834.
1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) but you represent your clients.
2 THE COURT: well, here are the two files, and that,
3 material is just loose.
4 MS KERR: This is Curtis Thomas' material.
5 MR. CLARK: The loose material is Mr. Thomas'
6 material.
7 MR. CEARLEY: Judge, we will copy that this
8 afternoon and return it to Judge Byrd.
9 MR. CLARK: Judge Byrd, I do have at counsel table
10 the depositions, the originals to be signed by your
11 clients that we have gotten back.
12 Now, we are you going to have to see about getting that
13 done because Mr. Cearley wants to offer them into
14 evidence. We object on grounds of relevance, but—
15 MR. CEARLEY: We'd like to have them signed unless
16 you are willing to waive signature.
17 JUDGE BYRD: I am not willing to waive it, but I
18 don't run the Court. I just represent the clients. If
19 Steve wants to waive it, I can't keep him from waiving it.
20 THE COURT: I think the client has the right to
21 insist on reading and signing the deposition.
22 JUDGE BYRD: They wanted to read and sign it. Now,
23 your Honor, we practiced law around here a long time, and
24 ordinarily we could stipulate. I will only have one of
25 them available this afternoon. I'll have to run the
835.
1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) others down.
2 MR. CEARLEY: I'll be happy to do whatever I can to
3 assist in that.
4 JUDGE BYRD: Let me consult with my clients. The
5 reason I gave Mr. Clark the records, as you know, I have a
6 real bad back, and some days I can't make it go. And I
7 didn't want to hold up the Court's process.
8 THE COURT: I appreciate that.
9 JUDGE BYRD: That was the purpose of it.
10 (Thereupon, the in chambers hearing was concluded.)
11
12
13 BY MR. CHILDS:
14 Q Mr. Woods, was the creation unit, which was your
15 Exhibit Number 4 to the deposition made an exhibit—
16 MR. CRAWFORD: if your Honor please, I think I can
17 clear that up for Mr. Childs.
18 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)
19 Q Would you tell Judge Overton what you understand
20 this creation unit to be?
21 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, just a point of
22 inquiry, this is the creation unit with respect to which
23 Mr. Childs objected on the grounds the witness didn't have
24 personal knowledge, and I promised not to interrogate him
25 on that. And I don't know whether he intends to. We are
836.
1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) going to call Mary Ann Wilson
2 who is the author of that document as our next witness, so
3 I'm just advising the Attorney General's office in the
4 interest of expedition, if they wish to take advantage of
5 it.
6 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I do not intend to question
7 Mr. Wood as to his personal knowledge of the formulation
8 of this material. What I want to question him about is
9 whether or not this would provide scientific evidence
10 regarding Act 590.
11 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)
12 Q Mr. Wood, can you identify that as Exhibit Number 4
13 to your deposition?
14 A Yes, I can.
15 Q The first page is an outline of content. Under
16 Roman numeral 1, it appears "Biological" and under A,
17 "Evidences that Imply Separability of Man and Other
18 Primate Ancestry." Would you refer over in the outline
19 under 1, Roman numeral I(a)(1).
20 A I have it.
21 Q What is indicated there?
22 A Do you wish me to read this?
23 Q Yes, please.
24 A "Item 1(a), evidences that imply separability of man
25 and other primate ancestry, genus Ramapithecus whose only
837.
1 A (Continuing) remains are fragments of jaws with
2 teeth, has for many years been put forward as an
3 evolutionary ancestor of man. Analyses of the data by
4 David Pilbeam of Yale indicates Ramapithecus as probably
5 neither an ancestor of modern humans nor modern apes."
6 Q And where did that appear?
7 A That appeared in Science Digest, April, 1981, Volume
8 89, Number 3, page 36.
9 Q Under Roman Numeral 1(a)(2), what does it state?
10 A "The genus, Australopithecus, after study by Oxnard
11 and others, appears to have too many specialized and
12 ape-like characteristics to either be in the direct
13 ancestry of man or the direct line leading to man."
14 Doctor Charles F. Oxnard, "Australopithecus versus the
15 Computer", University of Chicago Magazine, 1974, page 8,
16 and A. Montagu, "Man, His First Million Years", World
17 Publishers, Yonkers, New York, pages 51 through 52, 1957.
18 Q In reference to the material under Roman numeral
19 1(a)(1) and (2), do those appear to be publications, or
20 creation science publications
21 A I don't recognize them to be creation science
22 publications.
23 MR. CRAWFORD: if your Honor please, there is more
24 than one draft of this document. I don't know which one
25 Mr. Childs is referring to. If he could tell me that, I
838.
1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) could follow along with him.
2 MR. CHILDS: It's Defendants' Exhibit 3 and Wilson's
3 Exhibit 4 and Wood.
4 THE WITNESS: May I say that this is not the final
5 document that I understand the committee came up with.
6 This is one that I was presented with to view in light of
7 some of the findings of the committee that was appointed
8 to come up with a model.
9 I understand this is not their working format at this
10 time.
11 MR. CHILDS: I understand that.
12 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)
13 Q Now then, my question is, is the information under
14 Roman numeral 1(a)(1) and (2) evidence that implies
15 separability of man and other primate ancestry?
16 A That's what it says on this piece of paper, yes, sir.
17 Q Do you have the scientific sophistication to tell me
18 if this is true or not?
19 A I couldn't make an opinion on that. I don't have
20 the whole article here. This is someone else's. For me,
21 this is tertiary information. This is information that
22 somebody else has interpreted from someone else.
23 I would have to see some sources that I could— I would
24 have to have the whole article myself. And then if you
25 are asking me to evaluate this material, then of course,
839.
1 A (Continuing) it would take me some time. I would
2 have to look at their footnotes. I would have to be in a
3 position to have these materials accessed to me so that I
4 could make a decision in relation to whether I
5 particularly thought that this assumption in I(a)(1) was a
6 true analysis of what the article so stipulated.
7 I would also make the same comment for I(a)(2).
8 Q Turn over to Roman numeral I(b), please. Under
9 number 2, what does that state?
10 A Are you asking me to read I(b)(2)?
11 Q Yes, please.
12 A "Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the
13 physical variations that are observed within like
14 categories such as the dog family. These laws, in their
15 modern day refinement, seem to indicate limits to such
16 variation."
17 Q Do you understand what that statement is saying in a
18 scientific sense?
19 A I understand what this paragraph says. I am able to
20 glean a meaning for me from this reading, yes.
21 Q Would that be evidence that imply changes only
22 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants
23 and animals, which is Roman numeral I(b)?
24 A I don't think this meets the criteria in any way for
25 evidence.
840.
1 Q What is this?
2 A This is somebody's interpretation of something to do
3 within like categories in the dog family. Those are very
4 loose terms . I don't know anything about the dog family,
5 and I don't know what the laws are of Mendel's genetics,
6 offhand, to be conversant with you about them and their
7 modern day refinements. It seems to indicate limits to
8 such variation. I'd have to know what variation we are
9 talking about.
10 Q What about under Roman numeral I(c).
11 A Yes. I'm with you.
12 Q It's headed "Evidences Implying a Sudden Creation of
13 Life."
14 A Yes. I'm with you.
15 Q Would you please read that?
16 A I(c)(1) states, "Polonium-218, Bismuth-214 and
17 Polonium-214 have half lives of 3 minutes, 19 minutes and
18 1.47 x 10 to the negative fourth seconds respectively.
19 The existence of these elements is indicated by the
20 Pleochroic—" I suppose that's how you pronounce it.
21 "—Halos without evidence of parent nuclides of the
22 uranium series argues for an initial sudden creation of
23 these elements."
24 "Critique of Radiometric Dating" by Slusher, Institute
25 for Creation Research, 1973, page 19. "Cosmological
841.
1 A (Continuing) Implications of Extinct Radioactive
2 from Pleochroic Halos" by Robert V. Gentry, Creation
3 Research Society Quarterly, 3.2, 1966, page 17 through 20.
4 Q Can you tell me whether or not this information
5 would be evidence implying a sudden creation of life?
6 A Again, I am having to answer you that this is
7 someone's interpretation of the evidence. I see no
8 evidence presented here in terms of how this experiment or
9 how these words tie together to give this meaning to it.
10 It requires that, if I'm to evaluate this one particular
11 thing, that I be able to see how those evidences do relate
12 to that as you are using the term "evidence."
13 Q When you were serving on this committee selecting,
14 reviewing what you call creation science materials, did
15 any of these concepts that we've gone over in this outline
16 come to your attention?
17 A I believe that there is a couple of concepts that
18 are in here, but I would have to have a moment to find
19 them in this whole work.
20 Q Tell us about the ones that we've gone over?
21 A The ones that we've gone over?
22 Q Yes.
23 A In the textbooks that I previewed, no.
24 Q Under Roman numeral I(c)(3), would you please read
25 that?
842.
1 A I(c) (3)?
2 Q Yes, sir.
3 A "Symbiotic relationships such as exist between algae
4 and fungi in the lichens imply sudden creation. The
5 complexity, variety and perfection of parasitic
6 adaptation, particularly where animals and plants are
7 interdependent, or where a parasite demands several hosts,
8 imply sudden creation of all of the systems.
9 The pronuba moth and the yucca plant provide an excellent
10 example of plant-insect interdependence." Evan Shute,
11 "Flaws in the Theory of Evolution", Nutley, New Jersey,
12 Craig Press, 1961, page 62.
13 Q Do you know if the Craig Press is a creation science
14 publication?
15 A I have no idea. I've never heard of the Craig Press.
16 Q Do you consider this as evidence in support of the
17 concept of a sudden creation of life?
18 A No, I wouldn't.
19 Q Would you please read the information under Roman
20 numeral I(c)(5)?
21 A "The sudden appearance of diverse multicellular life
22 forms all together in the fossil record without trace of
23 previous ancestry implies that all were suddenly created."
24 Q Would you consider that evidence in support of a
25 model of sudden creation?
843.
1 A No, I would not.
2 Q Under Roman numeral II(a) headed "Evidences that
3 imply young earth and solar system," would you please read
4 the information in (1)?
5 A "Atomic Clocks, which have for the last 22 years
6 measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of
7 a second, have consistently found that the earth is
8 slowing down at the rate of almost one second a year. If
9 the earth were billions of years old, it's initial spin
10 rate would have been fantastically rapid, so rapid that
11 major distortions in the shape of the earth would have
12 occurred." Arthur Fisher, "The Riddle of the Leap
13 Second," Popular Science, Volume 202, March 1973, pages
14 110, 113 and 164 to 166. Air Force Cambridge Research
15 Laboratory, "Earth Motions and Their Effects on Air Force
16 Systems," November, 1975, page 6. Jack Fincher, "And Now,
17 Atomic Clocks," Reader's Digest, Volume 3, November, 1977,
18 page 34.
19 Q Do you consider any of the information in Roman
20 numeral II(a)(1) as evidence implying a young earth and
21 solar system?
22 A I didn't hear the first part.
23 Q Would you consider the information you have just
24 read as evidence implying a young earth and solar system?
25 A No.
844.
1 THE COURT: Mr. Childs, did you take his deposition?
2 MR. CHILDS: Yes, I did.
3 THE COURT: Did you go through all this in the
4 deposition?
5 MR. CHILDS: No, I didn't, unfortunately.
6 THE COURT: Maybe you could ask him if there is
7 anything on that outline that he considers evidence
8 supporting those propositions and save us all a lot of
9 time if all we are going to get is negative answers.
10 And I assume that something out of the Reader's Digest
11 he's not going to consider that to be scientific evidence
12 in support of the proposition.
13 MR. CHILDS: Let me just go through the publishers,
14 your Honor.
15 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)
16 Q Under Roman numeral II(a)(2), that information
17 appears to be from Melvin A. Cook, "Prehistory and Earth
18 Models," London, Max Parrish, 1966.
19 A What are you asking me, sir?
20 Q Does that— Let me rephrase the question. Do you
21 know if Max Parrish Publishing in London is a creation
22 science organization?
23 A I'm not familiar with it. Maybe I can save the
24 Court some time, I am not familiar with a lot of these
25 publications listed here, and this is certainly one that 1
845
1 (TM) ing) am not familiar with to any degree.
2 (TM) but under Roman numeral II(a)(3), which is
3 (TM) erica? Are you familiar with Scientific
4 (TM)
5 (TM) m.
6 (TM) a creation science publication?
7 (TM) s not.
8 (TM) er Roman numeral II (a)(4), is Physics Today
9 (TM) cuse me. Are Physics Today and Science,
10 (TM) eation science publications?
11 (TM) on't believe they are creationist literature
12 (TM) is.
13 (TM) er (5) it shows Presbyterian and Reform
14 (TM) mpany. Do you know if that's a creation
15 (TM) shing company?
16 (TM) not.
17 (TM) out Natural History?
18 (TM) is not.
19 (TM) ack to that point to clarify my answer here.
20 (TM) d on that too quickly.
21 (TM) rence to what?
22 (TM) stion was asked me, I believe, if I thought
23 (TM) ian and Reform publication was a creationist
24 (TM) My answer is I do not know if it is or not.
25 (TM) out Natural History?
846.
1 A I do not think Natural History is a creationist.
2 Q And Roman numeral II(a)(6), refers to the
3 Astrophysical Journal. Do you know if that would be a
4 creation science publication?
5 A I am not sure that it is, but I am guessing that it
6 isn't.
7 Q Did you have an opportunity to review the
8 information in this creation unit publication
9 A Are you asking me if I reviewed this?
10 Q Yes, sir.
11 A Yes, I did.
12 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, I would just
13 note for the record the fact that it is not a publi-
14 cation. It's an initial draft of a creation unit
15 developed internally within the school system.
16 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I will object to that
17 statement. I think—
18 THE COURT: Let's go on.
19 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I move that this document
20 be admitted as Defendants' Exhibit 5.
21 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)
22 Q Mr. Wood, is there anything in Defendants' Exhibit
23 Number 5 that you would consider as evidence supporting
24 Section 4(a) of Act 590?
25 A Are you asking me if there is science evidence?
847.
1 Q Yes. Is there anything that would be included in
2 Defendants' Exhibit 5 which would support as evidence
3 Section 4(a) in Act 590?
4 A I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
5 Q I'm not saying it is. I'm asking if you see
6 anything in Defendants' Exhibit 5 which you would consider
7 scientific evidence in support of 4(a) in the Act?
8 A No, I would not.
9 Q Would you tell me why not?
10 A Evidence in itself does not make a science. All I
11 see in Exhibit 5 there are paragraphs of unrelated
12 material that never really show or point to one thing. I
13 don't see any interweaving of these ideas except as I made
14 in my direct testimony; that the interweaving in Section
15 4(a) is that that points to Genesis.
16 Q Do I understand you to be saying that all inform-
17 ation has to be related together before it can be
18 considered scientific evidence?
19 A Yes. That is the nature of scientific evidence.
20 Scientific evidence— Evidence in itself doesn't mean
21 anything. If I might use an example, if I saw these
22 pictures around the wall here out in different places,
23 they in themselves wouldn't mean anything.
24 Q Does the concept of evolution, as you are describing
25 it, does it all fit together in some sort of manner?
848.
1 A Yes.
2 Q And how does it fit together?
3 A It fits together in that generally the same
4 conclusions have been reached by different areas of
5 investigations. And there has been, and I believe has
6 been indicated by witnesses up here previously, that there
7 is a preponderance of that evidence; not just from one
8 area of biology, but from the fossil record and from other
9 areas that we normally say that do operations within our
10 scientific community.
11 Q What do you do with observed phenomena which do not
12 fit into this construct that you are talking about?
13 A What do I do with it?
14 Q Yes. What would you do with it?
15 A Well, I can't speak as a scientist because I'm not
16 one. If you're asking me to speculate on what I would do
17 with it, I can speculate on it only as a person and not as
18 an expert in the field.
19 Can you tell this Court if you know how the
20 scientific community handles observed phenomena which do
21 not fit without the construct of evolution?
22 A I believe that they report it, and I believe that
23 they set it up for other people to falsify or to prove in
24 order to show consistent trends in this information that
25 you are talking about.
849.
1 Q What do they do with information that they cannot
2 explain within the structure that they have?
3 A The very nature of science deals with those problems
4 in my understanding of science. That is not something in
5 science to be swept under the rug. That is something in
6 science to be looked at in terms of challenges.
7 Q Well, I'm asking you if you can tell me what happens
8 when there is a particular piece of observed phenomenon
9 which cannot be explained in the scientific community?
10 THE COURT: He's told you two different ways.
11 MR. CHILDS: Perhaps he has, your Honor, but maybe I
12 missed it.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)
15 Q Would you like for me to rephrase the question?
16 A Yes, if you don't mind.
17 Q Were you aware of any situations where there has
18 been observed phenomenon which would stand the entire
19 construct on its head? Do you know what happens in that
20 kind of situation?
21 A I don't believe I can go that far to say that I know
22 of something that would stand the entire construct on its
23 head.
24 There may be areas that have long been held that some
25 new observations might point to different conclusions than
850
1 A (Continuing) previously held conclusions.
2 But as I understand the scientific community to work,
3 and again, I'll have to say this, that those are put forth
4 for scrutiny.
5 That's how science grows. Science is a growing
6 process. We certainly hope that it never stagnates.
7 And in this process requires people to put forth their
8 materials to the scientific community and allow the
9 scientific community to evaluate those materials. And
10 through evaluation we grow. We may sidestep a little, but
11 we grow.
12 So the scrutiny part of it is very important. It may be
13 one of the most valuable things that we can do in science,
14 is to have someone present something to the scientific
15 community where all of the constructs or all of the pieces
16 don't necessarily fit together. It gives scientists
17 challenge.
18 Q Who asked you to serve on the — for lack of a
19 better word — the preliminary committee in response to
20 the request of the school board to come up with the
21 creation unit?
22 A Doctor Harold Measel. He is the assistant superin-
23 tendent in charge of secondary instruction — I believe
24 that's his correct title — in our school district,
25 Pulaski County Special School District, Little Rock,
Arkansas.
851.
1 Q Did you volunteer to serve on the committee?
2 A Yes, I did.
3 Q Can you tell me if Larry Fisher was on that
4 committee?
5 A Larry Fisher was on that committee. It was— Larry
6 Fisher had to be there since be brought the materials, yes.
7 Q Did he serve on the committee?
8 A I don't know that be served on the committee or if
9 he was the person who brought the committee. I don't know
10 exactly how to define your term "served."
11 Q Well, did he— When you all were reaching a
12 consensus, as I understand, a unanimous consensus among
13 you, was he consulted about the merits of the evidence?
14 A I don't believe Larry Fisher, in our discussions as
15 we went around the table, offered any. Privately, outside
16 getting a cup of coffee, Larry and I talked about a couple
17 of the points, but just very simply.
18 But as we went around the table, each person— You see,
19 our purpose there, as I understand it, was, the first
20 meeting was to take the books home, evaluate them, and
21 then those persons that did the evaluation, to bring back
22 that evaluation.
23 Since Larry Fisher's purpose in that committee was not
24 to evaluate the books, he did not take part in the process
25 of explaining the evaluations.
852.
1 Q Okay. I think I understand what you are saying.
2 Now then in your deposition, you advised me that for
3 something to be science, it would have to be published by
4 reputable sources, did you not?
5 A I believe that was one of the criteria that I stated
6 in there, yes.
7 Q And what other criteria would there be?
8 A The other criteria, for something to be accepted as
9 science, it must have been arrived at through the
10 scientific processes. It must have validity, internal
11 validity.
12 In other words, was the document constructed in the
13 manner in which science accepts the constructs. Was the
14 person who did this, was he a recognized person operating
15 in that field by our national community of science.
16 Pardon me. Our international community of science.
17 Q So it would be safe to say you consider science that
18 which is accepted in the scientific community?
19 A Yes, I would.
20 Q Now then, I want to go over briefly with you the
21 information in your chemistry book and your physics book
22 which would, as you see it, trigger Act 590.
23 Do you have your chemistry book with you?
24 A I do.
25 Q Would you please tell me the first page in numerical
853.
1 Q (Continuing) order that you feel would trigger Act
2 590?
3 A I don't have these pages marked, so it's going to
4 take me a minute. If you can point to a page, I'll sure
5 turn to it.
6 Q Let's try page 373, fossil fuels.
7 A Okay.
8 Q And how would that trigger Act 590 in your judgment?
9 A May I read the sentence?
10 Q Yes.
11 A On the Section 18.5, Natural Gas and Petroleum, the
12 second paragraph says, "Natural gas and petroleum were
13 probably formed by the decay of plants and animals living
14 millions of years ago."
15 Q I believe the next pages were around page 591 in
16 chapter 30?
17 A Yes.
18 Q I believe that has to do with radioactive dating?
19 A It has— The entire chapter has to do with radio-
20 activity.
21 Q Do you usually teach chapter 30 in your chemistry
22 course?
23 A No, not in chemistry.
24 Q Now then, would it be— Can you think of any way
25 that you could balance the reference on page 373 as to
854.
1 Q (Continuing) fossil fuels being formed millions of
2 years ago.
3 A Wait a minute. What page?
4 Q Page 373.
5 A Will you repeat the question?
6 Q Is there any way that you can think of right now on
7 the stand that you could balance "millions of years ago"
8 in your textbook?
9 A That I could balance millions of years ago in my
10 textbook? What kind of balance are you asking? Are you
11 asking me to give Act 590 balance?
12 Q As I understand it, your position is that "balanced"
13 means "equal."
14 A "Balanced" means "equal dignity."
15 Q Now then, is there any way you can give equal
16 dignity to a relatively recent inception of the earth in
17 reference to that page?
18 A Not scientifically.
19 Q I'm not asking you as a scientist. I'm asking you
20 as an educator. Is there anything that you could think of
21 now that you can write in that book which would balance it
22 and give it equal dignity?
23 A But you see, I am a science educator and I have to
24 deal within the constructs of science.
25 Q Mr. Wood, we've been over that in great detail. my
855.
1 Q (Continuing) question is this, is there anything
2 that you can think of as an educator, college graduate, by
3 which you could write in the margin of that book that a
4 publisher could add which would balance it?
5 A No, I could not. Not in a science book.
6 Q If a statement appeared in there, "Some scientists,
7 however, feel that fossil fuels have been formed
8 relatively recent, say within the last one million years",
9 would that give it a balance?
10 A Not in my opinion, no.
11 Q I'm not asking you for your opinion. I'm asking you
12 if that would balance the words in the book?
13 A But again, I must give you my opinion. No, it would
14 not, because I am the one who has to make the interpre-
15 tation as to the balance.
16 You are asking me to make an interpretation, so it must
17 be my opinion. So my interpretation is that in my
18 opinion, no.
19 Q Do you have your physics book?
20 A Yes, I do.
21 Q I believe the first page in the physic book is page
22 30?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Is that the page that has pictures on it?
25 A It has one picture and then a chart diagram
856.
1 A (Continuing) referring to sizes of things that we
2 deal with in physical sciences.
3 Q Okay. I believe the reference on that page is
4 something relating to the distance to the stars?
5 A Yes, it is. The distance to fartherest photographed
6 galaxies in terms of light years.
7 Q What does it say?
8 A It says the distance to the fartherest photographed
9 galaxy is twenty-five light years.
10 Q Now, as I understand, it is your position that that
11 would trigger Act 590?
12 A Yes.
13 Q As precisely as you can, tell me why you feel that
14 way?
15 A Because as the teacher, and I'm dealing with
16 concepts that are based on our scientific community
17 thought and our scientific community concepts, the idea of
18 light years, the idea of distances in space are pretty
19 well tossed around to be statements of acceptance.
20 So when I use this, then I think that I would have to
21 balance this also by saying `there are people who might
22 also think, or I would have to have some evidence that
23 would show me that this would not conflict or it would be
24 interpreted to be one of the things in Section 4(a).
25 Q What I'm trying to deal with is the textbook that
857.
1 Q (Continuing) you actually use. Now, the method in
2 which you teach it, I'll get to in a minute.
3 My question is, could you not put a statement in there
4 that there are scientists who believe that the stars are
5 not quite that far away?
6 A I would have to have the community of science give
7 me some evidence for that point before I could put that in.
8 Q I'm not asking you to act as a scientific editor in
9 the book. What I want to know, would that balance it as
10 far as the textbook is concerned under the Act?
11 A I have to rely on my interpretation of balanced
12 treatment. And my balanced treatment interpretation
13 requires that I give equal dignity and equal treatment.
14 And equal dignity requires that I develop the ideas.
15 I can develop the idea of the concept of a light year.
16 1 don't have any problem developing that concept. What I
17 would have trouble developing, you see, is finding out how
18 we could develop an idea that would relate to distances
19 not being that great.
20 Q The next page was 242, which was the Doppler effect?
21 A Yes. The Doppler effect covers from page 242 —
22 pardon me — from 240 to 242, yes.
23 Q Do you teach that material?
24 A Yes, I do.
25 Q And I believe on page 352, 353 there are some
858.
1 Q (Continuing) pictures of galaxies?
2 A Yes, there are.
3 Q Do you teach that material?
4 A I'm not currently teaching it this year. I have in
5 the past.
6 Q What about pages 566 through 568?
7 A I do currently teach these. These refer to radio-
8 active decay methods.
9 Q And on page 581 through 582?
10 A I use the method of Carbon-14 dating as a method of
11 how radioactive dating can be used, yes.
12 Q What about page 609, the law of parity?
13 A I do not teach that.
14 Q In reference to pages 30, 566 through 568, 242 and
15 pages 581 through 582, could you yourself—
16 A Just a second I need to get all of these arranged
17 so that—
18 Q I'm not going to ask you about them specifically.
19 I'm going to ask you about them in combination because I
20 think I know the answer.
21 In reference to those pages, could you as an educator
22 add anything to the text of those pages which would give
23 balanced treatment as you interpret it as required by the
24 Act?
25 A No, I could not.
859.
1 Q As I understand it, in all of the Plaintiffs'
2 exhibits, which are, the numbers that I have, 73, 72, 79,
3 75, 71, 77, 81, 80 and 57, and then there were three that
4 were subsequently numbered, that in none of those books
5 was there anything which you consider as evidence which
6 would support creation science as set out in Section 4(a)?
7 A I must repeat as I did in my direct, I only looked
8 at two of those. The entire committee, we divided those
9 books up in various ways.
10 Q So the only books you can testify as to whether or
11 not there is any scientific evidence would be those two
12 books?
13 A Yes.
14 Q As I understand your position, you interpret the
15 word "academic responsibility to be the same as academic
16 freedom?
17 A For my definition, that's exactly correct.
18 Q And you consider that to be the right to present
19 material that is currently held as valid material in terms
20 of the science community?
21 A That is the responsibility that I have.
22 Q if you were faced with the situation that a
23 curriculum guide was developed for the Pulaski County
24 School District which set out in it material regarding
25 creation science, would you teach it?
860.
1 A Well, again, I have no way of evaluating that
2 because I don't know that that would be the action taken.
3 Q I realize that. To take this academic freedom and
4 academic responsibility concept further, we have to put it
5 into a hypothetical situation where you would have to make
6 the choice.
7 Now, assuming that a curriculum guide was developed by
8 Pulaski County School District which had in it material
9 regarding creation science, would you teach it?
10 A I would not.
11 Q And as I also understand it, you interpret Act 590
12 as establishing that you would not be able to make any
13 professional comment as to the respective models of
14 creation science and evolution science?
15 A Yes. My understanding of balanced treatment would
16 prevent me from doing such a thing.
17 Q Do you currently have any process by which— Well,
18 if you were named the outstanding teacher, I guess you
19 would know.
20 Are there evaluation methods?
21 A Are there evaluation methods?
22 Q Yes, sir.
23 A Could you be more specific?
24 Q Well, does the Pulaski County—
25 A Special School District.
861.
1 Q —Special School District have some way of
2 evaluating classroom performance of their science teachers?
3 A Most definitely.
4 Q And you won, right?
5 A I'm not saying that's the— Or what are you
6 referring back to?
7 Q No. I mean you won an award as an outstanding
8 school teacher, right?
9 A Yes, I did.
10 Q And was that the method that was used when you got
11 your award?
12 A I'm sure that my evaluation— Maybe you and I are
13 talking about two different things here. We have a
14 process on a yearly basis in which our administrators
15 within our school and sometimes our science coordinators
16 come in and evaluate our work, see what we are doing, talk
17 to us about it, get some idea of our sense of direction,
18 where we are going.
19 And this is what I would refer to in terms of a formal
20 evaluation.
21 Q Is the curriculum guide used in determining whether
22 or not you are within the appropriate course material?
23 A I don't think that, up to this point, that that has
24 been included in our particular evaluations. I don't
25 think it ever has been in mine.
862.
1 A (Continuing)
2 I cannot say for all areas in Pulaski County Special
3 School District. I can only say in the area of science.
4 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether or not a
5 teacher who was teaching creation science in the Pulaski
6 County Special School District would suffer a negative
7 evaluation if they were teaching the creation science
8 model?
9 A Are you saying now, right now?
10 Q Yes.
11 A I would say no, not on the basis of that. There are
12 many ways in which we are evaluated. It has to do with a
13 lot of things, including our appearance on a daily basis
14 and our rapport with students.
15 It's a multifaceted instrument, of which I don't believe
16 that is on there anyplace.
17 Q Is it possible?
18 A Would you rephrase that again? What is possible?
19 THE COURT: You don't need to rephrase that. Go on
20 to something else.
21 Q Mr. Wood, have you had an opportunity to examine a
22 copy of "The Science Teacher", volume 43, number 8,
23 November, 1976?
24 A Number 8? Would you give me those numbers again?
25 I've got two copies of "Science Teacher". I want to make
863.
1 A (Continuing) sure I'm on the right one.
2 Q One of them has "Moore" written across the top of
3 it. The other one has "Lester".
4 A Which one do I read?
5 Q Okay. There is a number under "Science Teacher",
6 volume 43, number 8.
7 A Well, both of these say number 8. One has Moore and
8 one has Lester.
9 Q Would you look inside one of them and tell me the
10 name that appears?
11 A There is one here, but I can't make out all, but the
12 author, I suppose, is John N. Moore. Is this the one you
13 are referring to?
14 Q Is that not a clear copy?
15 A Well, I can't make out the total words here. That's
16 what I was referring to.
17 Q Does that appear to be an article written in favor
18 of the teaching of creation science?
19 A I have no idea. I haven't been able to read all of
20 this. I could not make an evaluation of this at all. I'd
21 have to spend a little time reading it.
22 Are you wanting me to read it right now? Would you like
23 for me to?
24 Q I gave it to you before you went on the stand so you
25 would have a chance to.
864.
1 A Yes. About three minutes. I'm not a speed reader,
2 Mr. Childs, and I did not read it all. Honestly, I did
3 not. I got started.
4 Q The article that— The original magazine that I
5 gave you, did it appear to have four articles? Two in
6 favor of the teaching?
7 A I don't know.
8 Q Would you read this paragraph to yourself, please?
9 A I have read this introduction.
10 Q What does that indicate?
11 A It indicates they held a debate. They didn't do any
12 science. They just held a debate.
13 Q Where was this debate held?
14 A This debate was held at a National Science Teachers'
15 Association area convention in Atlanta last fall, which
16 from this data, the article, then that would be the fall
17 of 1975.
18 Q Does it indicate that Doctor Moore and Doctor Lester
19 argued the position that creation science should be taught?
20 A If these are the two people that are involved in
21 it. As I said, I got it and I started looking at one of
22 the articles, but I have not been able to summarize them
23 in any way.
24 Q Is the "Science Teacher" a publication available to
25 science teachers that's reputable
865.
1 A Yes. I think it's a good journal, yes.
2 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I would submit the part of
3 the address by Doctor Lester as Defendants' Exhibit 6, and
4 the material by Doctor John N. Moore as Defendants'
5 Exhibit 7.
6 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, for what
7 purpose is it being offered? I didn't understand.
8 THE COURT: I guess for the purpose of proving
9 somebody had a debate down in Atlanta.
10 MR. CRAWFORD: I guess I object to that.
11 THE COURT: And somebody took the pro side and
12 somebody took the con side.
13 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, your Honor, the witness has not
14 read the article that's being offered for the truth of the
15 matter asserted. It's hearsay. I would prefer if they
16 want to put it in their case for creation science that
17 they do it through witnesses that we can examine.
18 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, it's being submitted to
19 show that there is information available in reputable
20 periodicals within the science teaching field which
21 supports creation science, and for that limited purpose
22 only.
23 THE COURT: I think the point of the objection is,
24 you've got a witness on the stand who has never even read
25 the article. He read one paragraph there and tried to
866.
1 THE COURT: (Continuing) identify or agree with you about
2 what the article is about. That's no basis for admitting
3 it into evidence.
4 I suppose if you are trying to get in somebody's opinion
5 that creation science should be taught in schools, the way
6 to do that is to call that person and put them on the
7 witness stand and ask them questions so that they will be
8 subject to cross examination.
9 Now, just because they may have— At this point, you've
10 established they had a debate. Just because there may
11 have been a debate doesn't mean it's admissible.
12 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, this witness testified that
13 there wasn't any information available that he knew of
14 other than creation science sources. And this is put in
15 to show, to attack his credibility on that issue. I think
16 it should go in the record.
17 And in the alternative is to have Mr. Wood step down
18 from the stand and have an opportunity to read these and
19 then recall him later.
20 THE COURT: You are introducing this evidence to
21 impeach his credibility?
22 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor.
23 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor—
24 THE COURT: Why don't we take a recess. May I see
25 the attorneys back in chambers?
(Thereupon, Court was in
recess from 2:20 p.m.
until 2:25 p.m.)