467.
1 A Fair enough.
2 Q You have been active, of late, have you not, in
3 trying to formulate a resolution against creation science
4 in one of the professional societies to which you belong?
5 A That's true. The American Geophysical Union.
6 Q How do you go about writing that? Did you just sit
7 down and try to write something yourself?
8 A No. I requested from Bill Mayer copies of the
9 resolutions holding the teaching of creation science as
10 science in the classroom last March, so that I could see
11 the general form and tone of resolutions that had already
12 been passed by other principal scientific societies,
13 including the National Academy of Sciences. He sent me, I
14 believe, copies of about eight or nine.
15 And after reading through those, I drafted a proposal
16 which was sent around to members of the Council of the
17 American Geophysical Union. That proposal was discussed,
18 the resolution was modified, and a much abbreviated
19 resolution was adopted Sunday night.
20 Q I think you stated earlier that you reviewed quite a
21 bit of creation-science literature in preparation for your
22 testimony in this case and also a case in California, is
23 that correct?
24 A Yes. I think I've read either in whole or in part
25 about two dozen books and articles.
468.
1 Q But on the list of books that you made or articles
2 that you have reviewed, you did not include any of Robert
3 Gentry's work as having been reviewed, did you?
4 A That's right. I did not.
5 Q Although you consider Gentry to be a creation
6 scientist?
7 A Well, yes. But, you know, the scientific literature
8 and even the creation science literature, which I do not
9 consider scientific literature - It's outside the
10 traditional literature - there is an enormously complex
11 business. There is a lot of it. And we can't review it
12 all.
13 Every time I review even a short paper, it takes me
14 several hours to read it, I have to think about the logic
15 involved in the data, I have to reread it several times to
16 be sure I understand what the author has said; I have to
17 go back through the author's references and sometimes read
18 as many as twenty or thirty papers that the author has
19 referenced to find out whether what has been referenced is
20 true or makes any sense; I have to check the calculations
21 to find out if they are correct. It's an enormous job.
22 And given the limited amount of time that I have to put in
23 on this, reviewing the creation science literature is not
24 a terribly productive thing for a scientist to do.
25 Q How many articles or books have you reviewed,
469.
1 Q (Continuing) approximately?
2 A You mean in creation science literature?
3 Q Creation science literature.
4 A I think it was approximately twenty-four or
5 twenty-five, something like that, as best I can remember.
6 I gave you a complete list, which is as accurate as I can
7 recall.
8 Q And if there were articles in the open scientific
9 literature - Excuse me - in referee journals which
10 supported the creation science model, would that not be
11 something you would want to look at in trying to review
12 the creation science literature?
13 A Yes, and I did look at a number of those. And I
14 still found no evidence.
15 Q But you didn't look at any from Mr. Gentry?
16 A No, I did not. That's one I didn't get around to.
17 There's quite a few others I haven't gotten around to. I
18 probably never will look into all the creationists
19 literature.
20 I can't even look into all the legitimate scientific
21 literature. But I can go so far as to say that every case
22 that I have looked into in detail has had very, very
23 serious flaws. And I think I've looked at a
24 representative sample.
25 And also in Gentry's work, he's proposed a very tiny
470.
1 A (Continuing) mystery which is balanced on the other
2 side by an enormous amount of evidence. And I think it's
3 important to know what the answer to that little mystery
4 is. But I don't think you can take one little fact for
5 which we now have no answer, and try to balance, say that
6 equals a preponderance of evidence on the other side.
7 That's just not quite the way the scales tip.
8 Q If that tiny mystery, at least by one authority who
9 you acknowledge his authority, has been said, if correct,
10 call to question the entire science of geochronology.
11 A Well, that's what Damon said. And I also said that
12 I did not agree with Paul Damon in that statement. I
13 think that's an overstatement of the case by a long way.
14 I think that Paul in that case was engaging in rhetoric.
15 Q What is your personal belief as to the existence of
16 a God?
17 A Well, I consider my religion a highly personal
18 matter, and I've never required personally anything other
19 than explaining the world we see around us by natural
20 events. But I try to remain rather open minded on the
21 subject.
22 So I guess at best I can tell you that I have not come
23 to any firm conclusion that I am not willing to change in
24 the future.
25 Q Did you not tell me during your deposition that you
471.
1 Q (Continuing) would be something between an agnostic
2 and an atheist; is that correct?
3 A No. I said about halfway between an agnostic and an
4 atheist. But the reason I said that was because you were
5 trying to get me to label myself. And I think I also said
6 that I do not label myself. But you were insistent that I
7 give you some answer on that scale, and I'm afraid that's
8 the best I can do. I'm not happy with that answer, but I
9 simply can't do any better.
10 Q But you also stated, did you not, that you had not
11 seen any proof of a God?
12 A I think I did say that. Yes.
13 Q Nonetheless, you would agree that a religious person
14 can be a competent scientist?
15 A Absolutely, and I know a number of them.
16 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions, Your Honor.
17
18
19 BY MR. ENNIS:
20 Q Doctor Dalrymple, Mr. Williams asked you about a
21 resolution of the American Geophysical Union. What is the
22 American Geophysical Union?
23 A The American Geophysical Union is the largest
24 society of physicists- Well, let me take that back. I
25 think it's one of the largest societies of geophysicists
472.
1 A (Continuing) in North America. The American
2 Society for Exploration of Geophysicists may be larger.
3 I'm not sure.
4 It consists of a variety of sections that include
5 scientists working on geochemistry, seismology, petrology,
6 hydrology, planetology, astronomy, meteorology, upper
7 atmosphere physics, and so forth. Anything to do with the
8 physics and chemistry of the earth is included in the
9 American Geophysical Union.
10 Q Mr. Williams brought out on his cross examination
11 that you had worked on a proposed resolution to be
12 considered by the American Geophysical Union on this
13 subject, is that correct?
14 A Yes, I have.
15 Q And he brought out that in the course of working on
16 that resolution, you asked to see if other scientific
17 organizations had adopted resolutions on teaching of
18 creation science in public schools?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q What other resolutions did you obtain from which
21 other organizations?
22 A Well, I'm not sure I can remember them all. They
23 were mostly biological societies. There was the National
24 Association of Biology Teachers, there was the National
25 Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the
473.
1 A (Continuing) Advancement of Sciences has a
2 resolution, and there were five or six others whose names
3 I don't remember at the moment. They are all included
4 in the material I think I gave to Mr. Williams.
5 Q These are other scientific organizations that have
6 adopted resolutions opposing the teaching of creation
7 science in public schools?
8 A Yes. They have opposed the teaching of creation
9 science as science. I want to e very specific about
10 that. Most organizations are not opposed to teaching it
11 as a part of a social science curriculum.
12 Q Do you have the power or authority by yourself to
13 issue a resolution on behalf of the American Geophysical
14 Union?
15 A No, of course not. I can only submit one to the
16 Council for approval.
17 Q And you testified during cross examination that on
18 December 6th the Council of the American Geophysical Union
19 did, in fact, adopt a resolution, is that correct?
20 A Yes. It was Sunday night, if that was December 6th.
21 Q I'd like to show you a document and ask you if that
22 document reflects the resolution adopted by the American
23 Geophysical Union?
24 A Yes, that is the resolution.
25 Q Could you please read it for the record?
474.
1 A Yes, I will. It's preceded by the following
2 statement. It says: "The final resolution was passed
3 unanimously by the Council of the American Geophysical
4 Union on Sunday, December 6, 1981."
5 Then the resolution reads as follows: "The Council of
6 the American Geophysical Union notes with concern the
7 the continuing efforts by creationists for administrative,
8 legislative, and political action designed to require the
9 teaching of creationism as a scientific theory.
10 "The American Geophysical Union is opposed to all
11 efforts to require the teaching of creationism or any
12 other religious tenets as science."
13 That's the end of the resolution.
14 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I would like to move that
15 that resolution be received in evidence as a plaintiffs'
16 exhibit.
17 THE COURT: It will be received.
18 MR. ENNIS: Do we know which number it will be
19 assigned?
20 THE COURT: I don't.
21 MR. ENNIS: We'll take care of that detail later.
22 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)
23 Q Doctor Gentry, Mr. Williams asked you some
24 questions-
25 A Doctor who?
475.
1 Q Doctor Dalrymple. Mr. Williams asked you some
2 questions about Mr. Gentry's hypothesis. Are you familiar
3 with that hypothesis?
4 A Well, I'm familiar with it if it is accurately
5 represented in the exchange of letters published in EOS
6 between Mr. Gentry and Doctor Damon.
7 Q Does Mr. Gentry's hypothesis depend upon
8 supernatural causes?
9 A Yes, it does.
10 Q Could you explain, please?
11 A Well, I think it might be best explained if I could
12 simply read his two statements from his letter, and then I
13 won't misquote him, if that would be permissible.
14 Q Do you have that with you?
15 A No, I don't, but it was supplied in the material
16 that I gave in my deposition.
17 MR. ENNIS: I have been informed that we can mark
18 the resolution of the American Geophysical Union as
19 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Twenty-eight.
20 THE COURT: It will be received.
21 A Yes, I have it now.
22 Q Doctor Dalrymple, would you please read from that
23 document, after describing what it is?
24 A Yes. It's just a couple of sentences. It's State's
25 Exhibit Number Nine, is the way it's marked. It's two
476.
1 A (Continuing) letters that appeared, actually three
2 letters that appeared in a column for that purpose in
3 EOS. EOS is the transactions of the American Geophysical
4 Union. It's a newsletter in which letters like this are
5 commonly exchanged.
6 It's Volume 60, Number 22; May 29, 1979, page 474. In
7 Mr. Gentry's response to Doctor Damon, he makes the
8 following statement: "And as far as a new comprehensive
9 theory is concerned, I would replace the once singularity
10 of the Big Bang with two major cosmos-related
11 singularities (in which I exclude any implications about
12 extraterrestrial life-related phenomena) derived from the
13 historic Judeo-Christian ethic, namely the events
14 associated with (1) the galaxies (including the Milky Way)
15 being Created ex nihilo by Fiat nearly 6 millennia ago and
16 (2) a later catastrophe which resulted in a solar
17 system-wide disturbance that was manifested on earth
18 primarily as a worldwide flood with subsequent crustal
19 adjustments."
20 And then he goes on.
21 Q During cross examination Mr. Williams asked you if
22 Mr. Gentry's argument or hypothesis could be falsified.
23 Has Mr. Gentry proposed a method for falsifying his
24 hypothesis?
25 A Yes, he has proposed a test and that is the one I
477.
1 A (Continuing) characterized as meaningless.
2 Q Why would it be meaningless?
3 A Let me first see if I can find a statement of the
4 test, and I will explain that. I have it now.
5 THE COURT: May I read what you quoted from the
6 newsletter before you go to that?
7 Okay, sir.
8 A The experiment that Doctor Gentry proposed-
9 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. As I
10 understand it, that's his conclusion. I still don't
11 understand what his theory is.
12 THE WITNESS: He has proposed that it is either a
13 theory or a hypothesis that he says can be falsified.
14 THE COURT: What's the basis for the proposal? How
15 does he come up with that?
16 THE WITNESS: Well, basically what he has found is
17 there is a series of radioactive haloes within minerals in
18 the rocks. Many minerals like mica include very tiny
19 particles of other minerals that are radioactive, little
20 crystals of zircon and things like that, that have a lot
21 of uranium in them.
22 And as the uranium decays, the alpha particles will not
23 decay, but travel outward through the mica. And they
24 cause radiation damage in the mica around the radioactive
25 particle. And the distance that those particles travel is
478.
1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) indicated by these
2 radioactive haloes. And that distance is related directly
3 to the energy of the decay. And from the energy of the
4 decay, it is thought that we can identify the isotopes.
5 That's the kind of work that Gentry has been doing.
6 And what he has found is that he has identified certain
7 haloes which he claims are from Polonium-218. Now,
8 Polonium-218 is one of the isotopes intermediate in the
9 decay chain between uranium and lead.
10 Uranium doesn't decay directly from lead. It goes
11 through a whole series of intermediate products, each of
12 which is radioactive and in turn decays.
13 Polonium-218 is derived in this occasion from Radon
14 222. And what he has found is that the Polonium haloes,
15 and this is what he claims to have found, are the
16 Polonium-2l8 haloes, but not Radon-222 haloes. And
17 therefore, he says that the Polonium could not have come
18 from the decay of Radium, therefore it could not have come
19 from the normal decay change.
20 And he says, how did it get there? And then he says
21 that the only way it could have gotten there unsupported
22 Radon-222 decay is to have been primordial Polonium,
23 that is Polonium that was created at the time the solar
24 system was created, or the universe.
25 Well, the problem with that is Polonium-2l8 has a
479.
1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) half-life of only about
2 three minutes, I believe it is. So that if you have a
3 granitic body, a rock that comes from the melt, that
4 contains this mica, and it cools down, it takes millions
5 of years for body like that to cool.
6 So that by the time the body cooled, all the Polonium
7 would have decayed, since it has an extremely short
8 half-life. Therefore, there would be no Polonium in the
9 body to cause the Polonium haloes.
10 So what he is saying, this is primordial Polonium;
11 therefore, the granite mass in which it occurs could not
12 have cooled slowly; therefore, it must have been created
13 by fiat, instantly.
14 And the experiment he has proposed to falsify this is
15 that he says he will accept this hypothesis as false when
16 somebody can synthesize a piece of granite in the
17 laboratory.
18 And I'm claiming that that would be a meaningless
19 experiment.
20 Does that- I know this is a rather complicated subject.
21 THE COURT: I am not sure I understand all of this
22 process. Obviously I don't understand all of this
23 process, but why don't you go ahead, Mr. Ennis?
24 MR. ENNIS: Yes, your Honor. Obviously, your Honor,
25 these subjects are somewhat complex, and if the Court has
480.
1 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing) additional questions, I'd hope
2 that the Court would feel free to ask the witness directly.
3 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)
4 Q Why, in your opinion, would the test proposed by Mr.
5 Gentry not falsify his hypothesis?
6 A Let me read specifically first what his proposal
7 is. He said, "I would consider my thesis essentially
8 falsified if and when geologists synthesize a hand-sized
9 specimen of a typical biotite barium granite and/or a
10 similar sized crystal of biotite."
11 And if I understand what he's saying there, he's saying
12 that since his proposal requires that granite form
13 rapidly, instantly, by instantaneous creation, that he
14 does not see any evidence that these granites, in fact,
15 cool slowly; his evidence said they cool rapidly. And he
16 would accept as evidence if somebody could synthesize a
17 piece of granite in the laboratory.
18 There are a couple of problems with that. In the first
19 place, we know that these granites did form slowly from a
20 liquid from the following evidence: These rocks contain
21 certain kinds of textures which are only found in rocks
22 that cool from a liquid. And we can observe that in two
23 ways, these textures. They are called igneous and
24 crystalline textures.
25 We can observe these textures by crystallizing compounds
481. Page is missing.
482.
1 A (Continuing) a liquid. There is no other way that
2 they could have formed.
3 The other problem with Gentry's proposal is that the
4 crystallization of granite is an enormously difficult
5 technical problem, and that's all it is. We can't
6 crystallize granite in the laboratory, and he's proposing
7 a hand-sized specimen. That's something like this, I
8 presume.
9 In the first place, the business of crystallizing rocks
10 at temperatures, most of them crystallize at temperatures
11 between seven hundred and twelve hundred degrees
12 centigrade. The temperatures are high. And in the case
13 of granites and metamorphic rocks, sometimes the pressures
14 are high, many kilobars. So it takes a rather elaborate,
15 sometimes dangerous apparatus to do this.
16 And the apparatus is of such a size that usually what we
17 have to crystallize is very tiny pieces. I don't know of
18 anyone who has developed an apparatus to crystallize
19 anything that's hand-sized.
20 So he's thrown down a challenge that's impossible at the
21 moment, within the limits of the present technical
22 knowledge.
23 The second thing is that the crystallization of granite,
24 the reason we have not been able to crystallize even a
25 tiny piece in the laboratory that I know if, unless there
483.
1 A (Continuing) has been a recent breakthrough, is
2 essentially an experimental one. It's a kinetic problem.
3 Anyone who has tried to grow crystals in a laboratory
4 knows that it's very difficult to do if you don't seed the
5 melt. That is, you have to start with some kind of a
6 little tiny crystal to begin with. And when the
7 semi-conductor industry, for example, grows crystals to
8 use in watches like this, they always have to start with a
9 little tiny seed crystal. And once you have that tiny
10 seed crystal, then you can get it to crystallize.
11 So it's basically a problem of getting the reaction to
12 go, it's a problem of nucleation, getting it started, and
13 it's a problem of kinetics, getting the reaction to go on
14 these viscous melts that are very hot under high pressure.
15 And what I'm saying is that even if we could crystallize
16 a piece of hand-sized granite in the laboratory, it would
17 prove nothing. All it would represent would be a
18 technical breakthrough. All of a sudden scientists would
19 be able to perform experiments that we cannot now perform.
20 But in terms of throwing down a challenge to the age of
21 the earth, that's a meaningless experiment. So he's
22 thrown down a challenge that has no meaning, hand-sized
23 crystallized granite. And he's saying, `If you don't meet
24 it, then I won't accept your evidence.' Well, it's a
25 meaningless challenge. It's not an experiment.
484.
1 Q Doctor Dalrymple, if I understand correctly,
2 Polonium-218 is the product of the radioactive decay of
3 Radon-222, is that correct?
4 A Yes, that's correct.
5 Q And does Polonium-218 occur through any other
6 process?
7 A Not as far as I know. I suspect you could make it
8 in a nuclear reactor, but I don't know that. I'm not
9 sure, but I don't think Polonium-2l8 is a product of any
10 other decay chain.
11 Q So if there were Polonium-218 in a rock which did
12 not have any previous Radon-222 in that rock, then that
13 existence of Polonium-218 would mean that the laws of
14 physics as you understand them would have had to have been
15 suspended for that Polonium to be there; is that correct?
16 A Well, if that were the case, it might or it might
17 not. But there are a couple of other possibilities. One
18 is that perhaps Gentry is mistaken about the halo. It may
19 not have been Polonium-218. The second one is that it's
20 possible that he's not been able to identify the Radon-222
21 halo. Maybe it's been erased, and maybe for reasons we
22 don't understand, it was never created.
23 This is why I say It's just a tiny mystery. We have
24 lots of these in science, little things that we can't
25 quite explain. But we don't throw those on the scale and
485.
1 A (continuing) claim that they outweigh everything
2 else. That's simply not a rational way to operate.
3 I would be very interested to know what the ultimate
4 solution to this problem is, and I suspect eventually
5 there will be a natural explanation found for it.
6 Q Does Mr. Gentry's data provide scientific evidence
7 from which you conclude that the earth is relatively young?
8 A Well, I certainly wouldn't reach that conclusion,
9 because that evidence has to be balanced by everything
10 else we know, and everything else we know tells us that
11 it's extremely old.
12 The other thing that I should mention, and I forgot to
13 make this in my previous point, if I could, and that is
14 that Mr. Gentry seems to be saying that the crystalline
15 rocks; the basic rocks, the old rocks of the contents were
16 forms instantaneously. And he uses granite.
17 But the thing that he seems to overlook is that not all
18 these old rocks are granites. In fact, there are lava
19 flows included in those old rocks, there are sediments
20 included in those old rocks. These sediments were
21 deposited in oceans, they were deposited in lakes. They
22 are even pre-Cambrian glacial deposits that tells that the
23 glaciers were on the earth a long, long time ago.
24 So it's impossible to characterize all of the old
25 crystalline rocks as being just granite. Granite is a
486.
1 A (Continuing) very special rock type, and it makes
2 up a rather small percentage of the pre-Cambrian or the
3 old crystalline rocks that formed before the continents.
4 MR. ENNIS: May I have one moment, your Honor?
5 THE COURT: Sure.
6 MR. ENNIS: No further questions, but I would like
7 to state for the record, I have now been informed that
8 Exhibit 28 was not an available number for exhibits, so if
9 we could remark the resolution of the American Geophysical
10 Union with the exhibit number 122 for plaintiffs. I
11 believe that is an available number.
12 THE COURT: Mr. Williams, do you have any more
13 questions?
14 MR. WILLIAMS: Briefly, your Honor.
15 May I approach the witness, your Honor?
16 THE COURT: Yes.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Inasmuch as the witness is quoting
18 from this letter, I would like to have it introduced into
19 evidence so that it can be read in the context, these two
20 pages from Forum EOS dated May 29, 1979. We could make
21 these Defendant's Exhibit 1.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MR. WILLIAMS: I'll have it marked.
24
25 BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q You state that the challenge which Mr. Gentry has
487.
1 Q (Continuing) issued, if I understand you, is
2 essentially impossible?
3 A It is presently impossible within our present
4 technical capability. There have been people working on
5 this, and I suspect someday we'll be able to do it.
6 Q Is it not true that you can take a pile of
7 sedimentary rocks and by applying heat and pressure just
8 simply convert that to something like a granite?
9 A Something like a granite, yes, that's true. But
10 it's something like a granite, but they have quite
11 different textures. When you do that, you now have a
12 metamorphic rock, and it has a different fabric, and it
13 has a different texture, which is quite distinct from a
14 igneous texture. They are very easily identified from
15 both a hand specimen and a microscope. Any third year
16 geology student could tell you if you handle a piece of
17 rock whether it's igneous or metamorphic. It's a very
18 simple problem.
19 Q But it is quite similar to a granite, but you just
20 can't quite get it to be a granite, can you?
21 A Well, granite sort of has two connotations. In the
22 first place, in the strict sense, granite is a composition
23 only. It's a composition of an igneous rock. Granite is
24 a word that we use for rock classification.
25 It is also used in a looser sense, and that looser sense
488.
1 A (Continuing) includes all igneous rocks that cool
2 deep within the earth. And they would include things like
3 quartz, diorite- I won't bother to tell you what those
4 are, but they are a range of composition.
5 Sometimes granite is used in that loose sense. People
6 say that the Sierra Nevada is composed primarily of
7 granite. Well, technically there is no granite in the
8 Sierra Nevada. They are slightly different compositions.
9 It is also used to describe the compositions of certain
10 types of metamorphic rocks. So you have to be a little
11 careful when you use the term `granite' and be sure that
12 we know exactly in what sense we are using that word.
13 Q Now, you stated that you think, in trying to explain
14 why Gentry's theory might not be correct or not that
15 important, you said that perhaps he misidentified some of
16 the haloes, and I think you also said that perhaps he had
17 mismeasured something, is that correct?
18 A Well, I think those were the same statement. I'm
19 just offering that as an alternative hypothesis.
20 Q Do you know that's what happened?
21 A Oh, no, no.
22 Q You have not made any of these studies and
23 determined that yourself, have you?
24 A No, no.
25 Q We've already had testimony in the record, Doctor
489.
1 Q (Continuing) Dalrymple, in this case yesterday from
2 another of plaintiffs' witnesses that science is not
3 concerned with where a theory comes from, a model comes
4 from, it's concerned with whether the data fit the
5 model. Would you agree with that?
6 A Well, I think that that sounds like a fair statement,
7 yes. If you mean by that that we don't really care who
8 proposes it. Is that- I'm not sure I understand the
9 sense of your question. That's the way I took it anyway.
10 Do you mean that is anyone eligible to propose something
11 like that and will it be considered?
12 Q Not just who proposes it, but the source from which
13 they get it or their motivation. Those aren't important.
14 The important thing is that the data fit what has been
15 proposed.
16 A Well, the motivation might be important. For
17 example, I think we went over this in the deposition a
18 little bit. You don't just simply propose a theory. What
19 you really propose is a hypothesis or something smaller in
20 scale. A theory only becomes accepted as a theory in the
21 scientific theory when there is a large amount of evidence
22 -- I would characterize it as a preponderance of evidence -
23 to support that theory.
24 That doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. At some
25 time in the future it may have to be modified. But we
490.
1 A (Continuing) don't just characterize any idea as a
2 theory. I think we start with something much less
3 tentative. And even a hypothesis is usually proposed to
4 explain some set of facts so that- One thing we're not
5 allowed to do in science is to let any kind of belief or
6 prejudice drive our hypotheses or theories. We're not
7 supposed to become personally involved in them.
8 And this is why I say that motivation might be
9 important. We are not out to prove our personal beliefs.
10 What we're out to do is seek the truth within the limited
11 framework within which science operates.
12 So that's why I say that motivation might be important.
13 If someone is out to prove something for their own
14 benefit, then their motivation might come into it.
15 Q If someone had proposed, for example, a theory or
16 hypothesis motivated by their own political ideology,
17 would you be concerned about that, as long as the data fit
18 the hypothesis or the theory?
19 A I think as long as the data, if it was proposed on a
20 reasonable basis, on the basis of existing data, then I
21 think in a case like that, that would be perfectly
22 acceptable. As long as the motivation was truly divorced
23 from the hypothesis, then I would have no problem with it.
24 Q By the way, you differentiated between a hypothesis
25 and a theory. Is it true that a hypothesis is something
491.
1 Q (Continuing) more tentative, in your mind, and a
2 theory is perhaps more established, and at some point a
3 theory becomes a fact?
4 A No, I don't put them together in quite that
5 difference, but I'll explain to you as best I can what my
6 notion of those terms are.
7 I think a fact — facts are data. That's the way I
8 consider facts. A fact is if we measured the length of
9 this box a number of times and determined that it's three
10 and a half feet long, then that becomes a relatively
11 indisputable fact.
12 There is a difference, in my mind, between a theory and
13 a hypothesis, both in scale and in the degree of proof
14 behind it. I think a hypothesis can be a relatively small
15 thing. We might again hypothesize that this box is three
16 and a half feet long, and we could test that hypothesis by
17 making measurements and find out whether that is true or
18 false. That could be a reasonable hypothesis.
19 Or it might be bigger. After it become rather firmly
20 established, after there is a lot of evidence for it, then
21 it is adopted as a theory. And I think if you look in
22 places like Webster's Dictionary, I think you will find
23 that there is a distinction made there in the degree of
24 tentativeness.
25 Theories are fairly firmly established things. Now,
492.
1 A (Continuing) sometimes we find that they are not
2 true and have to modify them, but there is this degree of
3 scale between hypothesis and theory.
4 Q For example, Copernicus proposed a theory, did he
5 not—
6 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I didn't object earlier to
7 this line of questioning, but I think it's entirely
8 outside the scope of my redirect examination.
9 THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's limited by
10 that, or it wouldn't be as far as I'm concerned, but where
11 are you going with it?
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think I'm going, this
13 particular line of testimony is important to show that
14 there is perhaps not an accord among even the Plaintiffs'
15 scientists as to what is a fact, what's a theory, what's a
16 hypothesis.
17 And I think it goes to the fact that there is no
18 unanimity on these things, even among the plaintiffs' own
19 scientists. I think that has some relevance at least to
20 the argument which the plaintiffs are making as to whether
21 this is a scientific theory in looking at creation science.
22 THE COURT: Well, I would take notice that there's
23 probably not unanimity among all the scientists.
24 MR. WILLIAMS: Fine.
25 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
Q As part of Defendants' Exhibit 1, Mr. Gentry quotes
493.
1 Q (Continuing) from a National Academy of Science
2 Resolution of April of 1976, which reads in part: "That
3 the search for knowledge and understanding of the physical
4 universe and of living things that inhabit it should be
5 conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom,
6 without religious, political, or ideological
7 restrictions. That freedom of inquiry and dissemination
8 of ideas require that those so engaged should be free to
9 search where their inquiry leads, without political
10 censorship and without fear of retribution and consequence
11 of unpopularity of their conclusions. Those who challenge
12 existing theory must be protected from retaliatory
13 reactions."
14 Do you agree with that statement?
15 A Yes, I would subscribe to that.
16 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.
17 THE COURT: May this witness be excused?
18 MR. ENNIS: He may, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Thank you.
20 Why don't we take about a ten minute recess.
21 (Thereupon, court was in
22 recess from 10:10 a.m. to
23 10:25 a.m.)
24
25
494.
1 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, Plaintiffs call Doctor
2 Harold Morowitz.
3 Thereupon,
4
5 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having
6 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and
7 testified as follows:
8
9 BY MR. NOVIK:
10 Q Doctor Morowitz, would you please state your full
11 name for the record?
12 A Harold J. Morowitz.
13 Q What is your occupation?
14 A I'm professor of molecular biophysics and
15 biochemistry at Yale University. I'm also professor of
16 biology and Master at Pierson College.
17 Q Doctor Morowitz, I show you this curriculum vitae
18 (Handing same to witness). Is that yours?
19 A Yes.
20 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, plaintiffs move the
21 admission of Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 93 for
22 identification, the curriculum vitae of Doctor Harold
23 Morowitz.
24 THE COURT: It will be received.
25
495.
1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)
2 Doctor Morowitz, what is your particular area of
3 academic expertise?
4 A I have been actively doing research in various
5 areas of biophysics and biochemistry, with particular
6 emphasis on the thermodynamic foundations of biology and
7 the problems of the origins of life, or biogenesis.
8 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, based on the qualifications
9 of the witness as disclosed in his curriculum vitae and
10 the description just now given by Doctor Morowitz of his
11 area of academic interest and expertise, Plaintiffs move
12 that Doctor Morowitz be accepted as an expert in
13 biophysics and biochemistry, particularly with respect to
14 the origin of life and the thermodynamic foundation of
15 biology and the laws of thermodynamics.
16 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, we would agree that Doctor
17 Morowitz is sufficiently qualified to offer his opinions
18 in these areas.
19 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)
20 Q Doctor Morowitz, let me show you a copy of Act 590
21 marked, I believe, Exhibit 29 in these proceedings.
22 Had you read this Act before?
23 A Yes, I have.
24 Q Would you look at Section 4 of this statute,
25 particularly Section 4 (a), purporting to define creation
496.
1 Q (Continuing) science. Do you see any reference in
2 that section to the origin of life?
3 A 4 (a) (1) refers to sudden creation of life from nothing.
5 Q And is `sudden creation' a term that has scientific
6 meaning to you?
7 A No. To my knowledge it is not a term in scientific
8 literature or in general use in the scientific community.
9 Q Do you know the meaning of the words `sudden
10 creation'?
11 A `Sudden creation' assumes a creator, and, as such,
12 implies the supernatural explanation, and, therefore, lies
13 outside the bounds of normal science.
14 Q Does the statute give you any indication that 4 (a)
15 (1), `sudden creation' implies supernatural processes?
16 A Yes. Because if one looks at 4 (b) (1) and the (a)
17 and (b) sections are put into step by step opposition, 4
18 (b) (1) refers to emergence by naturalistic processes of
19 several things, ending with "of life from nonlife". And
20 so since (b) refers to emergence by naturalistic
21 processes, (a) must assume under creation that is by
22 supernatural processes.
23 Q Are you familiar with creation science literature?
24 A Yes, I am.
25 Q What have you read?
497.
1 A I've read a number of works by Henry Morris,
2 Scientific Creationism, Scientific Case for Creation, I've
3 read the Kofahl and Segraves work on the creation
4 explanation, I've read the Wysong work on the
5 creation-evolution controversy, and a number of shorter
6 works.
7 Q Have you also engaged in the creation science
8 debates?
9 A Yes, on two occasions. On one occasion I debated
10 with Doctor Duane Gish, and on another occasion I debated
11 with Kelly Segraves.
12 Q Now, based on your knowledge of creation science
13 generally, from those debates and from your reading of
14 creation science literature, is Act 590 consistent with
15 the theory of creation science found in that literature?
16 A Yes. The format as it's spelled out in Section 4
17 (a), (1) through (6) is similar, almost identical with the
18 methods that the arguments are presented in creation
19 science books.
20 Q Would you now, please, look at the definition of
21 evolution-science in Section 4 (b)?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Do you see any reference to the origin of life in
24 that section?
25 A Yes. The phrase, "Emergence by naturalistic
498.
1 A (Continuing) processes of life from nonlife."
2 Q Now, as a scientist studying the origins of life,
3 do you find it meaningful to include that study within the
4 scope of evolution-science as defined in the statute?
5 A Well, I don't find evolution-science a phrase that
6 occurs normally in the scientific community. Section 4
7 (b) groups together in an ad hoc fashion a number of
8 subjects which are normally not treated together under a
9 single topic in the scientific literature. Therefore, I
10 don't find evolution-science very meaningful.
11 These subjects are generally treated by very varying
12 methods. And in addition, evolution theory, as it is
13 normally used in science, is used in a much narrower
14 context, dealing in the speciation and the development of
15 species in higher taxa, rather than the rather broad array
16 of subjects that are linked together in Section 4 (b).
17 Q Does the theory of evolution as used by scientists
18 include the study of the origins of life?
19 A Normally that's treated as a separate subject in a
20 technical sense.
21 Q What is your understanding of the relationship
22 between Sections 4 (a) (1) and 4 (b) (1) as they pertain
23 to the origins of life on this planet?
24 A Well, I think that's what normally is referred to
25 in the creation-science literature as the dual model. And
499.
1 A (Continuing) the implication there is that there
2 are only two possible explanations, either a creation
3 explanation or an evolution explanation, and the
4 reputation of one, therefore, forces the acceptance of the
5 other.
6 I find that to be a rather distorted view, since there
7 are many creation explanations, and there are also a
8 variety of scientific explanations of the origin of life
9 so that it is quite deceptive to just present it as a
10 two-view model.
11 Q Doctor Morowitz, in your professional opinion, is
12 the dual model approach to the teaching of origins of life
13 on this planet a scientific approach to that subject?
14 A No.
15 Q Why is that?
16 A Because as I just stated, one of the explanations
17 lies outside of science. It is a supernatural
18 explanation, and, therefore, its investigation lies
19 outside the bounds of science.
20 In addition, as I've also stated, the acceptance of
21 owning two views is a totally inaccurate representation of
22 the large multiplicity of views that are held on these
23 issues.
24 Q Doctor Morowitz, do you know how life was first
25 formed on this planet?