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?