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
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
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
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
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.