Deposition of William V. Mayer - Page 2

51

Q. It could be either then?

A. It could be either simply because I
don't know. If you envision a god as an
omnipotent being, an omniscient, omnipotent being,
this is so far beyond my comprehension, there is
no way that I can envision omniscience. I have a
difficult time with envisioning abstractions.

Infinity, for example, bothers me. My
mind boggles at the concept of something that goes
on forever. I like to think of a boundary out
there, but there can't be, and therefore I simply
throw up my hands and say I can't explain this.

Now maybe ultimately -- 50 years ago
there were a lot of things that I couldn't explain
that are now explainable. Maybe ultimately these
will be explained, maybe they won't.

Q. That infinity concept, is that a part of
the one theory of origin you mentioned earlier,
which is there is no beginning, there is no end?

A. Yes.

Q. The creator as you defined it -- again,
what was your definition? I'm sorry.

A. I would just refer to a governing
principle that I can't understand.

52

Q. The fact that you cannot understand it,
however, does not necessarily make it supernatural?

A. Not necessarily. But, on the other
hand, it doesn't make it science either.

Q. In your classes in your professional
teaching career, have you ever taught or discussed
the evolution model of origin?

A. The evolution theory of origin.

Q. All right, theory.

A. Yes.

Q. How did you go about discussing it?
And in particular as it relates to man or life or
earth or plants.

A. I presented the evidences that indicate
the unity of living things, the structures, the
chemical processes, and so on, that are inherent
throughout the living system and indicate that
this is undoubtedly an indication of relationship.
The more things have in common, the more we
normally think of them as related one to another
and the changing of organisms through time and the
implications of this for making a synthetic state
of the art explanation of classification of
organisms, their diversity, and their

53

relationships.

Q. Is it accurate to state that the
results achieved by any scientific inquiry into
any area are only as good as the underlying
assumptions?

A. The underlying assumptions based on the
available factual evidence, yes.

Q. Have you written any papers, articles
or books other than those which I have copies of
which deal with the subject of origins in
particular? I think you have given us everything
we asked for.

A. I am not sure that I have, that is what
is bothering me.

Q. All right.

A. I am not sure what you have in all of
this pile of things.

Q. Take a minute and look at it.

A. I am sure that I have more than this.
One of my big problems was that I got back to
Colorado Saturday night 9 o'clock and left my
house about 6 a.m. the next morning and didn't
really have much time to pull all of this material
together.

54

I would say this. These materials here
certainly present an accurate summation of
whatever it is I have written.

Q. What are your underlying assumptions as
to the general theory of evolution?

A. First of all, it is a part of science
in the sense that it is derived from the processes
of science. Science is a way of knowing, Science
is a way of finding out. Its assumptions are based
on observation initially, experiment latterly, and
those assumptions, I think, are fairly well
grounded, but mot immutable. All are subject to
change. If a better scientific explanation for
organismic diversity were to come along, there
isn't a scientist I know who wouldn't jettison the
theory of evolution and go with the better thesis.

So the important thing to remember is
that all of these are state of the art explanations
and are all subject to change.

Q. If these are state of the art
explanations subject to change, then are what you
are telling me that science is presenting two
models or three models or four models as to the
evolution process or the theory of origins -- you

55

enumerated, I think, four principles -- that
compete with each other within that body of
science for acceptance, I guess, as being fact.
Those models as advanced by a scientist which
chooses one theory over another, is any of that
predicated on a statement of faith?

A. No. It is predicated on the evidence,
which presents the better evidence. It is like a
court case. The side that presents the best
evidence is going to win the day. And it is the
same in science. The thesis that is best supportd
by the evidence is the one most likely to be
accepted.

Q. But where there is room for debate, as
there is in the theory of origin, as you have
enumerated at least four theories that you have
said you have taught, when one chooses among those
four -- or go back to the first question. I won't
presume anything. Does a scientist choose among
those four as to the one that that scientist
accepts or believes has the most validity?

A. Yes.

Q. When a scientist then makes that
judgment as compared to the other three, is there

56

some statement of faith associated with that?

A. No.

Q. Then what is the basis for that
judgment?

A. The facts of the case.

Q. I am having a hard time, Dr. Mayer. I
asked you to advance theories of origin that you
had seen taught or you talked about. You talked
about cosmic, you talked about -- I forgot the
four. There were four that you mentioned.

As a scientist, do you accept or prefer
one of those theories of origin above others?

A. The evidence weighs me to accept the
heterotroph hypothesis.

Q. The evidence weighs you to accept that?

A. Yes.

Q. If one of your colleagues in science
were to say the evidence persuades that person to
accept another one of those theories, is that
scientist wrong?

A. If he picks the theory that is least
well supported, I would say he is wrong.

Q. Why?

A. He is betting on the wrong horse.

57

Q. Why? Because he disagrees with you?

A. Not because he disagrees with me but
because he is not considering all of the evidence.
You can prove almost anything if you wish to
select the evidence. If you are being truly
objective and look at the vast panoply of evidence
and look at all of it, then certain theories are
best used to explain all that evidence.

Q. Then why do these other theories exist
in science and are referenced in science by
reputable persons as yourself if all the evidence
leads to support objectively this one theory as
being correct and the others as not?

A. You want to acquaint students with how
we came to know what we know. For example,
Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics is
accepted by almost no scientists at the present
time. But we nonetheless present it to show the
development of an idea. This person thought this,
that person thought the other, and yet with the
passage of time we can say that these theories
have not stood the test.

Q. May I interrupt for just a second,
though. You said virtually no scientists accept

58

that theory. Do you know of any who do?

A. Yes. In the Soviet Union Tropf n
Lysenko, who was a great favorite of Joseph Stalin's
was what you would call a Lysenkoist. This became
involved in the politics of the state because it
fit the state social model very well and did more
to set back Russian biology than any single thing
I can think of. With the passage of Stalin,
Soviet biology is attempting to recover. Mr.
Lysenko is out now. And this was an example of a
person embracing an idea or a theory that simply
didn't stand the test.

Q. I was asking in terms of diversity of
thought among the body of science and scientists
as to theories. When a scientist takes a position
differing from that of the majority of those in
science, does that necessarily indicate that
position held in science by that scientist is
inaccurate or incomplete or wrong?

A. No.

Q. That gets me back to this question of
statement of faith. The fact that a scientist
takes a differing position from that of the
majority and the fact that that does not guarantee

59

PAGE 59 MISSING

60

present you any evidence at all. I just tell you
this, I believe thus and so.

Q. Taking the definition of faith as being
a statement that does not require proof, then if
there is diversity of opinion within a body of
science as to a theory, as to the accepted theory,
those scientists who do not agree to the
predominant or accepted theory base their belief
on something that is proved?

A. No. We have another problem here with
"proof." No thing in science is ultimately proven.
Let me give you an example that doesn't have
anything to do with biology so it is kind of
neutral.

For a long time Newtonian physics and
the Newtonian explanation for gravitation were
regarded as almost givens. In other words,
Newtonian physics was the physics, and there were
no serious alternatives. Until Einstein came
along. Now Einstein explained things differently
from Newton. He used a theory of relativity.
Instead, therefore, of Newtonian physics accounting
for gravitation, we have changed to a relativity
theory of gravitation.

61

But in the meantime, all apples fell to
the ground, none of them ever fell up. In short,
the gravitational observation that things fall
toward the center of the earth is a valid
observation. Our explanation of it changed not
based on faith or belief but on the fact that
Einstein could demonstrate that his was a better
explanation than Newton's. That is what I mean
when you discard one theory for another. You do
not have to realign the whole universe to do so.

Q. Would that be your definition on the
basis of better proof?

A. Better explanation. Because, as I say,
some people would have told you at the end of the
last century that Newtonian physics had proven
thus and so. I dislike the word "proof" because,
let's face it, science is a tentative thing. This
is the idea. No matter what I tell you today, it
is subject to change tomorrow. When I went to
school I was told that human beings had 48
chromosomes, and that was a fact and I memorized
it, and I know it today despite the fact that it
is wrong. They have 46 chromosomes.

Q. Let's go back to my original question.

62

If there are four theories of origin --

A. There may be a lot more. I only gave
you four.

Q. I understand, you only gave me four.
Using those four theories of origin, if I as a
scientist choose to believe as a scientist that
one other than the one you suppose is a better
explanation, am I wrong?

A. If you tell me you believe it, you are
wrong. If you tell me that you find it supported
by certain kinds of evidence, we now can have a
discussion. But if you just tell me you believe
it, I am powerless to argue with your belief.

Q. I don't want to argue semantics with
you, but I understand what you are saying.

A. I think one of the problems that we
have in this whole arrangement is a semantic
problem. We are using words a little bit
differently. Not you and me, but the contestors
here are using words differently and they are
talking this way (indicating). It would be very
helpful if we could get kind of a little
dictionary of what we mean and stick with it.
Then we could talk about the same thing. But I

63

have a hunch we are using the same words to mean
different things to ourselves.

Q. Does the occasion arise or would it
arise where a scientist in support of an
explanation of a scientific phenomenon has a
vested interest in promoting that explanation as
the best explanation?

A. Scientists are human like everyone else
and they are subject to the same frailties as we
are all. And there are evidences not only that
scientists have used certain things for their own
self-agrandizement, there have been unfortunately
a few instances where the facts have been
falsified to make it even better. Fortunately,
science is a self-correcting process and these
things are exposed after a while.

Q. Have you ever lectured on the subject
of origins on evolution versus creation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the title of that lecture, or
titles if more than one, where and when?

A. There have been so many I would have a
hard time reconstructing them all. But let me
just give you several. At the 1980 Toronto

64

meeting of the AAAS -- excuse me. That was 1981,
it was early this year. My time is off. I gave a
presentation called "The Reaction of the
Traditionalist Movement," which is here in this
paper, and I contrasted the creationist and the
scientific views.

I have given others. I just gave one
in the NABT meeting in October of 1981 that dealt
with theory, its use and misuse. This was on the
semantic problem, but how one got to the area here.

I gave one just this last past Saturday
at the NSTA meeting in Nashville, called "The
Falacious Nature of Creation Science." And I have
done numerous others to primarily education and
scientific groups.

Q. The lecture of last Saturday, do you
have a copy of that?

A. It is right here.

Q. Could you summarize for me just the
general thrust of those lectures?

A. The major thesis is that we are being
asked to put into science classrooms things that
do not meet the test of science. To me this
constitutes a confusion and a muddying of

65

intellectual waters, to call things by the wrong
names and introduce them in the wrong situation.

Also, it is one biblical literalist
view to have access to classrooms at the expense
of all others. This is not an open kind of thing
but, rather, it is a closed kind of thing. When
we speak of opening the classroom to a variety of
discussions, this limits the classroom to one
specific religious view and eliminates all the
others.

I don't feel this is an argument
between science and religion, I don't see it as
that at all. It isn't that kind of an argument.
What it is is an attempt to smuggle a specific
fundamentalist viewpoint into classrooms as
science.

I am perfectly willing to let these
people have access to schools and courses of
comparative religion where their views can be
compared with other similar types of explanation.
But to put them in a science classroom when they
don't follow any of the processes of science
bothers me a very great deal.

As I said earlier, even if they are not,

66

theirs does not constitute a scientific
explanation. It might be the world's greatest
theological explanation, but I am not sure that
the world's theologies are willing to follow it.

Q. Again can you state for me, just taking
the assumption that they, as you used the term to
apply to fundamentalist or the Genesis account of
creation, are correct, why it would not be science?

A. Because it is subject to none of the
processes of science.

Q. Dr. Mayer, may I ask for your opinion
on the origin of man or life? What is your
opinion?

A. I would have to say that as far as I am
concerned, there is nothing in the Bible that
prevents me from accepting evolution as God's way
of creating.

Q. That is really not what I asked. Let
me be a little more specific. What is your
opinion of the origin of man, as a scientist?

A. Based on the scientific evidence, I
would have to say that man is related to all of
the other organisms, more closely related to the
primates than any others, more closely related to

67

mammals than to, let's say, fish or whatever, and
that the evidences seem to indicate that man is a
derivative of a long line of ancestry.

Q. What about the origin of life, the
existence of life, the first life?

A. It is conceivable to me as a scientist
that that could have been derived through
mechanistic processes. But this does not mean
that, as I said earlier, that these aren't the
methods that God used. The bible is moot on the
methods that God used.

Q. Can you define for me a little better
what you mean by mechanistic processes?

A. Mechanistic processes are ones that do
not require or propose any supernatural or extra
powerful interventions.

Q. What about the origin of the earth?
What is your theory in science or belief in
science?

A. The evidence indicates that the big
bang theory, as it sometimes is called, is an
explanation that is supported by the facts as we
know them today.

Q. Is that an explanation that you

68

personally accept as a scientist?

A. I would accept it as a scientist, yes.

Q. What are the assumptions that underlie
that explanation in terms of the big bang?

A. I am not a cosmologist, but I presume
to speak out of my field. The problem is that the
condensation of matter in the universe, one
assumes that originally there was a kind of an
even dispersal of materials which then condensed.
As they condense, they get hotter and hotter, and
finally what has been termed a cosmic egg, because
of the implosion of all this material, simply by
the heat in the process simply explodes and blows
this material all over the universe, which then
begins to coalesce in aggregations outside this
initial egg of matter/energy, and there is a lot
of scientific evidence that supports this.

I don't say it is the correct version,
but it is the version which at the present time is
best supported by the evidence.

Q. There could be other versions, but this
is the one that is best supported by scientific
explanation?

A. Yes, sir, today.

69

Q. Today.

A. Today.

Q. Have you ever done any consulting work
as a biologist, as a zoologist, as an educational
specialist?

A. Yes.

Q. For whom?

A. For a variety of organizations. I have
consulted for the Federal Government, for example,
with the National Science Foundation, and with a
number of other organizations at the state and
federal level. I have consulted on a kind of an
ad hoc basis with industry on a variety of
products or processes. I have consulted to states
and to local school boards on educational matters.

Q. The consulting work you did with the
National Science Foundation, what area was that?

A. It was primarily in the area of
curriculum development in education.

Q. For biology specifically?

A. For biology specifically.

Q. When was that done?

A. That was done in the early 1960's. I
can't remember the date. It was about 20 years

70

ago.

Q. Are copies of that work still available?

A. I would try to find it. I will just
write it down here, copies of NSF studies to which
I contributed. I will try to dig them up. They
are kind of out of date right now.

Q. I understand, yes, sir. You said you
did some consulting work for private industry.
What was the nature of that work?

A. It had nothing to do with evolution,
obviously. For example, as my specialty in my
thesis had to do with mammalian hair, I consulted
with industry on the best ways to use hair for a
variety of products. I was an expert witness for
the Federal Trade Commission on bogus furs and
things of that nature. This had nothing to do
with what we were talking about, but it was an
interesting interlude.

Q. You said you did consulting work for
various state and local school governing bodies?

A. School boards, yes.

Q. What was the nature of that consulting
work?

A. The most recent one was in Lemmon,

71

South Dakota, in a case that dealt with a teacher
of biology and his competence. I was called in as
an expert to evaluate the work of this individual.

Q. What was your evaluation?

A. I thought he was not doing a proper job.

Q. Was the issue in this instance the
teaching of creation or evolution or both in the
classroom?

A. This was primarily one of creation, yes.

Q. Can you give me some of the facts that
led you to conclude that this biology teacher was
not doing his job?

A. Yes. The school board was extremely
generous in the sense that they did not prohibit
the teaching of creationism and asked him to take
about a week of his time and sort of, as they said,
get it out of his system and then go on with
teaching biology. They were not against his
teaching creationism. However, he took this as a
mandate to throughout the year do this, and
admitted in testimony that he spent 30 percent of
his classroom time dealing with creationism. This
meant that the time that the students were
supposedly getting other biological information

72

that would allow them to pass college entrance
exams, and so on, they were not getting.

I felt that his emphasis on this
subject was so excessive as to present a skewed
course that did not allow the students graduating
from the school to compete well with other
students whose time had not been so taken.

Q. The individual involved only taught
biology or only taught science, he did not teach
other subjects?

A. I can't say that for sure. It was a
small school, and I would assume he had taught
others. He was not doing that at the time, but I
I assume that sometime in the past he had. In
little schools, people double in brass very
frequently.

Q. You were retained by the Lemmon --

A. Lemmon school board.

Q. Have you done other consulting work of
the same nature where you make evaluations of
teaching skills or competence?

A. Very seldom do I make evaluations of
teachers. That is not something I like to do. I
have been with the North Central Association

73

evaluation systems. I do not like to evaluate
individuals. I am very uneasy with doing that.

Q. Just for my information, what was the
outcome of your recommendation in Lemmon, North
Dakota?

A. I am not sure it was an outcome of my
recommendation. I was only a small part of this.
But the man was terminated as a teacher in the
system.

Q. Did you in that work evaluate the
creation materials and/or subject matter that was
offered by the instructor?

A. As much of it as was available, yes.

Q. Did you make any written findings in
your professional judgment as to its scientific
basis or merit.

A. No, I was not asked to make written
findings. I did testify.

Q. In a court of law?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the style of that case, do you
know?

A. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you
mean by that.

74

Q. Name of the case. I'm sorry. What was
the name of the case?

A. I have this all written down, but I am
very sorry, I don't know whether it was Dale
versus the Lemmon School Board, or how it was.
But if you would like, I could get you that.

Q. I would appreciate that.

MR. CEARLEY: It is a reported case.

MR. CLARK: That is what I wanted to
know.

Q. You testified as an expert?

A. Yes.

Q. As a science expert or as an education
expert?

A. Both.

Q. What other consulting work have you
taken in regard to school districts or school
boards? Not North Central, but I mean
specifically with an entity.

A. Orlando, Florida, I was down there
consulting on their science curriculum. I am
trying to think of all of these. They kind of,
unfortunately, blend. I was just up at Dickenson,
North Dakota, at the request of the university

75

there, to look at their science curriculum and
make recommendations there. I have been consultant
abroad in the Philippines and other countries on
educational systems. But these consultantships
really have nothing to do with creationism, it
just has to do with the structure of their science
programs.

Q. The structure of their curricula?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that include the courses that
should be taught and the content of those courses
or does it go that far?

A. It normally doesn't go that far. But
basically it does say these kinds of things: Does
this curriculum meet the needs of the student in
that particular community? For example, in
Dickenson, North Dakota, it is changing from a
farming community to an energy-oriented community,
as oil, coal, and so on are found. It would seem
reasonable that the curriculum in science focus
more on energy than it has in the past when this
was not an issue in the area, energy, environment,
and the things that are correlated with that
particular new activity. So that would be the

76

kind of recommendation I might make.

Q. Have you ever testified in any other
legal proceedings than the one you just mentioned?

A. Yes. I was a witness in the California
Seagraves case that was earlier this year.

Q. That was a creation versus evolution
case?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you sort of summarize your
testimony for that.

(Recess taken.)

Q. I had asked you, I think, to summarize
your testimony in the California case where you
said you testified.

A. The thesis that I presented was the
nondogmatic nature of science. In the judge's
opinion that he rendered he quoted what he
considered to be the salient features of this
testimony. I don't have that with me.

MR. CEARLEY: That portion is quoted in
the written opinion.

A. Beyond that, the case did not really,
strangely enough, end up dealing so much with
creation/evolution as with the structure of the

77

state's science framework and what constituted
science.

Q. What was your testimony as to what
constitutes science?

A. I indicated that science was a body of
changing knowledge, that it was tentative, that it
was a group of state of the art explanations that
were derived by a certain methodology, and that it
was not dogmatic, was the main thrust of the
testimony.

Q. In that lawsuit or in any other lawsuit,
if a scientist could give an explanation for the
creation theory of origin that was a state of the
art explanation, would that be science?

A. First of all, there is no such thing as
a creational theory. The creationists themselves
have admitted this. So to use the term "creation"
and "theory" together is a nonproductive thing in
the sense that you are describing something that
doesn't exist. So anything that began with a
reference to the creation theory I would have to
say would be inappropriate.

Q. For the sake of discussion, assume that
there could be a creation theory. Then if that

78

theory could be offered as an explanation, would
that be science?

A. No, it still wouldn't, because the
theory would not be based on any scientific
evidence. The problem I have with this is that
the creation explanation not only doesn't account
for the data, it demands that you reject data, and
that I find intolerable from the scientific
standpoint.

Q. That you eject data?

A. Reject data.

Q. Specifically what?

A. Specifically radiometric data, for
example. Radiometric dating is a completely
legitimate, well-supported, documented, useful bit
of scientific evidence and process that the
creationists tell me is wrong, that basically you
are not supposed to use that. They give me
explanations that I can't regard as effective for
discarding that data.

Q. Have you had the opportunity to read
the Arkansas Act 590 of 1981?

A. I have read it.

Q. When did you first read it?

79

A. It came out in the spring of this year,
was that it? Someone sent me a copy of it in some
early form. I don't even know that it said Act
590 on it when I got it. Then I received
subsequent, I don't know if they were editions or
whatever. But I have seen this document.

Q. The first time that you read Act 590
was when someone sent you something. Do you
remember who sent it to you?

A. I can't remember who sent it. But
someone in Arkansas sent me a copy of this Act.

Q. To Boulder?

A. To Boulder, yes.

Q. When was the last time that you read it?

A. Several weeks ago.

Q. Having read that Act as recently as a
few weeks ago, what does "balanced treatment" mean
to you?

A. It is exceptionally vague. I don't
know. That was one of the first things that
bothered me, what is balanced treatment? Is it
balance of equal number of words or equal amounts
of written material or equal hours or minutes or
days? I cannot define "balanced" and I don't

80

think anyone else can either.

Q. In the Lemmon, South Dakota, case in
which you testified as an expert, were hired as an
expert, you stated I think earlier that you felt
that the treatment that was given to the creation
theory by this one teacher was not balanced.

A. I don't think I said it was not balanced.
I think I said he spend 30 percent of his time
dealing with creationism.

Q. Did you make a judgment as to the
propriety of that much of classroom time being
devoted to this one theory or this one issue?

A. I don't see there is a single bit of
subject matter in the whole field of biology that
I would devote 30 percent of my classroom time to.

Q. Do you as an expert or can you as an
expert identify portions or proportions of time
that should be identified for the teaching of any
issue in biology?

A. Most programs come with what they call
a scope and sequence chart, which shows various
topics and the amount of time that is devoted to
them or can be devoted to them. These vary a
great deal, depending on the emphasis of the area.

81

For example, in an agricultural community you
probably spend more time on plants and
fertilization of plants and growth of plants and
development of plants than you would, let's say,
in the urban area of New York. So there is a
fudge factor in there.

America, unlike other countries, has no
central education authority, and this is at the
same time the strength and weakness of our
educational system, that it is completely local.
One of the strengths is that it allows us to
tailor the course to the given needs of a
particular community.

Q. The words you used were what?

A. Scope and sequence. It is a bit of
educational jargon that tells you how much time
and emphasis you give to certain things.

Q. Your efforts at BSCS, do those go to
defining the scope and sequence of the teaching of
evolution?

A. In a way, yes. We identified a dozen
major themes that we felt should be pervasive
throughout the study of biology, and one of those
twelve was evolution.

82

Q. That scope and sequence for those dozen
major themes would be twelve issues to be taught
over the period or a semester, a school year?

A. A school year, which is at very best
150 days. When you look at a student's school
experience and you say I have 150 days to tell him
all there is to know about biology, you are in
trouble when you make the statement, and you try
to do the very best you can to do what you think
is most important in 150 days.

Q. Does the scope and sequence set out
what professionals in the field consider a balanced
treatment of issues that must be presented or
should be presented?

MR. CEARLEY: Let me ask you if you
would clarify what you mean there. One of the
issues here is what "balanced treatment" means, so
I would prefer if you can use another word so Dr.
Mayer can understand.

Q. To try to rephrase that question for
Mr. Cearley, scope and sequence, is that a
recognition of a priority or establishing a
priority?

A. Yes, it establishes priorities. It

83

says certain things are more important than others,
correct.

Q. Does it establish in that priority
either, as its name suggests, the sequence or the
amount of time that should be spent on each of
those priorities?

A. It does both. Because biology is a
progressive discipline, certain things need to be
covered before certain other things. You need to
know a little bit of chemistry, for example,
before you can understand nutrition. You need to
know a little bit about cell structure before you
can understand heredity, and also the time is
important.

Q. Where in that sequence in terms of
priority does evolution fit?

A. In terms of priority, evolution is
usually one of the latter subjects discussed. You
tend to talk about organismic diversity, you tend
to talk about a number of other things before you
get to evolution. In the bulk of the
presentations, evolution is always late in the
course.

Q. In response to my question earlier, you

84

have no opinion as to what "balanced treatment"
means under Act 590?

A. I probably have a dozen opinions as to
what it means, and none of them are clear. One of
them is a time balance. If you spend 5 minutes on
A, you spend 4 minutes on B. Another would be
equal emphasis. Another would be text material.
If we have a paragraph on A, we have to have an
equal paragraph on B. The balance requirement
just bothers me so much because I don't see how
you can handle it and I don't see how it can be
monitored.

Q. In Act 590 there is a phrase
"Prohibition against religious instruction." What
does that mean to you in that Act?

A. If I read it correctly, it says that
there will be no reference to religious writings.
Unfortunately, everything that I have seen that
has been put out by the creationists makes
reference to religious writings. If this is
actually correct, you couldn't use any of the
creationist materials in the classroom.

Q. Are there materials that you are aware
of that could be used in the classroom if the

85

scientific explanation of creation were to be
taught?

A. I have seen none.

Q. In the Act there are definitions of
evolution science and creation science. I would
like to go through the Act with you on each of
those definitions, starting with the evolution
science definition first, and ask you what each of
the parts of these definitions means. If we could
start with evolution science meaning the
scientific evidences for evolution and inferences
from those scientific evidences, includes
scientific evidences and related inferences that
indicate, 1, the emergence by naturalistic processes
of the universe from disordered matter and
emergence of life from nonlife. What does that
mean to you, Dr. Mayer?

A. The thing that bothers me, this is an
exceptionally awkward thing. It is almost
tautology: Evolution science means the scientific
evidence for evolution. That doesn't say anything
to me. It is a bad and awkward wording. The
people who wrote this Act did both the Edgar
Bergen and Charlie McCarthy parts. They have

86

written both sides of the issue. I am not sure
that they have given this side at least a fair
shake.

I have no objection scientifically to
saying that evolution science could include
emergence by naturalistic processes of the
universe from -- I don't know what "disordered
matter" means, but I would certainly buy emergence
by naturalistic processes and life from nonlife.
These are types of scientific explanations, and
they exist, I could say that.

Q. What about the second one, the
sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about the development of present living
kinds from simple earlier kinds?

A. I am not sure I buy the sufficiency.
Certainly mutation and natural selection are parts
of the processes of development of living kinds
from simpler earlier kinds. I assume that means
simpler earlier living kinds, although it doesn't
say so. The only word that would bother me there
was the "sufficiency," because there are other
processes involved here.

Q. How about No. 3, the emergency by

87

mutation and natural selection of present living
kinds from simple earlier kinds?

A. I am just trying to distinguish 3 from
2, because it seems to say the same thing. First
of all, I don't know what it means by "emergency."
Maybe it means emergence. "Emergency" is an
improper word at that point.

Present living kinds from simple
earlier kinds seems to be a recapitulation of 2.
I don't know why it is separated out.

Q. What about No. 4, the emergence of man
from a common ancestry with apes?

A. Emergence of man from a common ancestry
with apes. The wording is awkward. Does this
imply that man descended from apes? If it does,
it is not correct. If it says somewhere that
primates had a common ancestor, I would buy that.

Q. As a scientist, do you have an
explanation of that common ancestor?

A. There are postulated ancestors. It
depends on how far back you would want to go. But
there are hiararchies of ancestry that are in the
literature and are fairly well accepted, although
I wouldn't say they are incontrovertible. They

88

probably will change as we get more data.

Q. What are some of those postulated
ancestors?

A. The most frequently postulated one
would be some kind of insectivorous mammal,
probably something very similar to what would
today be regarded as a lemur because of the
generalizable structures that are involved in a
pattern.

Q. Let's go back to the definitions in No.
5, explanation of the earth's geology and the
evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism.

A. Uniformitarianism implies that all of
the processes of the past are similar to the
processes of the present. Within limits, that is
reasonable. But if carried to the extreme, it is
unreasonable. Let me try to enlarge on that a bit.
We know, for example, from the evidence of geology
that at one time volcanism, lots of volcanoes and
all were present in greater numbers than today.

Now it is true we have volcanoes today
and we had volcanoes in the past and as such we
could say that is uniformitarian because the
situation today is shown in the past. But is it

89

uniformitarianism when you have so many of them
this time and so few of them at that time?

I am not trying to play semantic games,
but it is the kind of thing you think of when you
say uniformitarianism. If you assume that
uniformitarianism is just a kind of even
progression kind of thing, I would say no. If you
are saying that the processes might be similar but
in different degree, then I would say yes.

Q. No. 6, an inception several billion
years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.

A. I would say yes.

Q. Are any of those definitions consistent
with your own religious beliefs?

A. None of those would in any way offend
my religious beliefs.

Q. Now let's go through the definition of
creation science, if you will. The Act states
that, "creation science means the scientific
evidences for creation and inferences from those
scientific evidences. Creation science includes
the scientific evidences and related inferences
that indicate: (10) Sudden creation of the
universe, energy, and life from nothing." What

90

does that definition mean to you?

A. It bothers me a very great deal,
because I don't see how you get something from
nothing, and I don't know any scientific
evidence -- remembering that this says that this
is based on scientific evidence, I know no
scientific evidence relating to the origin of
something from nothing.

Q. "(2) The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of
all living kinds from a single organism."

A. First of all, I have never seen the
establishment of a single organism as the
progenitor for everything. But secondly, I can't
agree that mutation and natural selection are
insufficient. Maybe their interpretation of it is
insufficient, but I have not seen scientific
evidence that would support that statement. I
haven't seen any scientific evidence that
postulates a single organism, for example.

Q. You are not aware of scientific
explanation that refutes the sufficiency of
mutation and the natural selection process? Is
that what you are saying?

91

A. Yes.

Q. No. 3. "Changes only within fixed
limits of originally created kinds of plants and
animals."

A. I don't know of any scientific evidence
that supports that. Besides that, it bothers me
in being similar to an explanation of a little bit
of pregnancy. If you can allow certain changes,
why can't you allow other changes? This seems to
be terribly restrictive. You can have these kinds
of changes but not those kinds of changes, and I
don't understand that. I think if you can have
changes, you can have them in any quantity.

Q. No. 4. "Separate ancestry for man and
apes."

A. I know of no evidence for it.

Q. No. 5. "Explanation of the earth's
geology by catastrophism" --

A. Catastrophism.

Q. -- "including the occurrence of a
worldwide flood."

A. There is no scientific evidence for a
worldwide flood. That is the Noachian flood of
the Bible. The assumption is that the world was

92

covered above the tops of the highest mountains by
a flood whose waters came from I know not where.

Q. No. 6. "A relatively recent inception
of the earth and living kinds."

A. To me that requires that we simply must
reject radiometric dating, all of cosmology, all
of paleontology, all of the fossil record, all of
sedimentation. That I simply can't buy for one
instant. There is no scientific evidence that
shows that the earth is young. Normally they
figure about 10,000 years.

Q. Are any of the parts of the definition
of creation science inconsistent with your
religious beliefs?

A. Yes, they would be.

Q. Which ones and why?

A. First of all, as I say, there is
nothing in the Bible that tells me that God started
with nothing. I don't recall anywhere reading
that. Now the insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection is just poor science, and as
poor science it offends my science and makes me
believe that these people are not playing with a
full deck.

93

Changes only within fixed limits. I
would say God created all of these things with the
potential to change to any limit. I don't see
anything in the Bible that says God created things
and ordered them within fixed limits. That isn't
there.

Separate ancestry for man and apes, I
think the Bible was moot on this.

Worldwide flood I have regarded always
as allegorical, and there isn't a single date in
the Bible, nothing is dated.

Q. I don't want to be trying to trick you
or anything, but I want to go back to my question.
My question was whether any of these parts of this
definition of creation science was inconsistent
with your own personal religious beliefs. You
answered yes and went through all of the six. The
first one you said you did not belief something to
the effect that God created something from nothing.

A. That's right.

Q. But you went on and referred to God in
several other instances. Were you speaking of
your own personal religion or were you speaking
academically from the standpoint of those too?

94

A. I am speaking from my own personal
religion. I thought you were asking me how I felt
about this.

Q. That is what I was asking you. I just
wanted to make sure of your answer.

A. That is how I feel.

Q. In your review of Act 590, do you find
anything in that Act which prohibits a teacher
from expressing his or her professional opinion
concerning the relative scientific strength or the
weakness of either model or origin?

A. If we can pause for a minute, I have to
go back and take a peak at this.

Q. Sure.

A. I'm sorry. I really did find something
offensive in here, and I am trying to go back and
find it again.

Q. That's all right. Take all the time
you need.

THE WITNESS: I have now forgotten the
question.

Q. The question is, do you see anything in
this Act which would prohibit a teacher from
expressing his or her professional opinion

95

concerning the relative scientific strength or
weakness of either model of origin?

A. Yes. Because it requires instruction
in both scientific models. That is in Section 5.
This makes the assumption first of all that there
are only two scientific models. It makes the
assumption that the creation model is a scientific
model. And it is putting a gun at the head of the
teacher to teach something that is science that
the teacher would know was not science. This
leaves the teacher with the alternative of saying,
I am going to present you with a nonscientific
scientific model because the State of Arkansas
asks me to, and I think that is bad teaching and I
think that does affect the teacher.

Q. Dr. Mayer, in a recent publication of
yours, you noted that the creation theory of
origin was contained in textbooks, biology
textbooks approved by the textbook committee for
the State of Arkansas. I believe those are your
words.

A. Did I say creation theory?

Q. Scientific creationism, excuse me.
Currently in the State of Arkansas, and I am

96

reading from, by the way, Creationist Impact is
the title, Creationist Impact on Science Teaching
in General and Biology Teaching in Particular, by
William Mayer, chairman, NABT, et cetera. I don't
know when this was presented.

A. It was presented in late October.

Q. Of this year?

A. Yes.

Q. "In this effort they seem to have been
successful in only 20 percent of the cases in
getting creationism into textbooks. Currently in
the State of Arkansas, 20 biology texts are on the
list for grades 9-12. Of these, four include
creationism, but in no case can the inclusion be
considered to give equal time to the
anti-evolutionist." It goes on to say, "The
maximum number of pages devoted to creation is 3
in one book where 49 pages are devoted to
evolution," and so on and so forth, it finishes
out that paragraph.

Based on those remarks that you gave, I
want to go back to my question again to ask you,
do you see anything in this Act which would
prohibit a teacher from expressing his or her

97

professional opinion concerning the relative
scientific strengths or weaknesses of either model
of origin?

A. Yes, I do, because it consistently
comes back to balanced treatment. If you are
giving a balanced treatment to nonscience, I think
that you are preventing a teacher from giving his
or her honest opinion. If you allow the teacher
the option of presenting this, then you might have
a different situation. But you are not giving
them an option, you are giving them a requirement.
Then you say does this prevent them from
exercising their abilities as teachers to
interpret, and the answer is yes, I think it does.

Q. In the four textbooks that are on the
approved list in the State of Arkansas -- that you
have reviewed, I assume?

A. Yes.

Q. -- is it your judgment that they
reflect balanced treatment?

A. No. But remember, I never know what
balanced treatment is.

Q. Is it your judgment that should a
teacher in Arkansas using one of these texts

98

assign that material for reading and include it in
a discussion, that they would be acting in
violation of this Act?

A. They would if somebody said it wasn't a
balanced presentation. It would seem to me that
they are leaving themselves wide open to a problem
of balance, and the Act gives me no indication of
how this is going to be monitored in the first
place.

Q. Let me go back then to an earlier
statement you made about scope and sequence.
Scope and sequence goes to the priority of
subjects to be taught and the amount of time spent
on those issues within that subject taught. Is
that not also subject to the same sort of inquiry
and challenge based on the development of those
priorities -- I am trying to stay away from the
words "balanced treatment," you understand -- but
in terms of those priorities so that one could
question the validity of the priority and the time
assigned under that priority system for each
subject taught?

A. Absolutely. Everything you do in a
classroom is subject to revision and command and

99

criticism. The difference here is that this is a
state piece of legislation, this is law. A
teacher can't get in trouble legally for giving a
little more time, let's say, to plants than to
animals, because there is no legal requirement
that they give balanced plant/animal treatment.
But this is a different matter entirely. This is
introducing the force of the state into what the
teacher teaches.

Q. What is your definition of academic
freedom?

A. My definition of academic freedom is
the ability of a teacher to teach a discipline as
outlined by its practitioners without fear of
reprisal.

Q. Ability to teach a discipline as
outlined by its practitioners without fear of
reprisal?

A. That's correct.

Q. Does academic freedom in your opinion
guarantee a teacher the right to teach without
qualification whatever he or she desires in the
classroom?

A. No.

100

Q. What is that qualification?

A. The qualification is the teacher should
be competent in the area for which he or she is
certificated.

Q. Is a further qualification the
discipline as it is outlined by its practitioners?

A. Yes.

Q. In every instance?

A. This is where the content of discipline
comes from. The individuals are doing the
research who are involved in the discipline. In
other words, biology is what biologists do.

Q. Can academic freedom, in your judgement,
ever be limited?

A. If a teacher gets into an area in which
he or she is not qualified, for example, if a
mathematics teacher decides instead of mathematics
he wants to teach art, I think he has overstepped
the bounds of his academic freedom, because the
school requires that mathematics be taught.

Q. In the Lemmon, South Dakota case, had
the instructor in that case spent less than 30
percent of the class time on teaching a creation
theory of origin, would that have been a violation

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of William V. Mayer - Page 3

101

of academic freedom?

A. Academic freedom is more than just
something the teacher has. The academic freedom
is also something the student has to receive the
discipline unfiltered by prejudice. In this case
I think it was filtered.

Q. Let me go back to that same case. Was
there an issue of academic freedom, in your
professional judgment, in the Lemmon, South Dakota
case?

A. No, because the school board did not
prohibit the teacher from teaching creationism.
This was really not an issue. What they were
concerned with was that the teacher refused to
teach the discipline of biology as outlined within
the curriculum guides of the school board.

Q. Then is the standard for academic
freedom one that is prescribed by the governing
body in every instance or only some?

A. The legal requirement is in the hands
of the school board. The school board is
responsible and does delineate, the difference
being that in most cases they delineate only the
broad picture and not the details. This gets down

102

into the legislature mandating specific subject
matter and the time to be spent with it.

Q. In the Lemmon, South Dakota case, had
the Lemmon, South Dakota, school board said to its
instructor you may teach creation science provided
that it does not exceed ten percent of your total
classroom time, would that have been a violation
of academic freedom?

A. Of course, my attitude is that the
teacher was not teaching biology, he was teaching
his religious views.

Q. But the question is, is that a
violation of academic freedom?

A. To specify the amount of time that a
teacher will devote to a subject, I don't believe
that is a violation.

Q. In your opinion, may the state
prescribe curriculum in secondary schools?

A. It depends on the state. In the State
of Colorado, the constitution specifically forbids
them from so doing. In some states they have this
right. In most states, however, they are content
with saying we will have a course in state history
or mathematics or whatever, and most states as far

103

as I am familiar simply do not tell what is going
to be taught within that course. They don't say,
for example, in the course of history that you
must teach that Columbus discovered America.

Q. But as an educational expert, cognizant
of educational philosophy, and I assume cognizant
of issues of academic freedom and law in education,
in your opinion may the state prescribe curriculum
for secondary schools?

A. Yes.

Q. In your opinion, should the classroom
in a secondary school be open to all academic
discussions?

A. It can't be, simply because there is an
infinity of content and opinion and only a finite
amount of time available in a classroom. So you
are immediately constrained. All education is a
selection of materials. If you have a million
things to choose from and you have 150 days, the
question is which of those are you going to choose.
So the situation is impossible to begin with. You
cannot open a classroom to all opinions on a
subject simply because you would never get through
a school year past the first bit of information.

104

Q. Is your opinion that you have just
stated that of a teacher and a teacher's teacher
rather than that in the role of a student?

A. Yes. The student isn't in a position
to make a comment on this simply because the
student doesn't know what is available in the
first place.

Q. Did you not say to me a moment ago that
a student has a right to academic freedom?

A. A student has a right to receive
information unfiltered by the biases and prejudices
of the teacher.

Q. Then in your earlier statement to the
effect that because of the infinity of ideas that
can be offered in any one given discipline, the
responsibility then falls upon the teacher to
define the scope and the sequence?

MR. CEARLEY: I am not sure that Dr.
Mayer said infinity of ideas in any one given
discipline. I took it that was his point, that
there is an infinite number of ideas and finite
time.

MR. CLARK: I think that is probably
more accurate, I agree.

105

Q. I don't think you said in one
discipline, I agree with that. The infinity of
ideas that had to be taught in the 150 days for
whatever purpose.

Back to my question. In terms of the
responsibility of that teacher to develop the
scope and the sequence of ideas to be presented as
an educational expert, is it your opinion that the
classroom in secondary schools should be open to
all academic discussion including that that might
be started by students which exceeds the scope and
the sequence as outlined by the instructor?

A. It would be good educational practice
to pursue the questions of the students when they
come up insofar as it is possible to do so within
the time available.

Q. In your opinion, should teachers be
free to evaluate the validity of subjects
discussed in the classroom?

A. Within certain limits. Many times
teachers don't have the background, training or
experience to evaluate various controversial or at
least unresolved issues. The situation, for
example, on DNA experimentation, unless a teacher

106

is very familiar with this kind of thing, I am not
quite sure he or she would be in a position to
make a good judgment as to whether DNA
experimentation should be controlled or
uncontrolled, because they are not familiar enough
with the process.

Q. What are those limits, then, that you
described? You said within limits they should be
free to evaluate the validity of such. What are
those limits? Use your example of DNA. Do you
have an opinion as to whether that research should
be controlled or not controlled?

A. You are asking me for a personal
opinion. all of the data we have right now
indicates that there is no need for control simply
because the kinds of problems anticipated have not
appeared.

Q. I am not sure you answered my question,
but it was a good answer anyway. What are the
limits within which a teacher should be free to
evaluate the validity of subjects? You said
within limits. What are those limits?

A. The limits would be primarily the
competence of the teacher, to begin with. You

107

have to make the assumption that if a teacher is
making an evaluative judgment, the teacher has
already studied both sides of the issue and is
familiar enough to do that. Unfortunately, in the
real world of teaching, a teacher who has 150
different students a day, 30 in a class, 5 classes
a day, and many of the other things that are
required, doesn't really have much time to
acquaint himself or herself with all of the sides
of an issue. The only thing I am asking is that
they be in a position to make an informed judgment.
I don't think anybody has the right to make an
uninformed judgment for classes.

Q. In your opinion, Dr. Mayer, should the
evolutionary model of origins be subject to
criticism in public school classrooms?

A. Absolutely.

MR. CEARLEY: Could I ask something
here? Do we have earlier in the record any
explanation of what the word "model" means?

MR. CLARK: I asked Dr. Mayer the
difference between theory and model early on, and
he gave me the difference as being --

A. I did give you my opinion. I don't

108

like the word "model," but that is a personal
preference.

Q. I have written it down here, but I
would have to look at it.

MR. CEARLEY: That is fine, as long as
the record reflects what Dr. Mayer means by that
word.

MR. CLARK: A model is a construct, a
device for illumination, I think are some of the
words he used. And a theory, I don't remember the
exact words, but it was an explanation of the --

A. An explanation of the state of the art.

Q. That's correct, I remember that,
subject to modification.

A. Anyhow, to get back to your question,
any theory should be subject to criticism. There
is no piece of science that is above criticism,
none.

Q. How did you come to be involved in this
lawsuit?

A. I suppose primarily because of my
writings in this area, my interest in this for the
last 20 some odd years, and I have some sort of
reputation as an authority on evolutionary theory

109

and its place in education. My past experiences I
suppose in places like the California Seagraves
case, and so on, have brought me to the attention
of others.

Q. Were you contacted prior to the filing
of this lawsuit or after, do you know?

A. I would believe I was contacted
afterwards.

Q. Do you have a personal code of conduct
or ethics that you follow as a scientist?

A. I think everybody in the world has a
personal code of some kind. The answer is yes.

Q. Could you identify what that is for me?

A. I would like to see the world a little
better place to live in when I leave it than when
I found it. And I try, insofar as possible to be
as objective and as honest in my dealing with
people and things as I possibly can, to be as
clear and clean as I can, and be as helpful as I
can.

Q. Dr. Mayer, how do you define the study
of origins? I know that that word gives you
trouble, but how do you define that as it is
discussed or debated in science?

110

A. The simplest definition of origins, of
course, is the question that everybody asks, where
does it come from, whatever it is, whether it is
ourselves, whether it is the universe, whether it
is whatever. The accounts show from time
immemorial man has wondered these questions.
there is nobody who hasn't said to himself at one
time or another, where did I come from? Where did
this come from, where did that come from?

The study of origins attempts to answer
that in a number of ways. It attempts to answer
it mystically, theologically, supernaturally,
scientifically, in every way possible. And
because it is a difficult question about which we
know relatively little, no one has come up with an
answer on which we all agree.

Q. Should it, where it came from, be
discussed in the classroom?

A. I think it depends on what it is.
Depending on how we define it, I think the answer
is, yes, it has a place.

Q. What is that place, by your definition?

A. I think first of all it is a place
where students have the maturity to deal with the

111

problem. It would be useless to bring this issue
up to students who don't have the background or
abilities to handle the information. So I think
first of all you are talking about a time.

Then secondly you are talking about a
place. As I said earlier, I would love to see at
the secondary school level a course in comparative
religions where students would be acquainted with
various theological approaches to origins. I
think this would be exceptionally valuable. I
think they should have a course in which the
scientific explanations of origins were discussed.
But I don't think that one course should try to do
both, because I think it is confusing and
misleading.

Q. You said a time where this material
should be presented or this issue should be
presented. I inferred from that a level of
academic achievement or age. Where is that?
Where do you define that?

A. It differs with different students.
Anybody who has ever taught knows that within a
class of a same theoretical age group, one kid
isn't ready and another kid is far beyond. It is

112

the same problem we have in dealing with sex.
Some kids are further advanced than others and
their time is past when you are ready.

But normally I would say that a student
of the sophomore level or above in high school
could handle this information.

Q. In what classes should that study of
origin be discussed?

A. Because there are more nonscientific
than scientific explanations of origins, my
favorite spot would be the social sciences,
because it is more of a sociological phenomenon or
social phenomenon than a scientific one.

Q. Any particular class in social sciences
or just the social sciences in a broad sense?

A. Most schools now have combined things
together in what they call social studies or
social science, and therein was all the stuff we
used to consider separately as history and
philosophy, and so on. So by default it would
have to go there.

Q. Would there be a proper place for a
discussion of the study of origins in science?

A. Scientific explanations, yes, would

112

belong there.

Q. You have identified for me earlier in
this deposition at least four theories of origin.
Would those be proper discussion?

A. They would be proper, and to that, if I
were going to develop this idea further, I would
add many more theories. I would put in the
Lemarckian one that I did not put in the original
group. I would put in some of the others that
have come along that are worth of at least
mention for which there was some scientific
evidence, even though it has been superseded. I
think even a theory that has gone by the boards is
interesting from the history of ideas standpoint.

Q. Then if one could show scientific
evidence for creation theory, would it fit then in
a study of origins in science?

A. If one could show scientific evidences
devoid of that supernatural base on which this
thing rests, in other words, if someone is coming
along with a better theory that is better founded,
explains more facts, I think that would have a
place, yes.

Q. I don't mean to be redundant and go

114

back over some things, but I took a long time
making up my list and I want to make sure I don't
miss anything. I may ask you some things twice.
If I have, please tell me, and we will move ahead.

What is meant by your definition the
term of "evolution"?

A. Evolution implies change of organisms
through time.

Q. Change of organisms through time. How
many different types of evolution are there or are
there types of evolution?

A. I frankly don't understand where you
are going with that.

Q. What I am trying to say is there are
some who might suggest that there are evolutions
of kinds which are distinct from other kinds, that
is, in the sense of -- I will use these two
examples. This is a kind, this is a kind. There
is an evolution track for this kind and an
evolution track for this kind. Are there types of
evolution, one species or another?
A. Let me say first of all this term "kind"
is not a scientific term. This derives directly
from the King James version of the Bible in which

115

it is used. It is not used in the Catholic
version, by the way, of the same chapters, so
Catholics can't really deal with "kind" in the
sense this is used.

This is one of these confusing things.
This is why I think creationism is more bothersome
than helpful, because it tends to confuse.

If you want to talk about these things
as species, fine.

Q. All right, let's try "species."

A. Among explanations for species you
would have a current argument in science between
macroevolution and microevolution. Remember, we
are not arguing whether evolution took place or
not. That is a given for this purpose. We are
saying how it came about.

Microevolutionists postulate small
changes over a long period of time, and they say
that given a long period of time anything could
change, like that (indicating). The
macroevolutionists postulate bigger jumps in
shorter periods of time. They talk of this
saltatorial, leaping, that things go along smoothly
and unchanged for a time and then a change occurs,

116

a rather goodly change. That is a different kind
of an argument.

So are there kinds of evolution? Not
kinds of evolution, but there are different
explanations for evolution, different accounts as
to how it takes place, yes.

Q. Are there more than these two accounts
for evolution?

A. Yes, there would be a number of them,
not all of which I can recall right now. There
are people who place greater emphasis on one
mechanism than another. Some people would place
greater emphasis on mutation, some would say it
works differently from this, you would have
translocations rather than mutations, considering
that translocation is a moving of a piece of a
cumbersome rather than a new introduction of
material. There are a number of ways in which
people attempt to account for the changes they see.

Q. Of these accounts is there one with
which you agree more strongly than others?

A. I would have to say that all the
evidence isn't in. I have a hunch that when it is
all in it won't be one or the other, we will find

117

that ultimately it is a mixture of the two, that
sometimes it does this and sometimes it does that,
under certain conditions it behaves differently.
I wouldn't want to put all of my eggs in one or
the other basket at this time.

Q. Dr. Mayer, what is your definition of
"science"? What is science?

A. Science is a process and a way of
knowing about the natural world.

Q. Does the scientific method of inquiry
reject all claims to final truth?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. Because we are not in possession of all
of the facts at any one point. When new facts
come -- it is the Newtonian physics problem again.
Looks good, fully serviceable. Another one is the
so-called Bohr atom. Before we really understood
much about atoms, there was a nice little model of
an atom that was comfortable, worked fine. Until
we found out more about atoms, and the Bohr atom
wasn't really where it was at, it works differently
from that. So those are examples of our ability
to change on the basis of new evidence.

118

Q. What do you know about the evolution
model of origin?

A. You are using the term "evolution model."

Q. Evolution theory.

A. What do I know about evolution theory,
is what you are asking me?

MR. CEARLEY: I would have to say that
that question is a bit broad.

Q. It is broad, I suppose. What I am
trying to do is in terms of whether is this theory
or model observable, testable, falsifiable,
repeatable, is it a valid science?

A. If you would break that question down
into each one of those words, I would be delighted
to try to answer.

Q. Let's start with observable.

A. Yes, it is observable. We have all
kinds of evidences. We can calculate time,
calculate sedimentation rates, we can see fossils,
we can measure radiometrically age, we can make
all kinds of observations in terms of evolution.

Q. What about testable?

A. It is testable in the sense that one
can test one part of the theory against another.

119

For example, it is testable with new evidences
that come in. Darwin originally postulated the
theory of evolution knowing remarkably little
about many things, such as inheritance.

When the inheritance model was created,
that is, developed by the work of Mendel and
subsequent people, that was a test for evolution,
because at this point the theory of inheritance
could have sunk the theory of evolution if these
things were not transmissible. But they were, so
it provided a testable yardstick for the fact that
the Darwinian explanation in this instance was
correct. And subsequently every new scientific
field, unknown to Darwin, has provided a testable
program against which to measure the theory of
evolution, and all are congruent.

Q. What about falsifiable?

A. Falsifiability is a term that is used
by a philisopher by the name of Popper. I have
never been a fan of Popper's, so I really am not
enamored of his use of the term "falsifiability."
But I know what he means. I would say that the
theory of evolution would be eminently falsifiable
in the Popperian sense even though I don't like

120

Popper.

Q. Explain to me how it is falsifiable.

A. The thesis involves this: You can
prove it wrong with specific experiments,
assumptions, and so on. And of course it can be.
For example, if you were to find that fossils were
in the inverse order, for example, if you were to
find human fossils in the earliest rocks and
simpler fossils in the newest, most recent rocks,
that would just turn the theory upside down,
because that would show that humans were on earth
before dinosaurs. That would certainly be a
falsifiable observation. We have not done that,
but in theory -- you see, this is in contrast to
the creationists' position, where theirs is not
contestable.

Q. What about repeatable?

A. All of the experimental materials and
all of the measurements and observations have been
confirmed many times over, which is a repeatable
bit of information.

Q. In your opinion, is the evolution
theory of origin a valid science?

A. It certainly is a valid theory. It is

121

as valid as any theory we have in science.

Q. You say it is a valid theory, which you
say is a statement of the art.

A. Yes.

Q. About understanding the process and the
way of knowing about our natural world.

A. Yes.

Q. So the answer would be yes to the
theory aspect of it?

A. You asked me what again?

Q. I said, is the evolution theory of
origin a valid science?

A. Yes.

Q. What are the probabilities of life
evolving from nonlife?

A. Disraeli made a nice statement about
this. He said there were lies, damn lies, and
statistics. When you use probability, you first
of all have to recognize that the earth is not a
random series of events. Creationists very
frequently like to mention the randomness of this
thing. It is not random.

Carbon, for example, will combine only
in certain ways with other elements such as

122

hydrogen or oxygen. It is not a random process.
It is not just putting them all in a box and
shaking them up. It doesn't work that way at all.
It is very well defined. So the the probability
changes.

But if you use these statistical
arguments, I can prove statistically that we
aren't here because the probability that one of us
are here out of all the people in the world is one
in four billion. The probability that two of us
would be here is one over four billion times one
over four billion, and pretty soon after you have
done this you get a gargantuan number which
numerically indicates we can't be here.

The use of statistics to do this kind
of foolishness I think is stupid. Yet when we
talk of what are the probabilities that this could
happen, you can come up with any number of numbers.
But it is like saying we can't be here numerically.
It is a meaningless statement. Statistically it
is a meaningless statement because, first of all,
you are not subject to randomness.

Secondly, we know that regardless of
probabilities that we can calculate, things happen

123

anyhow, apparently improbable events occur all the
time. That is where you get this it's a small
world phenomena. Two people meet who have no
business being at the same place at the same time.
So the probability question is one of how one uses
statistics. And the probability is unimportant,
because we can see evidence that these things have
happened.

Q. But, again, asking you in your
professional judgment, what is the probability of
life evolving from nonlife?

A. I think it is very good. I think it is
a high probability.

Q. I have asked you a number of questions
about the work that you have done and the studies
that you have participated in, but I want to go
back to ask again are there specific studies you
have done concerning origin, the theory of origin,
either evolution or other?

A. I have written papers on the subjects.
I am not a researcher in the field of biochemical
origins.

Q. These papers, have they been presented
at conferences or are they some of what we have

124

here?

A. Yes, and I think you have some of them
here. I am just looking for one here. I don't
see the one I am talking about, in which case I
would get it for you. But there is some of it in
here.

Q. What conclusions did you reach in those
papers?

A. That evolution is a valid scientific
theory, that is essential to the study of biology.
Without it biology just doesn't make sense.

Q. As we went through the evolution theory
of origin, I would like to go through the creation
theory or model of origin, going to observable,
testable, falsifiable, repeatable. So I would
start by asking you what do you know about that
creation theory of origin as to its
observability?

MR. CEARLEY: Could I ask here, Dr.
Mayer has said earlier that there is no such thing
as creation theory. If you are going to define
what that means, then I wouldn't object to the
question in its present form. Otherwise, if you
will just call it something else that he can deal

125

with, he can probably answer your question.

A. How about "explanation"?

Q. That's fine. The creation explanation
of origin, is it observable, in your judgment?

A. No, because they tell me that it was
done by a supernatural creator using processes
that are not now extant, and it makes it
impossible for me to deal with this supernatural
creator and with processes that I can't have any
handle on. I don't even know what they are. They
don't give you an explanation of what they are.
They just say that they are processes no longer in
existence.

Q. How about testable?

A. There is no way you can put a creator
on a dissecting table to work on.

Q. Falsifiable?

A. The entire creation position cannot be
dealt with scientifically simply because of the
fact that it removes itself from science. So it
is not falsifiable either.

Q. Repeatable?

A. They say God did it once.

Q. What materials have you read, other

126

than those that you have indicated you have
received from various organizations, concerning
the creation explanation of origin? In particular
I am looking for books or treatises.

A. There is a creationist textbook called
Order Out of Complexity, I believe. It is written
by John N. Moore, published by Sonderman
Publishing Company, which is a Bible publishing
house in Michigan. It was published as a creation
expert.

Q. Professor Moore is at Michigan State?

A. He is the one who retired. Seagraves
of Kofahl and Seagraves have something called The
Creation Explanation, which is a paperback book.
Henry Morris has written a number of things that I
have read, the titles of which escape me right now.
Duane Gish has written about fossils and a number
of other things. So I am familiar with these
publications.

As I say, these are the ones I have
purchased to look at to see what they have to say.
Bliss's two-model approach is a book, two models.
And numerous other publications, some of which
have come from a place called Chick Publishing,

127

and these tend to be more or less comic books that
deal with the issues of creationism. So I have
tried to find as much of their material as
possible and pay attention to it to ascertain if
indeed there is something there.

Q. What is your opinion of these materials?

A. They are blatantly religious and they
are poor science. They deliberately misrepresent.
I used to think that this was simply a lack of
knowledge on the part of the individuals concerned,
but I find it doesn't make any difference, they
make these statements even if they know better.

Q. In your opinion, Dr. Mayer, is the
creation explanation of origin a valid science?

A. No.

Q. Why?

A. Because it removes itself from the
scientific arena. It postulates supernatural
intervention, it postulates the operation of
processes that we cannot deal with and for which
we have no information. It it just takes itself
out of the scientific arena by so doing.

Q. If there were any scientific evidence
in support of that creation explanation of origin,

128

would you favor its discussion in the classroom?

A. I favor discussion of all scientific
evidence. Whether it would lead to a creation
explanation or not is another question. But no
scientific evidence should be denied the
possibility of inclusion.

Q. Which would include that if it were
scientific evidence that would support a creation
explanation of origin, you would not deny that
either?

A. I don't see how it could happen.

Q. I am going on the assumption or
presumption. I am asking you to assume that if
there was scientific evidence, you would not want
to preclude that from classroom discussion.

A. If there were scientific evidence of a
creator and these unknowable processes, I would
like to know it, for sure.

Q. Is criticism of a scientific theory a
valid way in which to study scientific theory?

A. Yes, if it is valid criticism.

Q. What would you define as valid or how
do you define valid criticism?

A. It has to be in the same arena. You

129

can't criticize a football player because he
doesn't hold his bat correctly. There is just no
bat in the game, so it makes no difference. It is
a stupid criticism. One may stupidly criticize
theory or anything else.

I suppose we all use this term,
constructive criticism. We like to see criticism
that is constructive, that leads to something. On
the other hand, conversely, there is destructive
criticism that is just kind of verbal harassment.

Q. In the event a creation explanation or
model of origin would be discussed alongside an
evolution theory or model of origin in a classroom,
I would just like to run down a list of courses,
and see where you think it might be properly
taught. In biology?

A. No.

Q. In life science?

A. No.

Q. In anthropology?

A. No.

Q. In sociology?

A. Let me ask one question.

Q. I have social studies down here.

130

A. All right. then no.

Q. Physics?

A. No.

Q. Chemistry?

A. No.

Q. World history?

A. Yes.

Q. Philosophy?

A. Yes.

Q. And social studies?

A. Yes.

MR. CEARLEY: Can you repeat that
question?

MR. CLARK: Sure. I said should the
two be taught in the classroom, creation theory or
model of origin, and an evolutionary theory or
model of origin, in which classes did he think it
would be proper to present the material. He
answered no to biology, life sciences,
anthropology, sociology, physics, and chemistry,
and yes to world history, philosophy, and social
studies.

A. The reason for that is that I regard
creation as nonscience and having no place in the

131

classroom.

Q. Let me review with you the legislative
findings of fact. You will see those at Section 7,
Page 3 of the Bill. These questions go basically
to those, but you might want to second to just
read through that.

(Recess taken.)

Q. You have had a chance, I hope, Doctor,
to look at those.

A. Yes, I have looked at it again.

Q. I want to ask you a series of questions
as they apply to these legislative findings of
fact. In your opinion, when origin is discussed
in the classroom, which explanation, if either,
should be discussed?

A. You say in the classroom?

Q. Yes, or in a classroom?

A. It depends on what classroom it is.

MR. CEARLEY: I would like to know what
you mean by origin. Of what?

Q. I mean origin in the sense as we have
used it most of the day, origin of life in a
scientific sense, not in a social studies setting.
In your opinion, if an explanation of origin of

132

life is to be discussed in the classroom, which,
if either, should be discussed? That is, a
creation explanation, an evolution explanation,
theory, or either one.

A. If I can follow along these findings of
fact, I think evolution in biology, life science,
anthropology, both perhaps in sociology, evolution
in physics and chemistry, and both in history,
philosophy, and social science. I am just
following the Act here.

Q. In your opinion, is the evolution
theory of origin an unquestionable fact of science?

A. No theory is an unquestionable fact.
It is questionable, always.

Q. What are those questions?

A. The questions could be the mechanisms
of evolution, the questions could be relative
relationships, questions about when certain events
happened. You could have all kinds of questions.

Q. In your opinion, is the evolution
theory of origin contrary to the religious
convictions or moral values or philosophical
beliefs of some people?

A. Well, it obviously is, or they wouldn't

133

be concerned. It is not, however, contrary to the
religious convictions or moral values or
philosophical beliefs of most people.

Q. You base that judgment on what?

A. I base that judgment on the fact that
no other religious groups except biblical
literalists seem to have this difficulty.

Q. In your opinion, can the evolution
theory of origin be presented in a classroom, in a
science classroom, without reference to any
religious doctrine?

A. Evolutionary theory, yes.

Q. How is that done?

A. It is simply moot on religion. It
doesn't invoke a creator or a god. It simply is
like saying how come a Boeing plane can fly
without divine intervention? Well, it just does.
It is not a religious issue, it is a science issue.

Q. How do you explain to that student
questioner the "it," I think was the
characterization you used, I was going to use
"first cause," who or what existed in the very
beginning, as you explained that evolution theory
of origin?

134

A. I would attempt to tell him what we
know about the question scientifically, and then I
would refer him to his priest or his rabbi or
whoever is in his religion to make sure that he
has touched base there to make certain that he has
the proper training --

I could not deal with the person's
religion. That would put me way beyond the pale
of acceptability, because I wouldn't be the
authority. I would have to have all kinds of
religious training that I don't have. I would
never attempt to explicate somebody's religious
beliefs for them.

Q. In a summary, if you could, what would
you say to that student student of what we know in
science as to the first cause or the origin? What
would you say?

A. I would acquaint him with the big bang
theory, I would acquaint him with the heterotroph
hypothesis, acquaint him with various scientific
explanations, and say that is the state of the art
at present in science.

Q. The heterotroph and the big bang theory.
What other? You said other.

135

A. I might mention this cosmic theory,
I might mention inheritance of acquired
characteristics, just to give him some idea of the
way people have thought scientifically about this
issue.

Q. But then in response to a follow-up
question from that same student, which one in
science should I accept, how would you answer?

A. I wouldn't ask him to accept any of
them. I would say the one that scientists find
most reasonable at the present time is the
heterotroph hypothesis.

Q. But you would not ask that student to
accept your judgment on that?

A. I would have to tell him that it is
simply an hypothesis.

Q. In your opinion, can a creation
explanation of origin be presented in a classroom
without reference to a religious doctrine?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Based on your knowledge of the creation
explanation of origin, what explains the "it," the
first cause, in that explanation?

A. Divine intervention by an omniscient

136

God.

Q. To you does the concept of a creator
carry with it or must it always carry with it a
religious connotation?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of any scientist who can
discuss the concept of a creator without delving
into any religious belief?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of any scientist who
discussed the concept of a creator, defining that
creator as some intelligence with an ability to,
with one of your terms, give order?

A. No. We are just playing with word
games when you do that. Whether you call it a
supernatural, a god, a creator, a divine
intelligence, these are words, and attempt to keep
God out of it by calling him something else, and
it just doesn't work. Because when you get behind
the verbiage, you get God again.

Q. If a creation explanation of origin
could be discussed in the classroom free of
religious reference, would you oppose that
presentation?

137

A. You are asking me to make an exception
I can't make. It cannot be presented devoid of
religion because that is what it is based on. I
can't deal with that because I can't imagine --
that is like saying can you imagine religion
without God, and the answer is no, I can't.

Q. Do you favor a neutral position by
public educators in secondary schools in any
classroom discussion of religious, moral or
philosophical matters?

A. I think that Constitutionally they
would have to do that.

Q. I asked you earlier in the day what was
faith, and you defined that for me. What would
you define as religion?

A. I would define it as a belief system in
which one has faith.

Q. Would it be proper to define your
participation in this case, in the Seagraves case
and the Lemmon, South Dakota, case as evidencing
not only a belief in principle but a cause with
you to oppose to any mandated requirement to teach
a creational explanation of origin in any
classroom?

138

A. No. I have said it a hundred times, it
is on record in many of these documents, that I
believe a creation explanation has a place in
courses in comparative religion, and I will
support that right on down the line.

Q. As an educator, not as a scientist now,
as one who helps mold and shape educational
philosophy, do you believe it is good educational
policy -- let me back up. Do you believe it is
sound educational policy for this issue of the
explanation in science of a theory of origin,
either based in creation or evolution, to be
decided by public bodies, legislatures, or
academic bodies such as curriculum committees?

MR. CEARLEY: Wait just a minute. You
lost me.

Q. It is kind of a convoluted question.
Let me see if I can go back and rephrase it.

What I am looking at is your Creationist
Impact, Page 6. You make this statement, Dr.
Mayer, the last two paragraphs in particular, but
the next to the last paragraph:

"Well-funded and full-time staffs are
now at work to discredit evolution and no

139

reputable biological scientist is funded full-time
to rebut them. Arkansas and Louisiana of the type
of an iceberg. Anti-evolutionists, having failed
in their attempts to develop a viable scientific
alternative to the theory of evolution, now bypass
the scientific enterprise and take their case
directly to a scientifically naive public and
scientifically illiterate legislators to convince
them of the validity of their position.

"Science has already lost control of
the situation and the controversy is now loose
upon the land to be decided by politically
oriented nonscientific legislators and the
communities of voters who are easily swayed by
nonscientific apparent data, misrepresented
interpretation, and spurious conclusions that they
cannot differentiate from those derived through
the corpus of science."

What I want to ask you is, as an
educator, do you believe it is sound educational
policy for those judgments as to courses of
instruction to be decided by those legislative
bodies and/or those communities of voters, which I
am adding to my question, and/or to committees of

140

the educational structure such as the one in
California that adopted that standard?

A. You lost me in California.

Q. In California it was the curriculum
committee, was it not, of the State Board of
Education?

A. Yes, I see what you mean. I don't
think that educational issues should be decided by
legislators or the uninformed. I just don't see
that that has any validity. And we have seen
again and again that this does not work. When the
Catholic church tried Galileo and he was forced to
recant, remember, he said, "and still it turns."

Because it doesn't make any difference
what they decide, they are not in a position to
make good decisions. The legislature could decide
that the sun does indeed go around the earth, and
it wouldn't make any difference. This is not the
forum to decide what is science and what is not
science. The scientific community decides that,
just as the legal community decides what is valid
law or not. You just don't turn it over to the
uninformed.

Q. Does the uninformed include such as the

141

curriculum committee of a state department of
education?

A. The curriculum committee of the State
of California, as I recall, had some educators and
well-informed people on it. It was a selected
group. It was not just a random selection of
citizenry.

Q. Does that uninformed, as you have
defined it, include a committee such as a
curriculum committee for a state board of
education or a state department of education?

A. It depends on how that is constituted.
If these people are knowledgeable in the field, it
would not include that.

Q. In the California instance, have you
ever made a statement to the effect that that
committee was stacked with creationists appointed
by then Governor Ronald Reagan?

A. That was the board of education, not a
curriculum committee. That was the board of
education, and the answer was yes, it was stacked.

Q. Then depending on the composition of a
curriculum committee within the state department,
you would make a judgment as to whether they were

142

informed or uninformed to make this kind of a
decision?

A. I believe in leaving the decisions in
the hands of the informed, yes. Therefore, if the
curriculum committee is picked from recognized
educators and people with a track record, I would
tend to go along with them.

Q. If I told you that the curriculum
committee of the State Department of Education of
the State of Arkansas was comprised of educational
professionals, that is, persons who had pursued
academic training and coupled that with experience
in the field of education, they were not lay
appointees by a political process, that they were
employed because of their educational training and
experience, would you consider that to be an
informed or uninformed body?

A. I would consider it to be a potentially
informed body. I would have to know what their
backgrounds were. If none of them had any
background in science, that would constitute an
uninformed body if they were making science
decisions.

Q. Assuming that they were informed and

143

they had some background in science, if that
committee approved textbooks which gave inference
or reference to a creation explanation of origin,
do you find that then offensive to academic
freedom?

A. I would fine that offensive, yes.

Q. Do you find that inconsistent with your
definition of academic freedom?

A. No, because these people are not
exercising academic freedom, they are imposing a
standard of their own devising.

Q. Let's pursue that a little bit, Dr.
Mayer, because by your own statement in this
Creationist Impact speech that you delivered, you
indicate that Arkansas has some 20 approved
biology texts approved by the curriculum committee
for the State Department of Education, four of
which give some reference by degree to the
creation explanation of origin, down a couple of
paragraphs. You say further in this same article
that this battle has shifted from the scientific
evidence and enterprise to the arena of the
uninformed legislators, community of voters, and
so on.

144

Yet in what I have set up for you as a
hypothetical, as a curriculum committee in the
State of Arkansas comprised of educators by
experience and training who -- assume it to be
valid experience and training and having some
knowledge in science, who then decided to approve
some text which covered both theories of origin, I
asked you if you found that personally offensive,
and you said yes. I asked you if that violated
personal freedom, and you said yes or no?

MR. CEARLEY: I want to point out
something here. You are assuming that decisions
were made by the curriculum committee to present
both creation and evolution in biology texts. The
fact is, as I recall it, that the creation
explanation is identified as being religious in
each of those instances in those textbooks. I
just wanted the record to reflect that.

Q. What I am really trying to do, Dr.
Mayer, is state the fact that the texts were
approved by that committee for their inclusion in
the classroom for purposes of discussion in
science.

A. There are several problems here. First

145

of all, they approved a panoply of things from
which individual school systems boards can select.
And they have the choice of selection from those
that have no creation information in them to those
that do. That gives them a choice. This Act
gives you no choice. That is the difference.

Q. Do you read that Act to say that you
must teach some theory of the origin of life?

A. I read this Act to say that if you
mention the subject at all, you have to teach both.

Q. But do you read it to say that you must
teach either?

A. No, and that is the insidious part of
it, because this results in, in many cases, the
elimination of the discussions of evolution
entirely, which of course is what the creationists
wanted in the first place. This Act is a two-edged
sword. You get it coming and going.

Could we go off the record a second?

MR. CLARK: Sure.

(Recess taken.)

(Continued on following page.)

146

MR. CLARK: Dr. Mayer, I don't think I
have any other questions that I need to ask you.
I want to thank you for your cooperation. I
appreciate your making yourself available.

MR. CEARLEY: I have no questions.

___________________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _____ day of _____________ 1980.

___________________________________

147

                                 C  E  R  T  I  F  I  C  A  T  E

STATE OF NEW YORK      )
                                     ) ss.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK    )

                     I, THOMAS W. MURRAY, C.S.R., a Notary
         Public within and for the State of New York,
         do hereby certify:
                     That WILLIAM V. MAYER, the witness
         whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth,
         was duly sworn by me and that such
         deposition is a true record of the testimony
         given by such witness.
                     I further certify that I am not
         related to any of the parties to this action
         by blood or marriage; and that I am in no
         way interested in the outcome of this matter.
                     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
         set my hand this 23rd day of November, 1981.

                       ________________________
                       THOMAS W. MURRAY, C.S.R.

148

                       PRODUCTION REQUESTS
                                                                   PAGE
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
statement of purpose                                      19

Compendium of information available from
National Association of Biology Teachers            29

List of papers, authors, topics presented
at October 23, 1981 NABT symposium              30

Position papers re evolution/creation of
various organizations                                      34

Lecture on "The Falacious Nature of
Creation Science," given at NSTA meeting
in Nashville, November 14,    1981                    64

National Science Foundation studies
contributed to by D. Mayer                                69

Lemmon, South Dakota, school board case        74