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.