuse me, Doctor Ruse. There are two editions of

17 Scientific Creationism. One is the sectarian edition, and

18 one is the public school edition.

19 Which of those did you consider in your book?

20 A I considered the public school edition.

21 Q Doctor Ruse, in addition to Scientific Creationism,

22 the book Scientific Creationism, have you read scientific

23 literature excuse me creation science literature

24 extensively?

25 A Yes, I have.

264.

1 Q Could you describe some of the books that you've

2 read?

3 A Well, I've read a couple of books by Doctor Gish.

4 I've read Evolution: The Fossils Say No and the book for

5 children, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards.

6 I should add, by the way, that Doctor Gish and I are

7 sort of old friends, old adversaries. And we've debated

8 together, and I've been reading this stuff for a while now.

9 Also, I read what I believe is taken to be the classic

10 by creation scientists. That's the Genesis Flood by, I

11 think, Whitcomb and Morris.

12 I have read a couple of recent books by a man called

13 Parker, one which is his testimony on how he got converted

14 to creationism, and another which is a very recent book,

15 the most recent book I've found by the creationists,

16 called Creation, something on the facts or the facts say

17 so, something like that.

18 The Handy-Dandy Evolution Refuter by a chap called

19 Kofahl, and another book by him. Creation Explanation: A

20 Scientific Alternative to Evolution, that's by Kofahl and

21 I think somebody called Segraves.

22 Q Is it fair to say you have read widely in creation

23 science literature?

24 A Well, I think so.

25 Q Have you considered the creation science literature

265.

1 Q (Continuing) in your scholarship?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Have you examined that literature as a philosopher

4 and historian of science?

5 A Yes, I have.

6 Q You testified earlier that creation scientists often

7 confuse the difference between the happening and the how

8 of evolution. And you suggested they do so in part by

9 taking quotations out of context. Is that correct?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Do you know any examples of that?

12 A Yeah. Well, for example, in Parker's book, which I

13 said was the most recent, I think, or the most recent book

14 I've come across by creationists, I think you'll find at

15 least one very flagrant example of that.

16 Q Doctor Ruse, I'd like to show you a copy of Act 590?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Act 590 has previously been admitted as exhibit

19 number twenty-nine.

20 Doctor Ruse, I'd like to direct your attention to the

21 references to creation science in Act 590. In particular,

22 I'd like to refer your attention to Section 4(a) of the

23 Statute.

24 As a historian and philosopher of science and someone

25 who has read extensively in the creation science

266.

1 Q (Continuing) literature, how does Act 590 relate to

2 the body of creation science literature that you have read?

3 A I would say very closely indeed. In fact, so

4 closely I would want to say identical.

5 Q What are the similarities that you see between the

6 description of creation science in Act 590 and creation

7 science as it appears in the body of literature that

8 you've read?

9 A Well, a number of things. But I think what one

10 would want to say is, there are at, least three features

11 which are obviously interrelated.

12 First of all, one has this sort of stark opposition

13 between two supposed positions, so-called creation science

14 and so-called evolution science. And one is often sort of

15 an either/or, this sort of notion of balanced treatment of

16 these two models. Let's call that sort of a dual model

17 approach.

18 Secondly, the fact that creation science in 4(a) deals

19 point by point with all and virtually only the things that

20 the scientific creationist deal with.

21 And thirdly, the fact that 4(b) — what shall I say —

22 this hybrid, this hodgepodge known as evolution science

23 appears described here, and once again that is something

24 which occurs, basically as a unit like this, I think,

25 occurs only in the scientific creationist literature.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P267-299

267.

1 Q Doctor Ruse, I'd like to explore each of those areas

2 with you. First, what is your understanding of the theory

3 of creation?

4 A Well, that the whole universe, including all

5 organisms and particularly including ourselves, was

6 created by some sort of supernatural power very recently.

7 As it was tacked on, the fact that having done this, he or

8 she decided to wipe a lot out by a big flood.

9 Q Where does that understanding of the theory of

10 creation come from?

11 A Well, my understanding comes from the reading of the

12 scientific creationist literature.

13 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't catch what you said

14 earlier. What was the question and the response? Do you

15 mind starting on that again?

16 MR. NOVIK: Not at all. Did you hear his

17 understanding of the theory of creation?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 MR. NOVIK: I could start after that.

20 THE COURT: Start with that, if you would.

21 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

22 Q What is your understanding of the theory of creation?

23 A That the world, the whole universe was created very

24

25

268.

1 A (Continuing) recently. And when I talk about the

2 whole universe, I'm talking about all the organisms in it

3 including ourselves.

4 And as I said, sort of added on as sort of a — what

5 shall I say — a sub-clause, that some time after it was

6 done that everything or nearly everything was sort of

7 wiped out by a big flood.

8 Q How was that creation accomplished according to the

9 theory of creation?

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor, to the use of

11 the term "the theory of creation." As previously pursued

12 in our Motion in Limine, the term "theory of creation" is

13 used nowhere within the Act.

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, a few more questions, and I

15 think that objection will answer itself.

16 THE COURT: Okay, sir. Go ahead.

17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

18 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe I asked you whether the

19 creation you mentioned was accomplished by any force?

20 A Yes. By a creator.

21 Q Where does your understanding of the theory of

22 creation come from?

23 A Well, from my reading of the scientific creationist

24 literature.

25 Q Is that theory of creation a part of Act 590?

269.

1 A Well, I think so, yes.

2 Q Is the creation, the theory of creation that you

3 have identified in the creation science literature the

4 same as the creation science theory identified in Act 590?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Does Act 590 mention a creator with a capital C?

7 A It doesn't actually use the word.

8 Q Where do you see in Act 590 the theory of creation?

9 A Well, I see it very much in the first sentence of

10 4(a). And I think all the time when looking at 4(a), one

11 has got to compare it against 4(b) because these are

12 obviously intended as two alternative models.

13 And if you look, for example, at 4(b), you see that

14 evolution science means the scientific evidences for

15 evolution, inferences from those evidences.

16 We are talking about scientific evidences. Scientific

17 evidences for, well, what we mean, a theory. Scientific

18 evidences outside the context of a theory are really not

19 scientific evidences.

20 Q What theory do the scientific evidences in 4(b)

21 support?

22 A Well, they are talking about this theory of

23 evolution science. What I want to say is if we go back to

24 4(a), then if we are going to start talking about

25 scientific evidences, then presumably we are talking about

270.

1 A (Continuing) scientific evidences for some theory.

2 And analogously, what we are talking about is the theory

3 of creation.

4 Q Where in Act 590 do you see a reference to a creator?

5 A Well, again, as I say, I don't see the word

6 creator. I think the, Act is very carefully written so

7 that I wouldn't.

8 However, I think if you look at 4(a)(1), sudden creation

9 of the universe, energy and life from nothing, I think a

10 creator is clearly presupposed here.

11 Again, if you look at 4(b)(1), which says "Emergence" —

12 that's not a word I care for particularly — "Emergence"

13 by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered

14 matter and emergence of life from non-life.

15 Now, you will notice that the key new word here is

16 naturalistic processes, which doesn't occur in 4(a)(1),

17 sudden creation.

18 So my inference is that we are dealing with

19 non-naturalistic processes in 4(a)(1) and non-naturalistic

20 processes, meaning by definition a creator.

21 Q Looking at—

22 THE COURT: Wait a second. Let's go back over that

23 again.

24 A What we are dealing with is the question of to what

25 extent 4(a)(1) implies some sort of non-naturalistic

271.

1 A (Continuing) creator.

2 And the point I was trying to make, your Honor, was that

3 I think if you look at 4(b)(1), it says emergence—

4 THE COURT: Okay. Fine.

5 A —emergence by naturalistic processes.

6 I feel very strongly that to understand 4(a) you've

7 got to compare it all the time with 4(b) and vice versa.

8 And my point simply was that 4(b) talks about naturalistic

9 processes, so presumably in 4(a), which doesn't, we're

10 talking about non-naturalistic processes.

11 Q In 4(a), the language to compare with naturalistic

12 processes you said was sudden creation, is that correct?

13 A Yes. Right.

14 Q Now, looking at 4(b)(3) and 4(a)(3), can you comment

15 on those sections with respect to the issue of creator?

16 A 4(b)(3), "Emergence by mutation and natural

17 selection of present living kinds from simple earlier

18 kinds." Again, the word "kind" has a superfluous

19 connotation. It makes me feel a bit uncomfortable,

20 certainly in talking about it in the context of science.

21 Q But in 4(b)(3), does the Statute make reference to

22 naturalistic processes?

23 A Well, it doesn't mention naturalistic processes. It

24 doesn't use the word "naturalistic," but clearly one is

25 talking about naturalistic processes. Mutation, natural

272.

1 A (Continuing) selection, these the epitome of

2 naturalistic processes.

3 Q Yes, sir. And how does that compare with 4(a)(3)?

4 A Well, one's only got changes only within fixed

5 limits of originally created kinds. And I take it

6 originally created since we are not dealing with natural-

7 istic processes. We are dealing with non-naturalistic

8 processes.

9 Q Does the word "kind" in 4(a)(3) have any special

10 significance in that context?

11 A Well, as I mentioned, the word kind certainly is not

12 a word which we find used by biologists. It's a word

13 which occurs in Genesis.

14 Q Do scientists use the word kind at all in any

15 professional taxonomic sense?

16 A Well, I'm sure if you went through the literature

17 you might find that some scientists some day. But, no,

18 it's not one of the categories.

19 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe you testified earlier that

20 each of the six elements of creation science identified in

21 Sections 4(a)(1) through 4(a)(6) were identical to the

22 elements of creation science as you knew them through the

23 literature. Is that so?

24 A Yes.

25

273.

1 Q Would you please give an example of the similarity

2 between the elements of creation science in Act 590 and

3 the elements of creation science in the literature?

4 A Well, by an example, what I want to say is that

5 every one of these elements in 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), so on and

6 so forth, as you go down them, can be found mirrored

7 virtually exactly in almost the same order in Morris'

8 edited book, Scientific Creationism.

9 If one wants to pick out specific examples, for example,

10 section 4(a)(5) talks about a worldwide flood. And this

11 is something which is discussed at some length in

12 Scientific Creationism.

13 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe you also testified that

14 another similarity between creation science literature

15 generally and Act 590 is the reference to evolution

16 science in 4(b) of the Act, is that so?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Would you explain what you meant by that?

19 A Well, this term "evolution science," as we can see

20 in 4(b) includes a great many different things. And my

21 reading both of the work of scientists and the work of

22 scientific creationists is that it's only the scientific

23 creationists who want to deal with this as one package

24 deal. Evolutionists and other scientists separate them

25 out and deal with them separately.

274.

1 Q What other scientific disciplines are implicated by

2 the provisions of 4(b)?

3 A Well, it's almost a question of what isn't. I would

4 say physics and chemistry in (b)(1). I would suspect that

5 most of the social sciences in (b)(4). I would have

6 thought geology in (b)(5).

7 Q Doctor Ruse, you are not a scientist, are you?

8 A No.

9 Q Do you have any training as a biologist?

10 A No.

11 Q Do you have any training in the philosophy and

12 history of biology?

13 A Yes.

14 Q What do scientists generally mean by the word

15 evolution?

16 A That organisms descended through constant generation

17 from one or a few kinds.

18 Q Does the theory of evolution presuppose the

19 nonexistence of a creator or the nonexistence of a God?

20 A I don't think the theory of evolution says anything

21 at all about the Creator. I mean, in other words, it

22 doesn't say if there is one; it doesn't say that there

23 isn't one.

24 Q Understanding that scientists do not generally use

25 the term, "evolution science," let me, nonetheless, direct

275.

1 Q (Continuing) your attention to the definition of

2 evolution science in the Statute.

3 Looking first at Section 4(b)(1), what is your

4 professional assessment of 4(b)(1) as a scientific

5 statement?

6 A "Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe

7 from disordered matter and emergence of life from non-life."

8 Well, the word "emergence," I think, is not one that

9 scientists would readily use. But taken as it stands like

10 that, I think it's at least potentially a scientific

11 statement.

12 Q Does 4(b)(1) reflect an accurate description about

13 scientific learning about the origins of the universe and

14 the origins of life on this planet?

15 A It certainly doesn't represent the consensus. In

16 fact, there's quite a debate going on at the moment about

17 where life came from originally on this earth.

18 Certainly, I think a substantial body. of scientists

19 would think that it developed naturally on this earth from

20 inorganic matter.

21 Q Doctor Ruse, is the study of origins of the universe

22 and the study of origins of life on this planet the same

23 discipline in science?

24 A No, I would have said not. In fact, evolutionary

25 theory takes, as it were, like Mrs. Beeton's Cookbook, it

276.

1 A (Continuing) take the organism or the initial

2 organisms given and t hen starts from there.

3 For example, The Origin of Species is very careful. it

4 never mentions about where life comes from. And I think

5 this has been a tradition of evolutionists. I mean,

6 obviously, evolutionists are going to be interested in the

7 topic, and today certainly textbooks will probably mention

8 it. But it's not part of the evolutionary theory proper.

9 Q What is your professional assessment of 4(b)(2)?

10 A "The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection

11 in bringing about development of present living kinds from

12 simple earlier kinds."

13 Well, it's potentially a scientific statement. I don't

14 thing that anybody has ever believed this.

15 Q That mutation and natural selection are sufficient?

16 A No. Charles Darwin didn't and today's evolutionists

17 would certainly want to put in other causes as well.

18 Q How does that provision in 4(b)(2) relate to the

19 provision in 4(a)(2)?

20 A "The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection

21 in bringing about development of all living kinds from a

22 single organism."

23 Well, in fact I think one would. find that most

24 evolutionists would feel more comfortable with 4(a)(2)

25 except I'm not sure they would want to, say it all came

277.

1 A (Continuing) from a single organism.

2 In other words,. we've got sort of a paradoxical

3 situation here where I think the evolutionists would be

4 somewhat happier with part of 4(a) rather than 4(b).

5 Q Do you understand the meaning of Section 4(b)(3)?

6 A "Emergence by mutation and natural selection of

7 present living kinds from simple earlier kinds."

8 Well, I take it this mean this is what actually

9 occurred. I take it, it means it occurred by naturalistic

10 processes since we are comparing it with 4(a)(3), which

11 talks of originally created kinds.

12 With the proviso that the word "kind" is a bit of a,

13 what shall I say, mushy word. Yes, I think that is

14 something I understand.

15 Q Again referring to 4(a)(3), what does changes only

16 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

17 and animals mean?

18 A Obviously, on the one hand, one is making reference

19 to sort of supernatural causes starting everything. But

20 on the other hand, I see 4(a)(3) as an ad hoc device which

21 creationists have had to think up to get away from some of

22 the obvious indisputable cases of evolution that

23 evolutionists in the last hundred years have come across.

24 I mean, since Darwin, evolutionists have been working

25 hard to find places where they can say, "Look, here is

278.

1 A (Continuing) something that actually did evolve

2 from one form to another," and they came up with some

3 examples.

4 Now, the scientific creationists can't get away from

5 this fact. And so, as I see it, what they've done is

6 they've sort of hurriedly, or not so hurriedly, added ad

7 hoc hypotheses to get around these sorts of problems.

8 For example, and probably the most famous case is of the

9 evolution of moths in England. England, as I'm sure

10 everybody knows, has gotten a lot dirtier in the last

11 hundred years because of the industrial revolution.

12 And a number of species of moths have gotten darker and

13 darker over the years.

14 Q Excuse me, Doctor Ruse. You are making reference to

15 a picture in what book?

16 A It's a Scientific American book called Evolution.

17 It first appeared as an issue of Scientific American, I

18 think, in September of '78.

19 Q What page are you referring to?

20 A I'm looking at page— Well, they don't put a page

21 number on it. It's two pages after 114. It's opposite an

22 article called "Adaptation" by Richard Lewontin.

23 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I intend to use this

24 reference solely for purposes of explaining the witness'

25 testimony. I believe that's appropriate under the rules.

279.

1 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

2 MR. NOVIK: And I have no interest in admitting it

3 into evidence unless Mr. Williams would like to admit it.

4 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

5 Q Please proceed.

6 A Here is a classic case of evolution actually being

7 seen going on. If we look down at the bottom, we see that

8 there are two moths. You have to look rather hard to see

9 one of them.

10 And this, the model form was the standard original kind

11 of this particular sort of moth. And the main predator is

12 the robins who sort of fly along and eat the moths. And

13 obviously, they see the dark forms very easily, and so

14 they pick them off.

15 However, over the last hundred years or so because of

16 the industrial revolution, parts of England has gotten a

17 lot dirtier around Birmingham and these sort of places.

18 So consequently, the trees have sort of changed from the

19 bottom form up to looking much more like the top form.

20 And what has happened is that the moths have evolved

21 along with the change in the trees, so that now what

22 happens — and there is experimental evidence to show this

23 — robins are much more likely to pick off the original

24 model forms.

25 Here we have got a beautiful case of evolution in

280.

1 A (Continuing) action, natural selection working.

2 Scientists and biologists have studied it time and again.

3 They found that it happens with other species of moths, so

4 on and so forth.

5 It's evolution that you just can't get away from.

6 Q How did the creation scientists deal with this

7 question of evolution?

8 A Well, what they do is they try to run around it.

9 They introduce, as I said, ad hoc hypotheses saying, "Oh,

10 well, we're not against all forms of evolution. In fact,

11 we ourselves admit a certain amount of evolution. It's

12 just only evolution within fixed kinds."

13 "In other words, we admit to evolution that

14 evolutionists have found. That's just not enough."

15 Q In terms of the philosophy of science, what is the

16 significance of the contrast between the unrestrained

17 evolutionary change identified in 4(b)(3) and accepted by

18 most scientists, and the evolutionary changes only within

19 fixed limits of created kinds referred to in 4(a)(3)?

20 A Well, I would want to say this means that

21 evolutionary theory is, lays itself open to falsification

22 in a way and testing in a way that so-called creation

23 science doesn't, and that it leads to a certain sort, of

24 fertility.

25 One expects to see evolution occurring and having

281.

1 A (Continuing) occurred so very much more generally.

2 And this, of course, is the sort of thing one expects of a

3 Science.

4 Q In your reading of the creation science literature,

5 have you found any explanation, scientific explanation

6 from the creation scientists as to why evolution should

7 stop at the limit of a kind?

8 A Not really, no.

9 Q Doctor Ruse, let me direct your attention to Section

10 4(b)(4) and ask your professional assessment of that

11 section?

12 A Well, emergence, I guess one would say, that man and

13 apes— Emergence of man from a common ancestor with

14 apes. I think that evolutionists would certainly want to

15 agree that man and woman, too, come from common ancestors

16 with gorillas, orangutans.

17 Of course, nobody has ever wanted to claim that we come

18 from a common ancestors of apes or monkeys which are

19 living today.

20 Q How does that relate to 4(a)(4)?

21 A Well, again, separate ancestry for man and apes,

22 which, again, is something which is very important within

23 the scientific creationist literature, is something which

24 is, what can I say, again shows some sort of special

25 consideration for man and certainly puts in mind that the

282.

1 A (Continuing) Creator had some sort of special place

2 for man in mind when he set about doing his job.

3 Q Doctor Ruse, looking at Sections 4(a)(5) and

4 4(b)(5), do you understand the use of the words "catastro-

5 phism" and "uniformitarianism" as used in the Statute?

6 A Not really.

7 Q What is your understanding, then, of how uniformi-

8 tarianism is used in the creation science literature?

9 A Well, I think they, confuse issues. What they say

10 uniformitarianism is, is causes of the same kind and the

11 same intensity interacting today have been responsible for

12 the gradual development of the earth up to its present

13 form.

14 Q Is that something that scientists agree on today?

15 A Certainly not. Scientists today certainly think

16 that in the earth's past there were all sorts of events

17 which occurred which are not of the kind which occur today.

18 Q Were they, nonetheless, a junction of the same

19 operation of natural law?

20 A Yes. Of course, this is the trouble. What one's

21 got is just sort of conflation, I think, in the scientific

22 creationist literature between two possible senses of

23 uniformitarianism.

24 And if by uniformitarianism, you mean exactly the same

25 laws and the same kinds of causes, like the law of

283.

1 A (Continuing) gravity, then I don't think any

2 scientist — well, I know that no scientist, no geologist

3 is going to deny that.

4 But then on the other hand, if you want to mean by

5 uniformitarianism, not only the same causes, same laws,

6 but always acting in the same intensity, the same amount

7 of rain, the same amount of frost, then certainly

8 scientists today don't accept this.

9 Q How do you interpret catastrophism in 4(a)(5)?

10 A "Explanation of the earth's geology by

11 catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide

12 flood

13 Well, my understanding is that what we've got is some

14 sort of special divine intervention at this point bringing

15 about major upheavals of one sort or another.

16 Q Doctor Ruse, do you find much reference to the words

17 "uniformitarianism" and "catastrophism" in the creation

18 science literature?

19 A Oh, yes.

20 Q What is your professional opinion about the

21 significance of the worldwide flood contention as it

22 relates to creation science?

23 A Well, it certainly puts— I mean, again, this is

24 something which comes up again and again in the creation

25 science literature. And it's obviously to be identified

with Noah's flood. I mean, Genesis Flood, for example, is

284.

1 A (Continuing) quite explicit on this.

2 By Genesis Flood, I'm referring to one of the creation

3 science books.

4 Q Who is the author?

5 A Whitcomb and Morris. I think it was published in

6 1961.

7 Q Doctor Ruse, what is the relationship between a

8 worldwide flood and the subject of origins, which, after

9 all, purport to be the subject of this statute?

10 A Well, I don't think there is any relationship. I

11 think it's something which is being tacked on to, as it

12 were, added on to Genesis. I mean, if you're going to

13 talk about worldwide floods, why not talk about the

14 Chicago fire.

15 Q Finally, Doctor Ruse, do you have any professional

16 observation with respect to Subsection 6 of 4(b)?

17 A Yes. I'd say that an inception several billion

18 years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life, I think

19 that evolutionists would accept this.

20 Q And how does that relate to 4(a)(6)?

21 A Well, a relatively recent inception of the earth and

22 living kinds, again, this is the position which is taken

23 in the scientific Creationist literature.

24 No actual times are given here. I mean, I take it, it

25 could be anything from five million years ago to about a

285.

1 A (Continuing) week last Thursday. But certainly we

2 think it would be interpreted in this way, along with the

3 scientific creationist literature that what we are talking

4 about is six, ten thousand years ago. The sort of Genesis

5 scale that we heard about yesterday.

6 Q Do you find that theory of a young earth in the

7 creation science literature?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Do you find that theory of a young earth any place

10 other than in the creation science literature?

11 A No.

12 Q Doctor Ruse, does a creation theory necessarily

13 require a young earth?

14 A I wouldn't have thought so, no. I would have

15 thought that one could have a relatively old earth and

16 still have some sort of creation theory.

17 Q Doctor Ruse, you also testified that another

18 similarity between the Statute and the body of creation

19 science literature is the reliance on a two model approach

20 to the teaching of origins?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Would you please describe what you meant by that?

23 A Well, what `I mean by this is that everything is

24 being polarized in the Act. And this polarization is

25 something which is very distinctive of the scientific

286.

1 A (Continuing) creationist literature. You've got to

2 be either one or the other.

3 And as I see matters, truly, and if you look at what

4 evolutionists and other scientists are saying is, they are

5 saying, "Well, no, there could be other options." One

6 doesn't have to say, "Well, it must be one or it must be

7 the other." There are all sorts of possibilities.

8 Q Doctor Ruse, the Act 590 does not use the words

9 "dual model approach." Where do you see references to

10 this so-called dual model approach that you've identified

11 in the creation science literature?

12 A Well, just as a point of order, Mr. Novik, on page

13 one I see "balanced treatment of these two models." So, I

14 mean, I think we are getting very close to a talk of dual is

15 models.

16 But of course, dual model approach is something which is

17 adopted time and again in scientific creationist

18 literature. I mean, for example, once again referring to

19 Morris' book, the two models are set out quite

20 explicitly side by side, and they look very much like

21 4(a) and 4(b).

22 Q Have you encountered this so-called dual model

23 approach to teaching science any place other than the

24 creation science literature?

25 A No.

287.

1 Q Doctor Ruse, as a philosopher of science, what is

2 your professional opinion about the logic of the dual

3 model approach by which disproof of evolution is offered

4 as proof of creation?

5 A Well, it seems to me sort of fallacious because what

6 one is saying is you've got two alternatives and they are

7 contradictious.

8 And as I understand the true situation, what one's got

9 is several options. Not all of them could be true, but at

10 least one's got more than just two options.

11 Q Can you give an example of a particular discipline

12 of science which the creationists set up as a dual model,

13 but, in fact, you see more than two theories at work?

14 A Yes. Well, if you look, for example, at 4(b)(1),

15 "emergency by naturalistic processes of the universe from

16 disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife,"

17 well, if one's going to talk about this, in fact, there

18 are all sorts of hypotheses. I mean, there's several-

19 Q Excuse me. Are you referring to the "origin of the

20 universe or to the origin of life?

21 A I'm sorry. I'm talking specifically about the

22 origin of life here on earth, which certainly seems to be

23 included under 4(b)(l).

24 And there are all sorts of hypotheses being floated

25 around at the moment. I mean, on the one hand you've got

288.

1 A (Continuing) people who believe some sort of, form

2 of, and by Genesis that life is created or life was

3 produced by natural law gradually from inorganic matter

4 here on earth. And there's certainly several hypotheses

5 about how this might have happened.

6 Then, again, for example, just recently Francis Crick,

7 Nobel prize winner of Watson-Crick fame, has suggested

8 that maybe life here on earth was seeded by intelligent

9 beings from outer space.

10 Then, again, another idea coming out of England, Sir

11 Fred Hoyle, and a colleague of his, Wickramasinghe, who I

12 think is one of the defendants' witnesses, they suggested

13 that possibly life came here on earth because we were

14 somehow passed through some sort of comet or some comet

15 passed close to us which carried life.

16 So, what I'm saying is that there are three, four, five

17 hypotheses being floated around at the moment as to how

18 life started here on earth.

19 And as I see it, this 4(a), 4(b) is sort of locking us

20 into saying that it is just one.

21 Q Does the two model approach take into account these

22 various theories of how life began?

23 A No. I think it sort of, what shall I say, pushes

24 them all together. They are very different.

25 Q And as a philosopher of science, focusing

289.

1 Q (Continuing) specifically on this issue of the

2 origins of life, what do you think about, what is your

3 professional opinion about the logic of doing that?

4 A I think it's fallacious.

5 Q Now, we've been using The Origins of Life as an

6 example. Does creation science, as you know it in the

7 literature, apply the same two model approach to every

8 other aspect of the issues raised in its model?

9 A Yes, I think it does. Yes. For example, I was

10 thinking of some aptitude towards geology. Either you've

11 got to be a uniformitarian, whatever that means, or you've

12 got to be a catastrophist.

13 And I think that geologist today would certainly want to

14 sort out a lot of different options here.

15 Q Doctor Ruse, having examined the creationist

16 literature at great length, do you have a professional

17 opinion about whether creation science measures up to the

18 standards and characteristics of science that you have

19 previously identified in your testimony here today?

20 A Yes, I do.

21 Q What is that opinion?

22 A I don't think it does.

23 Q Does creation science rely on natural law which you

24 identified as the first characteristic of science?

25 A It does not. It evokes miracles.

290.

1 Q Would you explain that a bit?

2 A Well, by reading the creation science and having

3 thought about specific examples, if you want me to, is

4 that creation scientists quite openly and frequently talk

5 of supernatural interventions or processes lying outside

6 natural law.

7 Again, this goes back to something which was being

8 talked about yesterday. Nobody is saying that religion is

9 false. The point is it's not science.

10 Q Are there any examples in the creation science

11 literature that you've read that creation science does not

12 rely on natural law?

13 A Yes, there are.

14 Q Do you know of any such examples?

15 A Yes. I can give you some examples.

16 Q Could you give us one?

17 A Yes. For example, Doctor Gish's book, Evolution:

18 The Fossils Say No, states this quite explicitly.

19 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, this book identified by the

20 witness as being produced by the plaintiffs as plaintiffs,

21 exhibit 78 for identification, certain portions of that

22 book have been extracted and introduced for identification.

23 I believe Doctor Ruse is going to refer to a page that

24 has been already produced.

25 THE COURT: All right, sir.

291.

1 A Mr. Novik, before I begin, perhaps I might note that

2 since this book was discussed yesterday that this edition

3 we are dealing with here states quite explicitly on the

4 front page that it's the public school edition, and there

5 are no disclaimers on the inside cover.

6 Okay. I'm turning now to page 40 of Evolution: The

7 Fossils Say No by Doctor Duane Gish. And this was

8 published in 1978, or at least this edition. I think it

9 came out earlier.

10 And I quote: "By creation, we mean the bringing into

11 being by a supernatural Creator — That's a capital C, by

12 the way — of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the

13 process of sudden, or fiat, creation.

14 "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes

15 He used, for," and this is all now in italics, "He used

16 processes which are not now operating anywhere in the

17 natural universe," end italics. "This is why we refer to

18 creation as special creation. We cannot discover by

19 scientific investigations anything about the creative

20 processes used by the Creator."

21 I don't think you can get much more blatant than that.

22 Q As a philosopher of science, what do you make of

23 that statement?

24 A Well, it's certainly not science.

25 Q Doctor Ruse, with respect to the second

292.

1 Q (Continuing) characteristic of science that you

2 mentioned earlier, the matter of explanation, do you think

3 that creation science is explanatory?

4 A No, I don't because I think that as soon as anything

5 comes up, they evoke all sorts of ad hoc hypotheses, which

6 are naturally explanatory.

7 To give you an example which has a nice historical

8 connotation, there is a widespread phenomenon in the

9 organic world known as homology. That's to say, the sort

10 of structural similarities that you find, say, for

11 example, between the bones of animals of different species.

12 The bones of the human arm, for example, are very

13 similar to the bones of the horse, the foreleg of the

14 horse, the wing of the bat, the flipper of the porpoise

15 and all these sorts of things.

16 Now, these are real problems for creationists because

17 they are used for different functions and yet, why should

18 you have these similarities.

19 What creationists say, and incidentally, this is

20 something that people used to say before Darwinism, "Oh,

21 well, if you don't find any homologies, then God was just

22 working His purpose out. If you do find homologies, then,

23 well, God would have a special plan in mind."

24 I mean, in other words, it doesn't matter what comes up,

25 you know, we've got an explanation. And something which

293.

1 A (Continuing) can explain anything is certainly no

2 true scientific explanation at all.

3 Q But isn't the creation science theory explanatory in

4 some sense? For example, the eye has to be admitted to be

5 a remarkable organ. Creation science would say it was

6 made by the Creator. Isn't that an explanation?

7 A Well, it's an explanation, but it's not a scientific

8 explanation because you are evoking a creator, you are not

9 doing it through natural law. And basically, you are not

10 saying, for example, why one eye is one way, another eye

11 is another way or particular features of the eye, per se.

12 Q Doctor Ruse, do you think that creation science is

13 testable?

14 A Not really genuinely testable, I wouldn't say.

15 Q Could you explain that?

16 A Again, this goes back to some of the points we've

17 been making. Every time one comes up with any kind of

18 evidence, the creation scientists, as I see it, sort of

19 wriggle around it.

20 One comes up with the case, for example, of the moth

21 saying, "Oh, no, this is not something which counts

22 against us." One comes up with fossil record, "Oh, no,

23 this is not something which counts against us."

24 Everything and nothing—

25

294.

1 Q Is creation science falsifiable?

2 A No.

3 I'm sorry. As I was saying, there's basically nothing

4 one can think of that creation scientists couldn't fit

5 in. And I'll go even further than this, the creation

6 scientists themselves are quite explicit about this in

7 their writings.

8 They state time and again that, "Look folks, we start

9 with the Bible, this is our framework. If it doesn't fit

10 in, then we are not going to accept it."

11 Q And do you have any examples of that?

12 A Yes. I think I could give you some examples of that.

13 Q And what is that specific example?

14 A Well, one thing is the oath or the pledge that one

15 has to sign or accept if one's going to become a member of

16 the Creation Research Society, which is, I think, a

17 society out in California, founded in California for

18 creation scientists with masters or other degrees.

19 And it states quite explicitly in that—

20 Q Excuse me. Do you have a copy of that oath?

21 A Yes, I do. Do you want me to read some of this?

22 THE COURT: Is that different from the oath that was

23 read yesterday?

24 MR. NOVIK: No, it's not, your Honor. I'm not going

25 to have him read it.

295.

1 THE COURT: You don't need to read it again for me.

2 I heard it yesterday.

3 MR. NOVIK: Yes, sir.

4 A Also, if you look in the literature itself, you find

5 explicitly time and again stated that one must follow the

6 limits set by the Bible.

7 Q Doctor Ruse, does this also bear on whether creation

8 science is tentative?

9 A Yes. Well, as I said earlier on, I mean, these are

10 all really very much a package deal, these various

11 features we are talking about.

12 And it's obviously the case that nothing is going to

13 shake the position of creation scientists about their

14 fundamental claims.

15 Q Do you have an example in the creation science

16 literature of creation science not being tentative?

17 A Yes. In, I think it's Kofahl and Segraves' The

18 Creation Explanation there is several cases.

19 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, the book, The Creation

20 Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution,

21 written by Kofahl and Segraves has been identified as an

22 exhibit for identification, number 87.

23 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

24 Q Doctor Ruse, would you identify for us the portion

25 of the book you are referring to?

296.

1 A Yes. Referring to the book, The Creation

2 Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution, on

3 page 40 we find the following statement: "Ultimate

4 historical evidence always involves human eyewitness

5 testimony or documents left by eyewitnesses, but no such

6 testimony or documents are available for the early history

7 of the earth."

8 "One document, however, purports to give authoritative

9 testimony about the early earth from a Person — Capital

10 P, Person — who was present. This document is the Bible,

11 and its contents are to be classified not as scientific

12 evidence but as divine revelation. Such revelation is

13 either accepted by faith or rejected. Christians by faith

14 accept the biblical revelation in all of its details,

15 including its reports of early earth history. Thus the

16 Christian student of origins approaches the evidence from

17 geology and paleontology with the biblical record in mind,

18 interpreting that evidence in accord with the facts

19 divinely revealed in the Bible."

20 That is not tentative and that is not science.

21 Q Doctor Ruse, do you find that creation science

22 measures up to the methodological considerations you

23 described earlier as significant in distinguishing

24 scientific from nonscientific endeavors?

25 A No. My feeling is that really it doesn't. I think

297.

1 A (Continuing) that, for example, they play all sorts

2 of slights of hand; they quote all sorts of eminent

3 evolutionists out of context, implying that evolutionists

4 are not saying quite what they are saying, implying they

5 are saying other sorts of things.

6 In other words, what I'm saying is, I think that the

7 creation scientists do all sorts of things that I teach my

8 students in introductory logic not to do.

9 Q With respect to the quotation out of context, do you

10 have an example of that?

11 A Yes. For example, if we look at Parker — this is

12 the recent book—

13 MR. NOVIK: Excuse me, Doctor Ruse.

14 Your Honor, the witness is referring to a book by Gary

15 Parker entitled Creation: The Facts of Life. It has

16 previously been marked for identification as exhibit 84.

17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

18 Q Would you identify the page you are referring to?

19 A Yes. I'm looking now at page 144.

20 And incidentally, what we're talking about and what

21 Parker is going to be referring to is the article by

22 Lewontin, your Honor, which is in the book you've already

23 got upon your desk, Evolution, and it's the page exactly

24 opposite the picture of the moths.

25 And what I'm suggesting is that Parker takes Lewontin

298.

1 A (Continuing) right out of context. It certainly

2 leaves the impression that Lewontin is saying something

3 other than what he's really saying.

4 Q The Lewontin article is on what page?

5 A It's page 115. 1 don't think it's numbered.

6 Just as a little background, Lewontin is not an eminent

7 evolutionist, but he states quite categorically on that

8 page that he is, that he accepts the evolutionary theory.

9 If you look at the final column there half way down,

10 beginning at the paragraph, Lewontin talks about the

11 modern view of adaptation is the external world has

12 certain problems and so on and so forth.

13 Q You were going to identify an out of context

14 quotation?

15 A Yes. Now, what Parker says, and I quote, is: "Then

16 there's 'the marvelous fit of organisms to the

17 environment,' the special adaptations of cleaner fish,

18 woodpeckers, bombardier beetles, etc., etc., — what

19 Darwin called `Difficulties with the Theory,' and what

20 Harvard's Lewontin (1978) called 'the chief evidence of a

21 Supreme Designer.'"

22 The quote is "the chief evidence of a Supreme

23 Designer." In fact, if you look at the original, you will

24 see that this actual passage occurs in the second column.

25 And what Lewontin is saying in the old days before we

299.

1 A (Continuing) taught Darwin, people believed that

2 adaptation was the evidence of a designer.

3 The first paragraph, "It was the marvelous fit of

4 organisms to the environment much more than the diversity

5 of forms." That was the chief evidence of a Supreme

6 Designer.

7 Q So Lewontin was referring to the belief in a Supreme

8 Designer prior to Darwin?

9 A Certainly.

10 Q And it's quoted in Parker as if he believed

11 presently in the evidences of a designer?

12 A That's right.

13 Personally, that strikes me as a rather sleazy practice.

14 Q Doctor Ruse, you also mentioned honesty as a methodo-

15 logical type attribute of science. Do you believe that

16 creation science approaches its subject honestly?

17 A I really don't. I think that one gets all sorts of—

18 THE COURT: Who wrote the Creation book?

19 A This is Creation: The Facts of Life by Gary E.

20 Parker.

21 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

22 Q Doctor Ruse, do you believe that creation science

23 approaches its subject honestly?

24 A No, I don't.

25 Q Would you explain that, please?