IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
- - -
REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs,)
)
vs. ) NO. LR-C-81-322
)
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et )
al., )
)
Defendants.)
_____________________________)
DEPOSITION OF
DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA
Wednesday, November 18, 1981
Reported by:
CAROLINE ANDERSON, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1903, and
DEAN MC DONALD, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1869
2
I N D E X
Page
DEPOSITION OF DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS 4
EXAMINATION BY MR. KLASFELD 110
- - -
EXHIBITS
Defendants'
1 Copy of curriculum vitae of Francisco
Jose Ayala 4
- - -
3
BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of Taking
Deposition, and on Wednesday, November 18, 1981,
Commencing at the hour of 9:45 o'clock a.m. thereof, at
the offices of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market
Plaza, San Francisco, California, before me, CAROLINE
ANDERSON, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary
Public in and for the State of California, personally
appeared
DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA,
called as a witness herein, who, being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.
- - -
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by DAVID
KLASFELD, Attorney at Law; and
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 132 West 43rd
Street, New York, New York 10036, represented by SUSAN
STURM and BRUCE J. ENNIS, Attorneys at Law, appeared as
counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.
STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,
represented by DAVID WILLIAMS, Deputy Attorney General,
appeared as counsel on behalf of defendants.
- - -
4
MR. KLASFELD: I am David Klasfeld, K-l-a-s-f-e-l-d.
MR. ENNIS: I am Bruce Ennis.
Mr. Klasfeld and I are appearing on behalf of
Mr. Ayala, and Mr. Klasfeld will be primarily
responsible for any objections we might have.
MR. WILLIAMS: My name is David Williams, and I am
here on behalf of the defendants.
[Also present: Susan Sturm, attorney for A.C.L.U.]
MR. KLASFELD: The stipulations that have been
agreed to are all objections except as to the form are
waived.
We will not waive signature.
MR. WILLIAMS: Fine.
- - -
DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS:
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Could you please state your full
name.
A. Francisco J. Ayala.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to have this marked as
Ayala Exhibit 1.
[Copy of curriculum vitae of
Francisco Jose Ayala was marked
Defendants' Exhibit 1 for
identification.]
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Before we get started, Dr. Ayala,
I will tell you I am going to be asking you some
5
questions about your testimony in this case, and if at
any time I ask a question you don't understand or that is
unclear, please tell me and I will try to make it clear,
and if you have any other questions or if you feel you
have to confer with your lawyers, let me know.
I would like to show you what has been marked as
Ayala Exhibit 1 in this case.
Tell me if you can identify that document.
A. It's my curriculum vitae and a list of my
many publications.
Q. And when did you supply this to the
plaintiffs' counsel?
A. Yesterday.
Q. Have they previously requested a copy of
your curriculum vitae at any time, to your knowledge?
A. I don't think so.
Q. You don't think so?
A. No.
MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, for you New York
lawyers, I will object to the lawyers at this time as to
the fact we have not been provided a copy of the
curriculum vitae until today, the day of the deposition.
Obviously, we have been unable to get publications
of Dr. Ayala, and I feel prejudiced in our discovery.
MR. KLASFELD: We had a conversation last week,
I believe, in which over the phone we gave you a list
of Dr. Ayala's three major recent texts and a number of
articles that he had written.
6
I apologize for not having got you the curriculum
vitae until this morning.
I think it would have been a tremendous example of
effort for you to have gotten through those three
texts and the articles by this morning, let alone the
articles listed on the 14 pages of Dr. Ayala's
publications.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, I notice you brought
some books with you today.
May I see those books?
A. Certainly.
Q. What is your current position at the
University of California at Davis?
A. Professor of Genetics, Associate Professor
for Environmentalist Studies and Director of the
Institute of Ecology.
Q. How long have you been in that position?
A. As a professor of genetics, since 1971; the
other two, since 1977.
Q. Where did you attend secondary school?
A. Madrid, Spain.
Q. What school did you attend there?
A. Colegio de San Fernando.
I will try to write it in Spanish.
Q. It's a Catholic school?
A. Yes.
Q. And then where did you attend undergraduate
school?
7
A. In Madrid in Salamanca.
Q. What was the name of the school?
A. University of Salamanca.
Q. And what was your course of study there?
A. In Madrid it was physics. In Salamanca it
was philosophy and theology.
Q. What degree did you receive?
A. These are names that you may not know.
Licenciate, which is comparable to a Master's
degree, and Lector.
In the university I went to it is comparable to a
Ph.D. in theology.
Q. So you have a degree similar to a Ph.D. in
theology?
A. Yes.
Q. Your Master's degree was in what area?
A. Master's degree in theology.
Q. And when did you receive these degrees?
A. 1960.
Q. Both of them?
A. I think so.
The Licentiate in 1959, within months.
Q. What area of theology did you specialize in
in your studies?
A. I suppose dogmatic theology.
Q. Could you explain to me what dogmatic
theology is?
A. The study of the Bible and the interpretation
8
of the main beliefs of the Christian Church.
Q. Did you specialize in any study of any
particular religious beliefs?
A. Catholic.
Q. What is the Catholic view of the origin of
the earth?
MR. KLASFELD: If you are aware of one Catholic
view.
THE WITNESS: The scientific view is accepted.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. As a Catholic, in viewing the
origin of the earth, how would you view -- how would a
Catholic view the Genesis act of creation?
A. I would say history of creation of man
which is conveying the message that God created man.
Q. God created man.
Could you please enlarge upon that.
A. Well, that man should therefore revere God
and worship God and obey God.
Q. But when you talk about God made man in
Genesis, does the Catholic faith and when you were
studying it in 1959 and '60, did they have a particular
position as to how that would have occurred?
A. Primarily, that was a matter for scientists
to decide ant to consider up to what point scientific
matters might be compatible with Genesis.
Q. Are you aware that there are at least some
Roman Catholics who would view and read the Genesis
act of creation literally?
9
A. I'm not aware of any theologians, and
experts, who will accept that today.
Q. You are not aware of that?
A. Of any theologian or experts.
Q. Were you aware of any expert theologian
experts in the Catholic faith that would have accepted
that in '59 and '60 when you were studying?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were those that you would be aware of?
A. I suppose Professor Teofilo Urdanoz, with
some ambiguity, and he was not taking a strong position
on the matter.
Q. But he would read the Genesis act somewhat
literally?
A. Not completely literally, but he would say
that the evolution case was not fully established for
human origins.
Q. Well, when he would say that the evolution
act was not fully established, then the converse of
that must then be that he felt that the Genesis act
was established?
MR. KLASFELD: Objection.
It's not clear to me if he does think that
evolution as established means anything else.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just trying to ask.
THE WITNESS: Will you repeat it?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You were saying he felt the
evolution act was not fully established; what would be
10
his opinion of the Genesis act?
A. He would not accept literally the
interpretation of Genesis.
Q. You say he would not accept it somewhat
literally, or there would be some ambiguity?
A. I said he accepted the literal message of
creation of man with some ambiguity; he would not
accept it literally but would think, and I am
interpreting somebody else's thinking -- he would
think that God must have intervened in some particular
way in the creation of man.
Q. That in some way then that there was a
supernatural hand of God, if you will, at work in
creation?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were there other professors which you knew
of or were aware of at that time, Catholic professors
and theologians, who would accept the Genesis act
literally?
A. No. Literally, no.
Q. Are you aware of whether the Catholic
faith, as theologians within the Catholic faith, have
ever accepted the Genesis act literally?
A. Not since about 1906.
There is an encyclical of Leo XIII saying the
Bible interpretation is not to be taken literally
since it was quite clear to theologians that were
contradicting literal interpretations.
11
Q. Just within -- in the Bible, are you talking
about?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you consider someone that is an
adherent to the Catholic faith to be a fundamentalist?
A. No.
MR. KLASFELD: You are not intending to establish
Dr. Ayala as an expert on theology?
MR. WILLIAMS: He has a Ph.D. in the area, so
perhaps we will need to. I don't know.
THE WITNESS: Don't quote me as having a Ph.D.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You were going to say something
about the status of your degree. What would you like to
say about that?
A. The proper title is Lector.
Q. Lector?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you graduate with honors? Did you have
any honors in your Master's or Ph.D. in theology?
A. There is no such thing there.
Q. Do you have any children, Dr. Ayala?
A. Yes.
Q. How old are they?
A. 12 and 9.
Q. What are they, a boy and a girl?
A. Both boys.
Q. Where do they attend school?
A. In Davis.
12
Q. Public?
A. Public.
Q. Have they taken any science courses yet at
that age?
A. I think the oldest one this year has
started.
Q. What type of science course would he be
taking this year; do you know?
A. I don't know. I don't know what it is.
I know he is taking math and something called
"science." I don't know what it is.
Q. To your knowledge, has the subject of
origins ever been discussed in their classroom?
A. No.
Q. Are you currently a member of any organized
religious faith?
A. No.
Q. Have you been in the past?
A. Yes.
Q. What faith?
A. Catholic.
Q. And for what years were you a member?
A. Practically all my life until about '67, '66.
Q. What happened that you are no longer a
member?
A. My convictions changed.
Q. How did your convictions change?
A. You would need a psychoanalysis.
13
Q. Just explain to me what your convictions
were when you were a member of the Church -- and then you
left the Church voluntarily, I assume?
A. Yes.
I could not accept some of the tenets of the
Catholic faith.
Q. What tenets in particular?
A. The assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the
immaculate conception and many others.
Q. Many others.
Do you believe in a God?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe that God exists?
A. It depends on what definition of God you
have.
Q. What is your definition of God that exists?
A. I don't know that I am ready yet to give
you a lecture in theology.
Q. I would like to know just in a summary way
your conception of God.
A. Goodness in nature that can be seen as an
expression of the presentation of God.
Q. There is goodness in nature. Do you think
this goodness in nature has a personality?
A. No.
Q. Well, you have a Ph.D. in theology. In
terms of some of the labels that are used to describe
people's belief about God or the lack of a God, is
14
there a term that would more properly characterize your
belief? Is there a term in your mind that you would
characterize yourself as an athiest, an agnostic, a
deist?
A. I prefer not to use any of those terms.
I consider myself an independent thinker.
Q. An independent thinker?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, when you talk about goodness in nature
as being God, it's not very specific to me.
Now, I would like to have a more specific idea,
when you talk about that you think there is a God, what
your conception of that is.
MR. KLASFELD: Is that a question?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is a question.
Q. Can you be more specific?
A. I don't see how I could be more specific
that what I have said without engaging in a long speech
with lots of qualifications.
Q. When you talk about goodness in nature, are
you talking about the laws of nature as your study?
A. The reality of nature, the world that
exists.
Q. Do you believe that the laws of nature
were set up by some force or that they evolved by chance
or some other way?
A. Some other way.
Q. What is the other way?
15
A. As part of the reality of nature, the way
nature is.
Q. How did the laws of nature come into being,
in your mind?
A. It's part of how the world came into being.
Q. I think that is what I am asking you.
If you can answer my question, what is your own
opinion of how the laws of nature came into being, if
you have one?
A. Just part of reality. Reality exists.
Q. Reality exists?
A. Yes, and the laws of nature are part of it.
Q. They now exist. At one time did they not
exist?
A. I don't know.
That is a meaningless question to me.
There is no time before reality exists, so to me
It's a meaningless question.
Q. So the laws of nature have always been in
existence?
A. Since reality has been in existence.
Q. Is there any one writer in the area of
religion as to whether there is a God or not a God or
whether there is goodness in nature who would best
fit your own conception?
MR. KLASFELD: You are asking him to adopt
someone else's view?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Not adopt, but who would be the
16
closest?
A. I cannot answer that without many
qualifications.
In some aspects, some writers, and some other
aspects for other writers.
Q. If you need to qualify, I would like you to
answer the question, is there one writer.
A. No one writer.
Q. Is there one book which would most generally
characterize your beliefs about religion?
A. No.
Q. Are there several books? Can you give me
several books?
A. Not without doing some research on the
matter.
Q. Can you recall any off the top of your head
at this point without having to give me an exhaustive
list from the ones that you are now aware of?
A. Will you repeat that.
Q. Are there some that you can think of this
moment, some books that you have read which have been
influential to you in arriving at your own current
belief as to the existence of a God?
A. Yes, there is.
This is French. Le Phenomene Humain by P. Teilhard
de Chardin, The Divine Milieu by the same, L'Espoir by
Gabriel Marcel, Naturaleza, Historia y Dios by Xavier
Zubiri.
17
MR. KLASFELD: My understanding of the question is,
what books did he read that influenced him, not what
books does he agree with what is in it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Would you agree with the majority
of those books?
A. No.
Q. If you wouldn't mind, could I see that list?
It might assist me.
Do you have any personal code of conduct?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. Ethics.
Q. Yes. What is it?
A. I don't know where to start.
Q. You say "ethics." That is your code of
personal conduct?
A. I think my code of ethics is very close to
Christianity.
Q. Is there anyplace where your code of conduct
has been reduced to writing or something similar?
MR. KLASFELD: Have you written it down anywhere?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Or have you read it somewhere
that someone else has written?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe that a religious person can
be a competent scientist?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think there is any necessary conflict
18
in being a religious person and being a scientist?
A. Not in being a religious person, no.
Q. Could you describe the role of the Institute
of Ecology?
A. To foster ecological research at the
University of California in Davis.
Q. Is there any statement of mission or purpose
which has been reduced to writing for the Institute?
A. Yes.
Q. And what would that statement of purpose
include?
A. What I have said more or less.
Q. That it fosters ecological research?
A. That is it.
Q. Please describe what you include in ecological
research.
A. The study of interactions between organisms
and the environment.
Q. Are you paid in your role as director of the
institute?
A. I have a minor increment to my regular
salary for that position.
Q. A minor increment to your salary?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how much is that increment?
A. As director of the Institute of Ecology,
$125 a month.
Q. How much time per month do you devote to
19
the institute?
A. About 25 percent.
Q. Is the Institute of Ecology engaged in any
research in the area of evolution?
A. Members of the Institute of Ecology are.
Q. Will you describe your duties as professor
of genetics.
A. To do research in genetics and teach
genetics.
Q. What coures are you currently teaching in
genetics?
A. As of this quarter, none.
Q. None this quarter?
A. That's correct.
Q. What courses have you taught in the past?
A. Evolution, genetics, philosophy of biology.
Those are the main ones.
Q. What texts have you utilized in your
evolution course?
A. My own.
Q. And you don't have a copy of it with you
today, do you?
A. No.
MR. KLASFELD: It's listed on the first page.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Evolving: The Theory and
Processes of Organic Evolution. Evolution, 1977.
Which one did you utilize?
A. One or the other at different times.
20
Q. You would not use both in the same course?
A. No.
Q. What is the difference in the two courses?
A. Level.
Q. What is the difference?
A. Level.
Q. Which is more detailed?
A. More advanced, '77.
Q. At what level is it written?
A. For advanced undergraduate or graduate
students.
Q. And for whom is the 1979 boot written?
A. Undergraduates.
Q. Do you have tenure at Davis?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you told me that you had one other
duty in addition to those two.
A. Associate Dean for Environmental Studies.
Q. And what are your duties in that position?
A. To administer, guide and lead research and
teaching in the areas of environmental questions.
Q. And in that role have you done studies in
evolution?
A. That is an administrative role, yes.
Q. So there is no research you do in that role?
A. In that role, no.
Q. Your resume or curriculum vitae states that
you have research which has been supported by grants
21
from various agencies including the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Health and
Department of Energy.
A. Yes.
Q. How many of those grants that you have
received -- first, how many have you received?
A. Many.
Q. Well, could you give me an approximate
number?
A. On a year-to-year basis, 12 to 20, something
like that.
Q. 12 to 20?
A. Depending on how you count them.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, you say you received
approximately 12 to 20 grants per year from
organizations.
A. Not per year. Altogether.
Q. And approximately, in terms of dollars, how
much money has been involved in all of these?
A. Research over all the years?
Q. Yes.
A. Probably one million dollars.
Q. And now much of that have you personally
received?
A. None.
Q. None of it personally?
A. No.
22
Q. Have you received some of it indirectly?
A. No.
Q. Well, let me be more specific.
MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me. When you say "received,"
do you mean went into his own pocket?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In terms of like salary, the
grants would go to whom?
A. The university.
Q. The university would receive the money and
administer the grants?
A. Yes.
Q. And from that money you would be conducting
various research projects; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that is in fact part of your duties as
a professor?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is important for you as a professor
in your role at Davis to research projects; is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And approximately how many of these up to
20 grants have been in the area of evolution?
A. All of them.
Q. Dr. Ayala, I would like to request that you
make a list of those grants and the amounts that you
have received and supply them to your lawyers so they
can supply it to me.
MR. ENNIS: Do you have problems?
23
THE WITNESS: I don't have a problem.
MR. ENNIS: Could we limit your request to his
compiling that information from the records he has
available at Davis?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Approximately how many have you
had at Davis?
A. The majority of those.
Q. If you could supply those you have available
to you at Davis, I would appreciate that.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WILLIAMS: Now I want to state what my
understanding is concerning scheduling, because at no
time have I agreed to limit his deposition to 1:00
o'clock.
We have, due to obvious requirements of travel and
people's available schedules, we have limited our
witnesses' depositions. To my knowledge, I don't think
we have limited anyone to a three-hour deposition, which
is, in essence, what you are doing here.
I was here at 9:00 o'clock this morning, and we
did not get started until approximately 9:45, at least.
There is a difference between taking an eight-hour
deposition of a nonexpert and taking a three-hour
deposition of one of your main expert witnesses, and if
he has to leave, he can get up and leave, but I will
strenuously object, and it puts us at a serious
disadvantage, given the complexity of his testimony.
MR. KLASFELD: I only want to say on the record
24
what I said to you off the record that my understanding
of the conversation that I had with you about Dr. Ayala's
availability was that he would be available Tuesday
morning or Wednesday morning or Friday.
Our original agreement was that he would be
available Tuesday morning. At our request, that was
changed to this morning.
I understand "morning" in any sense of the word to
end by 1:00 o'clock, and I understood you to agree that
Dr. Ayala's deposition could be taken during that time.
As Mr. Ennis pointed out, Mr. Childs made a
speech for the record about the burdensomeness of our
deposition that extended four hours, and I understood
the point you made to the judge in the telephone
conference that these depositions that we were conducting
were extending beyond three or four hours for expert
witnesses and were unreasonable and burdensome.
If you want to take up what remaining time we have
now discussing this, I am happy to do that.
MR. WILLIAMS: If you can show me in the
transcript of what I said yesterday where I said that
to the judge, I would be most interested to see it.
Secondly, when you were talking about changing
Dr. Ayala from Tuesday to Wednesday morning, our
understanding has been all along that these were to
begin at 9:00 o'clock, and the inclusion of one is not
the exclusion of the other when you said he would be
available on Tuesday morning.
25
MR. KLASFELD: That is true.
If at the end of this deposition you feel that you
have been prejudiced, then we should talk about it
then.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, we were discussing,
I think, some of the grants you received, and you said
all were in the area of evolution.
Tell me as an example what is the most recent grant
you have received from one of these sources that you
previously mentioned.
A. Which one?
Q. The most recent one that you have received
and you have now concluded the work on.
A. I have grants in progress from all these
agencies.
Q. One that you have now completed.
A. I can't say off the record. I don't think
you understand how the system works, so you make it
very difficult to answer.
MR. KLASFELD: The most recently completed.
THE WITNESS: The National Institute of Health, a
grant for research on evolutionary genetics of
Drosophila.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What were your conclusions in
this study?
A. I can provide you with the papers that
report the results.
Q. Do you recall the results?
26
A. It cannot be summarized in five minutes or
three hours.
Q. In other words, you can't give a brief
explanation of conclusions?
A. An explanation of conclusions --
Q. I don't care to hear the methodology of the
study.
A. That varies, electrophonetically hidden
variation at the Adh locus in Dornelanogaster, genes
do not interact multiplicatively, that there is
variation in gene regulation in natural population.
Q. What implication does it have for evolution?
MR. KLASFELD: Are you finished, Doctor?
THE WITNESS: Not completely.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Just a fair summary and brief
summary.
MR. KLASFELD: It would be impossible to do it,
given three hours.
You pressed for an answer.
THE WITNESS: That there is variation in gene
regulation in natural populations.
MR. WILLIAMS: What implications do those have for
the theory of evolution?
A. Very many.
It would take me three hours to explain it, at
least, or my whole course.
I encourage you to take it.
Q. What if you did not receive any grants from
27
any of these sources for study? What impact would that
have on you?
A. It would restrict the kind of research I
can do.
Q. Would it have any effect upon your standing,
first of all, within the university itself?
A. Possibly.
Q. Well, isn't it fair to say that if you
didn't receive any of these grants, that your stature
would be somewhat limited or be diminished?
A. Possibly.
Q. Have you ever applied for any of these grants
that you have not received?
A. Not in recent years.
Q. When was the last time that you applied for
one you didn't receive?
A. Probably '72.
Q. What was that?
A. To study the variation of a group of marine
mollusks.
Q. Why was it rejected?
Were you given a reason?
A. One is not given precise reasons. They are
critiques written.
The main one will be that the study will be
difficult to conduct.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. If you did not receive any of
28
these grants or you ceased to receive any, what would
be the impact of that on your stature in the scientific
community, generally?
A. Probably none.
Q. Does the University of California at Davis
have sufficient funds to support the research that you
desire to do without the grants?
A. Yes, some research.
Q. It would be much more limited, would it not?
A. It would be different.
Q. You received your M.A. from Columbia in
1963?
A. Yes.
Q. In what area?
A. Zoology.
Q. And your Ph.D. in '64 in what area?
A. Zoology.
Q. What was the subject of your Master's thesis,
if you wrote one?
A. There is no Master's thesis.
Q. Did you have any sort of dissertation for
your Ph.D.?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the subject of your dissertation?
A. Effects of genetic variation on population
science in Drosophila.
Q. In what?
A. In Drosophila.
29
Q. Was that published?
A. Yes.
Q. Where has it published?
Is it listed in here?
A. Yes.
1965 Genetics.
Q. Have you prepared any reports for the
plaintiffs' attorneys in this case or anyone else
concerning your testimony in this lawsuit?
A. Repeat the question.
Q. Have you prepared any reports, documents or
any written anything concerning your testimony in this
lawsuit for the plaintiffs?
A. No.
Q. Have you had any previous communication with
the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs' attorneys?
A. Yes.
Q. When were you first contacted about
testifying in this lawsuit?
A. Two months ago, something like that.
Q. Who contacted you?
A. Mr. Klasfeld.
Q. And what did Mr. Klasfeld tell you when he
contacted you?
A. That there was going to be this lawsuit,
and I told him I was aware, and he wanted to know
whether I would be willing to participate as a witness.
Q. And then did you meet with him at some
30
point?
A. Yesterday.
Q. Yesterday was the first time that you had
met with him?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you previously written to the plaintiffs'
attorneys at any time?
A. No.
Q. Have you prepared any exhibits that you plan
to utilize in your testimony?
A. No.
Q. Do you plan to use any written exhibits or
charts or graphs, anything in writing when you testify
in this case?
A. I don't know whether I will.
Q. I'm asking you, do you plan to?
A. I have not as yet given it enough thought.
Q. Well, the thought that you have given it,
what is your present intention?
A. That it might be useful to show some slides.
Q. What slides do you have in mind?
A. Some that appear in my books.
Q. I would like to show you your curriculum
vitae and your publication and have you check the
books in which those slides could be found, and if you
have a description of the slides, please write that on
there, as well.
A. This book.
31
Q. Would you please name the book.
A. Modern Genetics, Evolving: The Theory and
Processes of Genetic Evolution and Evolution.
Q. From that book what slides do you have in
mind?
A. I don't have any in mind at this time.
Q. You have another book checked there.
Any slides from there that you presently have in
mind?
A. None.
I have three books.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Three books.
Q. I assume you have none from the third book,
as well?
A. No.
- - -
32
Q. The list of witnesses which the attorneys
have filed in this case states he will testify
concerning the relevance of biology to Evolution and
Creation Science.
Do you know what opinions you are going to be
giving on that subject?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell me what those opinions will
be?
A. That the evidence today is unambiguous as
to the fact that evolution has taken place and that is
is very definitely established.
Q. When you say that it is unambiguous to the
fact that evolution has taken place, are you talking
about all scientific evidence; are you talking about
evidence in the area of biology or some other area?
A. All.
Q. All evidence.
Is there any evidence against evolution?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. There is no evidence against it?
A. No, not scientific evidence.
That is what you are talking about?
Q. Yes.
When you speak of evolution, could you give me a
definition of what you mean?
A. Yes.
The fact that organisms change through time and
33
multiply in their kinds.
Q. Do you consider evolution to be a valid
scientific theory?
A. Very definitely.
Q. Could you describe for me what the criteria
are of a scientific theory.
A. Explanation by natural law of natural
processes which is testable, meaning by that, subject
to the possibility of falsification by empirical
testimony.
Q. Is that essentially the definition of a
scientific theory from Popper?
A. It's mine, based on Popper.
Q. You would not disagree with Popper's
definition?
A. Not essentially.
Q. Are there any assumptions in the general
theory of evolution?
A. What do you mean by "assumptions"?
Q. Are there any underlying assumptions in the
general theory of evolution?
A. Yes.
That the human mind is able to obtain information
about the external world, about reality; that the
human mind works according to the principles of logic
that are generally accepted.
Q. Does evolution include evidence of the
emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe
34
from disordered matter?
A. Biological evidence, no.
Q. We are talking here about the general theory
of evolution.
A. For me the general theory of evolution is
biological evolution.
Q. Are you aware that the general theory of
evolution does include, by most definitions, the
emergence of the universe by naturalistic processes
from disordered matter?
A. It does not [sic].
Q. Is it your opinion that the general theory
of evolution includes the emergence of life and nonlife?
A. Not as an integral part, no.
Q. Not as an integral part but it is part of
it, is it not?
A. No.
Q. Why is it not?
A. Because the evolution theory I have usually
been dealing with is the evolution of living things, so
living things existed to start with.
Q. We are dealing here with theories of origin,
are we not?
A. Is evolution a theory of origin?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. If a question arises as to what do living
35
things come from, what does evolution say about that?
A. From other living things.
Q. That either they had to come back from
something else besides living things or there have always
been living things; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your opinion on that?
A. That they came from nonliving things.
Q. What is the mechanism by which you think
living things have evolved from nonliving things?
A. Natural processes.
Q. What scientific evidence are you aware of
which would support that evolutionary theory which
says that life emerged from nonlife?
MR. ENNIS: Objection.
I think the witness just testified that in his
opinion that is not part of the evolution theory, and
your question assumes it is.
MR. WILLIAMS: No. He said it was.
THE WITNESS: I said it wasn't.
MR. ENNIS: That is an objection as to the form of
your question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You did state, did you not,
that it is your belief that life evolved from nonlife?
A. Yes, that is my conviction.
Q. What is that conviction based on?
A. On the evidence that exists that all main
components of living things can be synthesized by
36
natural processes spontaneously.
Q. Could you give me the scientific matter you
are aware of which supports that?
A. Experiments by Stanley Miller, experiments
by Orgel, Leslie Orgel, and by Urey and Margulis and
Ponamperuina and many others.
Q. Your statement was, I believe, that these
experiments showed that the possibility of being able
to synthesize that matter spontaneously; is that
correct?
A. Yes, the living components.
Q. It shows the possibilities, but does it
prove that it happened that way?
MR. KLASFELD: Are you using "prove" in the
scientific sense?
I think that Dr. Ayala probably has a very
scientific definition of what the notion of proof is,
and I am wondering in what sense you are using the word
"prove."
MR. WILLIAMS: I will leave that to Dr. Ayala.
Q. How would you define the term "prove"?
A. Well, proof depends on the context.
Empirical science is when, from a theory, you have
made predictions and these predictions have been tested
against empirical facts which are previously unknown.
Proof is not an absolute thing. It happens
gradually. So there are degrees of proof.
Q. I'm speaking now about the process of life
37
and nonlife -- is that what it is called by in Genesis?
A. That is one term used, yes.
It means "origin of life."
Q. Would you agree or disagree that the schemes
which have been suggested in these studies which have
been done on this possibility are merely suggestive
rather than proof?
A. Suggestive.
Q. Suggestive that it could possibly have
happened?
A. I do not agree with that.
Q. How would you characterize it?
A. As hypotheses that have been tested to a
certain limited extent.
Q. Do we know that it happened that way,
though?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware of what the odds or
probabilities would be that it occurred the way you
have described?
A. In the general way that I have described,
I would say 100 percent.
Q. In a general way --
A. In the general way I have described.
Q. Is it clear to say that you think it
occurred by some sort of natural forces which were
random and which was a chance occurrence?
A. No. There were components of chance --
38
well, if that is a joint question, I would say no.
Q. There are factors of chance at work, though?
A. What are the factors of chance?
Q. I am asking, are you aware of any studies
you would agree with that would show what the factors
of chance were or are?
A. Yes.
Q. What would be those factors?
A. Random association between molecules by
well-known chemical interactions that have a component
of chance.
Q. Could you quantify the component of chance?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen it quantified?
A. No, not in any convincing way.
Q. You say you haven't seen it quantified in a
convincing way?
A. Not in any way that I would accept.
Q. Did these individuals, or do the studies
you have previously mentioned, do they quantify it?
A. Not in the hard science papers, in the
papers where they are reporting scientific results.
Q. Why in your curriculum vitae do you not
have your degrees in theology?
A. I'm sorry, what did you ask?
Q. Why in your curriculum vitae do you not
include your degrees in theology?
A. It's irrelevant for most purposes that I
39
use my curriculum vitae.
Q. Well, isn't it part of your curriculum which
you have studied?
A. Yes.
There are many other things which I don't include
there, as well.
Q. But are there any other advanced degrees you
have got which are not there?
A. Yes.
Business administration.
Q. What degree do you have in business
administration?
A. Something probably comparable to a Master's
degree.
Q. Is it another part of general evolution
theory -- is it part of evolution theory that this
spontaneous generation of life occurred only once?
A. No.
Q. It is not?
MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.
Would you define "spontaneous generation of life."
MR. WILLIAMS: I think he used that term himself.
MR. KLASFELD: I don't believe that he did.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Let's put it this way. The
emergence of life from nonlife occurred only once, so --
MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.
My point simply is that spontaneous generation is
a long-since discarded scientific notion.
40
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
It's ambiguous.
- - -
41
Q. Is the concept that life evolved from nonlife
only one part of evolutionary theory?
A. No.
Q. What does your notion of evolutionary theory
indicate as to how many kinds might have emerged from
nonlife?
MR. KLASFELD: Objection again.
We have had this discussion on the record before.
Dr. Ayala said that as far as he is concerned,
evolutionary theory is the change in life forms once
that is started and does not necessarily include the
change from nonlife forms to life forms.
So I have no objection to your questioning him
about this area, but I do object to your attempting to
characterize his earlier testimony in such a way as to
suggest what it seems to me you are trying to suggest.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is it part of general
evolution theory that this emergence of life from nonlife
occurred only once?
A. No.
Q. It is not?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware of what generally accepted
evolution theory would be on that subject?
MR. KLASFELD: Objection.
I don't understand the question.
When you say that it only occurred somewhere in
San Francisco, for example, and then spread all over
42
the world, or that it only occurred at one point in
time, or what?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if it occurred in San Francisco
and it happened only once, it still happened only once.
That is my question. I don't think it's ambiguous.
MR. KLASFELD: You are right; it is not ambiguous
if that is the question.
MR. WILLIAMS: That is the question.
I didn't think I said "twice"; I said "once."
MR. KLASFELD: Well, "once" could mean a lot of
things.
Your question is, did it occur once in one place
and from there have all life --
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is this.
Has it occurred just once and has all other life
evolved from that one --
MR. KLASFELD: From that one first molecule?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. -- from that one first emergence
of life from nonlife?
A. You are asking two questions.
One question is, did it occur once, and I answered
that is not part of evolution theory.
Q. You say it's not part of evolution theory?
A. That it occurred only once; that is right.
Q. What does evolution theory say about how
many times it did occur?
A. Nothing.
Q. So it says nothing.
43
Are you aware as to whether any authorities in the
area of evolution believe that life did emerge from
nonlife only once?
A. I will take your question literally, and my
answer is no.
Q. You are not aware of any authority in the
area of evolution recognized as such, not just by you
but generally recognized as such, who would agree with
that statement?
A. That is correct.
Q. When you talk about your definition of
evolution, could you repeat it again to make sure that
I have got it correctly.
A. It may not be the same words.
Q. I would like to have the same definition,
though, if I could.
A. Well, it will be the same idea.
Organisms change through the generations and
multiply in their kinds.
Q. With that definition of evolution, do you
feel, for example, that man has evolved in the last
50 years?
A. What do you mean by "evolved"?
Q. Well, I mean, has he evolved within your
definition of evolution; has he been, subject to your
definition?
A. Do you mean has he changed?
Q. Has he changed through the generations and
44
multiplied in kinds?
A. No.
Q. As I take it, there are two parts to your
definition of evolution, and one is that there is a
change through generations.
A. Yes.
And diversification.
Q. And diversification. Okay.
You can characterize that as diversification, that
one word, for that part of your definition.
When was the last time there was a diversification
in man?
A. Do you include in "man" homo sapiens, or do
you include all of the hominids?
Q. Homo sapiens.
A. There has been no diversification of the
species.
Q. There has been multiplication in kind, has
there not?
A. No, since homo sapiens exist.
Q. When we talk about multiplication in kind,
tell me what you mean, Doctor?
A. Divergence, and one species giving rise to
more than one.
Q. Could you define "kind."
A. Species.
Q. So your definition would include
multiplication in kinds but not within kinds?
45
A. It includes that, too.
MR. KLASFELD: I want to just point out to each of
you that "kinds" is, in a sense, a word of art among
Creation Scientists, and if you are using it in a way
that is different from how you understand Creation
Scientists to use it, you should make that clear to
Mr. Williams.
THE WITNESS: My definition was intended to be
sort of --
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Vague?
A. Not vague, but easily understood by a
layman.
Now, the more proper way would be to say
"multiplication of species"; is that correct?
Q. Multiplication of species?
A. Of species.
Q. Given your definition of "evolution,"
could you explain to me how it is testable?
A. Yes.
Where do you want me to start?
I could spend the next 25 hours on that.
Q. Since we have been limited to a 1:00
o'clock deadline, I have several other questions besides
this one, so if you could give me a brief summary, I
would appreciate it.
A. For example, one makes the prediction that
if one were to examine the amino acid sequences of
proteins of more closely related organisms, closely
46
related organisms defined as those which have a more
recent common ancestor, such organisms will have, on
the average, a greater similarity in the component
amino acids.
Q. What tests do you have in mind which have
occurred and which show that?
A. Examining the amino acid sequence of
proteins.
Q. The amino acid sequence of proteins?
A. Yes, and many others.
Q. Would you say that your theory of evolution
is observable.
A. A theory is never observable.
Q. Did Popper not include observability as a
criteria of a scientific theory?
A. Of the theory?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Not of the theory of evolution but of a
scientific theory.
A. Any theory.
Q. What were Popper's definitions, what did he
include as his criteria of a scientific theory?
A. Very much what I said before.
The criterion of demarcation of what a scientific
theory is given by the fact that scientific theory is
subject to the possibility of falsification by
reference to the empirical world.
47
Q. Is the theory of evolution subject to
experimental method?
A. Very definitely.
MR. KLASFELD: All of those grants, for instance,
you were talking about before.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you know -- please excuse me
if I mispronounce his name, but do you know Theodosius
Dobzhansky?
A. Yes, I knew him.
Q. Is he now dead?
A. Yes.
Q. When did he die?
A. December 18, 1975.
Q. Are you aware that he has talked about the
evolutionary happenings as being "unique, unrepeatable
and irreversible," and that he said that "the
applicability of the experimental method to such
processes is severely restricted"?
MR. KLASFELD: Are you reading from a quotation?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
- - -
48
MR. KLASFELD: Could we have that quotation in
some kind of context so the doctor could look at it.
MR. WILLIAMS: I have it here, the quotation. I
am asking if he is aware of it.
MR. KLASFELD: And I am asking you what book or
article your source is from so that Dr. Ayala could
look at it to try to place that statement in its
context.
MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, let's see if he is
aware he said that.
MR. KLASFELD: I won't permit him to reply to that
question without your allowing him or telling him what
source it's from and allowing him to look at it in its
context and explain it, if necessary.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, whether or not he said
anything or didn't say anything is not of any particular
relevance until you know where it's from and in what
context it was said.
If you want to give him the source and let him
look at it and then let him say whether or not he said
it, and if he wants to explain its context, then that
would be fine.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your objection is noted for the
record.
Q. I am asking you, Doctor, are you aware he
49
said that?
MR. KLASFELD: Would you read it again, please.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. "These evolutionary happenings
are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible. It is as
impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it
is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study
of such unique historical processes is severely
restricted for" --
MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me, is this the same thing
you read before?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. KLASFELD: Would you read back to me what he
read before, Mr. Reporter.
MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't read exactly that before.
I was trying to save time.
MR. KLASFELD: Well, that is not what you read
before.
Would you read back the quote and read back the
question, Mr. Reporter.
MR. WILLIAMS: Don't read the question. We will
just go on and I will start again.
Q. First of all, let me ask you, did you
consider Theodosius Dobzhansky to be an authority in the
area of evolution?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that he once wrote the
following:
50
"These evolutionary happenings
are unique, unrepeatable and
irreversible. It is as impossible
to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect a reverse
transformation. The applicability
of the experimental method to the
study of such unique historical
processes is severely restricted
before all else by the time
intervals involved, which far
exceed the lifetime of the human
experimenter."
Are you aware that he wrote that?
A. I'm not aware as to the specific words;
I am aware as to the content.
Q. Well, do you agree or disagree with that?
A. I completely agree.
MR. KLASFELD: For my benefit, do you have the
source of that quote?
MR. WILLIAMS: "American Scientist," Volume 45,
page 388.
Q. Do you know of Murray Eden at M.I.T.?
A. Yes, I know of him.
Q. Would you recognize him as an authority in
the area of evolution?
A. No.
Q. What is his area of expertise?
Transcript continued on next page
51
A. Mathematics.
Q. Would you recognize him as an authority in
the area of mathematics?
A. I'm not an expert, but I hear he is, yes.
Q. Are you familiar with his work, "Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of
Evolution"?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your general opinion of that work?
A. The work has many authors. Some things are
very good; some are poor.
Q. Are you aware that within that work he refers
to the theory of evolution as being "tautologous"?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your opinion of that assessment?
A. That he is mistaken.
Q. Are you familiar with or do you know of
Paul Erlich and E. C. Birch?
A. Yes.
Q. You consider them to be authorities in their
field?
MR. KLASFELD: What is their field?
MR. WILLIAMS: Biology.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. They are at Stanford University
and the University of Sidney in Australia?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that they have opined that the
52
theory of evolution is not falsifiable?
A. No, I'm not specifically aware they have
said that.
Q. Are you aware that they have said it is
outside of empirical science?
A. No.
Q. Would you agree or disagree with that
statement?
A. That it is outside empirical science?
Q. Yes.
A. I disagree.
MR. ENNIS: Excuse me.
For the record, do you have a source for those
quotations you are relying upon?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
That is from "Nature Magazine," Volume 214, page
252, 1967.
Q. Are you familiar with Nature Magazine?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you consider that to be a Creation
Science publication?
A. No.
Q. Would you consider it to be generally a
fair journal concerning the theory of evolution when it
discusses it?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a refereed journal?
A. Yes.
53
Q. Do you know who L. Harrison Matthews was or
is?
A. No.
- - -
54
Q. Do you know who Leon Harris is, C. Leon
Harris?
A. No.
Q. Does that name mean anything to you?
A. No.
MR. KLASFELD: Do you want to tell him who these
people are to see if that refreshes his recollection?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is what I am looking for here.
Harris is with the Department of Biological
Sciences, State University of Arts and Sciences,
Plattsburgh, New York.
Q. Would it be correct, in your opinion, to
state that evolution presupposes no creator?
MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry -- I apologize -- what
did you say?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Would it be correct to state
that the evolution theory presupposes no creator?
A. Do you mean that it presupposes that there
is no creator?
MR. KLASFELD: Is your question, does the theory
of evolution presuppose that there is no creator?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is right.
THE WITNESS: No. It's irrelevant.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Does it presuppose there is a
creator?
A. No.
Q. So there is no presupposition of a creator
in evolution theory?
55
A. It's not testable.
Q. Are you aware that Sir Carl Popper stated
that evolution was not a science but a metaphysical
research program?
A. Yes, I am.
I am also aware he has retracted that.
Q. Where did he retract that?
A. Several places.
Q. Could you give me a citation?
A. I would have to research it.
I know at least two places where he has done that.
Q. Do you recall what publications those would
have occurred in?
A. That is what I would have to research to
remind myself.
He is a very prolific writer.
Q. Do you think at the time he said that he
didn't believe it?
A. That he didn't believe what he said?
Q. right.
A. No. I think he believed it.
Q. Now, one of your publications was published
in a text with Valentine.
A. Yes.
Q. Does that text include a statement that it
would be impossible to get the necessary --
MR. KLASFELD: Are you quoting, David?
MR. WILLIAMS: No. I am just summarizing,
56
paraphrasing.
Q. -- that it would be impossible to get the
necessary protein for life by chance?
A. I'm sorry, repeat the question.
Q. Does that text include a statement that
there would be no way of getting the necessary proteins
for life by chance?
A. I'm sure that the statement does not occur
in the book as you put it.
Q. Does that ring a bell as to statements in
there about the chance occurrence of proteins?
A. It rings many bells, yes, but I do not
recognize the statement.
Q. Have you not in some of your other writings,
Dr. Ayala, acknowledged there are many gaps in the
fossil record which remain unexplained?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any explanation for them
presently?
A. For what?
Q. For gaps in the fossil record.
A. For why there are gaps?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. What is your explanation?
A. Our knowledge is limited. Not all organisms
are preserved as fossils, and we don't know all of the
fossils there are.
57
We need more grants.
MR. ENNIS: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WILLIAMS: Back on the record.
Q. What is your opinion of the expertise of
Stephen J. Gould?
A. Very high.
Q. You have, have you not, written at least
one article criticizing some of the punctuated equilibrium
theories which he has postulated?
A. I have criticized some things related to the
theory.
Q. What in particular do you find to criticize
about his theory?
A. It's not about his theory but something
related to the theory, namely, the implication that it
might be incompatible with the formulations of
population genetics made by some Evolutionists.
Q. The article you wrote was with Stebbins; is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware of another article that
Stebbins has written which says that natural selection
works only at the species level and from there you have
to extrapolate?
A. Not those specific words.
Q. Would you agree with that?
A. Natural selection works within a species,
58
yes.
Q. But from there you have to extrapolate?
A. From where to where?
Q. From the natural selection at the species
level you would have to extrapolate?
MR. ENNIS: Excuse me, David.
I have no objection to the witness answering that
question, but it might be useful if you say what you
mean by "extrapolate."
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, what does "extrapolation"
mean to you in this context or in general?
Does it not have a specific context, a specific
meaning in the area of science and ,more particularly,
in the area of Evolution Science?
A. Not more specific. I mean, I can acknowledge
the common meaning of the word "extrapolate" from what
we know in one place to --
Q. Excuse me.
Do you contrast extrapolation with interpolation?
A. No.
Q. How do you define "science"?
A. I believe I did that before.
MR. KLASFELD: I was going to say that you have,
not once but twice.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
It is the knowledge of natural phenomena in terms
of explanatory principles that account for natural
phenomena in terms of natural laws that are genuinely
59
testable.
Well, I will change the "is" to "are," and I will
say that "are" genuinely testable.
We can stop there.
I was going to add a clarification, though.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My previous question actually
was what was a scientific theory, as I recall, and now
I'm asking you what is science.
A. Yes. That is why I included "the principles,"
you see.
Q. Can you define what is supernatural?
A. Yes. Something which is above nature.
Q. Would it mean it is above nature -- I will
withdraw that and rephrase it.
When you talk about supernatural as being above
nature, are there not certain things which you might
label as being supernatural, but at some point in the
future, as we learn more about the laws of nature, they
will no longer be supernatural?
A. I don't know of anything today which is
supernatural.
Q. But would you agree that our understanding
of the laws of nature are limited, that we don't know
all of the laws of nature?
A. Yes, very much so.
Q. So that if something should be labeled as
supernatural because it is above the laws of nature as
we now know them today, it might one day become subject
60
to the laws of nature as we better understand them?
MR. KLASFELD: No, Dave. It could be that
something is also subject to the laws of nature but we
don't yet understand it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want to testify, or would you
like the Doctor to testify?
MR. KLASFELD: I was simply trying to point out
that your question said, if it's not one, it's the other,
and I wanted to point out that was not right, and I
don't want to allow you to put words in Dr. Ayala's
mouth.
MR. WILLIAMS: I think Dr. Ayala can handle himself.
If he feels he can't, then perhaps he shouldn't be called
as a witness.
MR. KLASFELD: I can't let that go uncontested.
You know, I view myself as having a role in this
deposition, and I intend to pursue it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you making an objection?
MR. KLASFELD: Yes.
My objection is that your question presupposed that
there could only be one possible answer, and that was
not true.
I would like you to restate the question in a way
that allows Dr. Ayala to answer it properly.
MR. WILLIAMS: How did my question presuppose
there could only be one answer?
MR. KLASFELD: We can talk about this as long as
you like.
61
What I understood you to say is that you tried to
characterize his answer that there were thinks in the
world we didn't know, and you tried to characterize that
as supernatural and if we found out and understood them
in the future, that they would then be subject to
natural laws.
That didn't, in my mind, accurately characterize
what it was that Dr. Ayala had said, which was that
everything in effect now is natural; some of those
things we understand today and some we don't, and when
we understand them in the future, it would simply be
our understanding of the natural laws that were always
in effect but we didn't understand them at this time
but gained an understanding of them at some time in the
future.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, when you talk about
the laws of nature which we know today and which we
have agreed we are limited in our knowledge of what
those laws are based on our knowledge today, if there
are things which cannot be explained by the laws of
nature as we know them today, would it not be possible
to characterize them as supernatural based on present
knowledge?
A. Your question is ambiguous.
If they cannot be explained today by the laws of
nature and our knowledge of the relevant facts that we
know, it still would not necessarily be supernatural.
Q. But based on our knowledge today, would
62
they not have to be supernatural because we can't
explain them by the laws of nature?
- - -
63
A. No. I don't call supernatural something
which I cannot explain. I cannot explain how your brain
works, for example.
Q. Not that you can't explain but the laws of
nature can't explain; that is what I am talking about.
A. You said the laws of nature as we know
them today?
Q. Right.
How would you characterize that?
I am just curious.
How would you characterize something which is above
and beyond the laws of nature as we know them today?
A. As being beyond the laws of nature as we
know them today? I frankly do not understand the
question.
MR. KLASFELD: Do you want to give him an example?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You are saying you don't know
anything outside of the laws of nature; is that what you
were going to say?
A. That we know is outside the law of nature,
yes.
Q. Would you agree that the modern synthesis
theory of evolution is coming under criticism from other
Evolutionists today?
A. Some aspects of it are, yes.
From me, too.
Q. What aspects of it are you criticising?
A. Well, we are learning more things more
64
precisely and clarifying many of the concepts as we go
along.
Q. What aspects of it particularly have you
criticised?
A. I don't know that "criticise" is the proper
word, but to give an example, up to a few years ago it
was very often thought that most species evolved or
appeared very slowly; we know today that relatively
rapid speciation, formation of new species, is not a
rare phenomenon.
Q. Do you have any theory as to how to account
for the rapid speciation?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. I refer you to my writings again.
It's very difficult to summarize these things in
a single statement.
Q. I understand.
Could you try to think of some for me.
A. Well, by a variety of ways, one of them
being by polypoidy.
Q. Does the modern synthesis theory include
gradual changes?
Microevolution, perhaps it's called.
A. Please rephrase the question using only one
of the two words at a time. They are incompatible.
MR. KLASFELD: Thank you. You are doing my job
better than I am.
65
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Does the modern synthesis theory
of evolution include gradual change?
A. At some levels, yes, and it doesn't, as well.
It depends also on the definition of "gradual."
Q. Define "microevolution" for me.
A. Evolution within a given species.
Q. Could you give me an example, a simple
example of microevolution?
A. Changes in gene frequencies in any given
species, the drosophila melanogaster, for example.
Q. When is the first time you studied or heard
of the term "Creation Science"?
A. In the last year or two.
Q. I take it then you have never studied it in
any of your formal education.
A. Creation Science?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Where did you first hear the term?
A. I'm not sure.
Probably in the context of the law in Arkansas.
Q. Well, that was only passed this year, you
understand.
A. Yes.
I am not sure.
Q. You brought some books with you, and for the
record, they are Creation, the Facts of Life by Gary
Parker; The Scientific Case for Creation by Henry M.
66
Morris; Evolution, the Fossils say "No" by Duane Gish;
Scientific Creationism by --
MR. ENNIS: By Henry Morris.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. -- by Henry Morris, yes.
And Biology, a Search for Order and Complexity by
Moore and Slusher.
MR. ENNIS: That is our Exhibit No. 1, as we all
know.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Have you read all of those?
A. Not everything.
Q. Have you read parts of each of them?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any other documents you have read
which form the basis for your opinions on Creation
Science?
A. Yes.
Q. What are the other documents?
A. A number of papers, articles in various
journals.
Q. Do you recall any specifically now?
A. Yes.
A series of five or six articles in a journal,
written by Mr. Armstrong.
I think the title of the journal is --
Do any of you know it?
MR. ENNIS: Do you want me to volunteer?
MR. WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
MR. ENNIS: Is it "Creation Research"?
67
MR. WILLIAMS: No. It's "Truth" or something like
that.
MR. ENNIS: Oh, "Plain Truth"?
MR. WILLIAMS: "Plain Truth," thank you.
Q. That is by Garner Ted Armstrong.
Is that the fellow's name?
A. Yes.
And others.
Q. The others, were they also in religious
publications?
A. Well, those of Creation Research Institute
and such publications, yes.
Q. You said you have read some other
publications by the Creation Institute, and I am not
aware of any institute called that.
A. I mean the Institute for Creation Research.
Q. Other publications from them?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it upon the basis of reading these
books and these articles you mentioned by Garner
Armstrong and others that you have arrived at your
opinion as to what Creation Science is; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read Act 590 of 1981 from the State
of Arkansas?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you read that?
A. In total, yesterday.
68
Q. Section 4(b) of Act 590 states:
"'Evolution Science' means the
scientific evidences for evolution
and inferences from those scientific
evidences."
MR. KLASFELD: Go more slowly.
THE WITNESS: And read it clearly, please.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I am sorry. Why don't you just
read Section 4(b) to yourself.
A. I will.
Q. Have you now had a chance to read Section
4(b) of the act?
A. Yes.
Q. First of all, what is your opinion of the
definition given to "Evolution Science"?
A. That it is confusing.
Q. How is it confusing?
A. Well, the term "Evolution Science" as
written is not a term which would appear in ordinary
scientific language.
It misses the main point as to what the science of
evolution or the sciences that dealt with evolution are.
Q. When you say it misses the main point, what
do you mean?
A. Science is primarily intellectual constructs
69
of theories.
Q. How does that miss that point then?
A. It just talks in terms of scientific
evidences and inferences. It seems to imply a notion
of science which is at least antiquated by 300 years
in this context.
I find it confusing.
Q. All right.
Are you looking at the part there, subpart 1,
where it says, "Emergence by naturalistic processes of
the universe from disordered matter and emergence of
life from nonlife," and are you aware of any evidence
which goes against that statement?
A. The emergence by naturalistic processes of
the universe --
MR. KLASFELD: I just want to make one point.
As I recall, Mr. Williams read him that before,
and he said that wasn't part of evolution.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking him that. I'm asking
him if he is aware of any evidence against that
statement.
MR. KLASFELD: If the statement makes any sense
to you, you can answer.
THE WITNESS: It makes dubious sense.
The universe cannot emerge. I find the statement
confusing, and from my understanding of it, I don't
know of evidence against it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Subsection 2 states:
70
"The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about
development of present living kinds
from simpler earlier kinds."
Are you aware of any evidence against that
statement?
A. Very definitely.
Those processes are not sufficient.
Q. In what way are they insufficient?
A. You need many other processes: general
genetic drift, environmental interactions, interactions
between organisms of different kinds and so on.
Q. so then if we look back up to Section 4(a)
where it states that "Creation Science includes the
scientific evidences and related inferences that
indicate, (No. 2) the insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development within
all living kinds from a single organism," would you
find yourself more in agreement with that statement
than the statement at (b)(2)?
MR. ENNIS: I object.
THE WITNESS: With neither.
MR. ENNIS: He has said he is more in agreement
with 4(b)?
MR. KLASFELD: He is asking if he is.
MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking if he is.
THE WITNESS: You have read a compound statement
which started with (a), and then went into (a)(2).
71
Will you rephrase the question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Let's just talk about No. 2
separately.
Under (a)(2), "The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of all
living kinds from a single organism," we have read that
already.
Now, (b)(2) we have previously read?
A. Yes.
Q. Between those two statements, would you
find yourself more in agreement with one than the other?
A. If they are understood literally, with a
literal meaning of the word "insufficiency," I would
be more in agreement with 2.
Q. 2 what?
A. I'm sorry, with (a)(2).
And that is because (b)(2) is a distortion.
Q. In your opinion?
A. Yes.
I thought you were asking my opinion.
- - -
72
Q. Yes, I was.
(b)(3) starts with the word "emergency," and I
think we can agree that means, or that should be
"emergence." It's a typographical error.
It says:
"Emergence by mutation and natural
selection of present living kinds
from simpler earlier kinds."
Are you aware of evidence which is against that
statement?
A. No.
MR. KLASFELD: I am sorry, excuse me, David.
Why don't you ask him first if he agrees with the
statement and then ask him if there is evidence against
it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I am not really concerned
with whether he agrees with it or not.
MR. ENNIS: But let me say for the record that the
confusion here is that the statute purports to define
what evolutionary theory means, and the first question
is whether Dr. Ayala agrees with the statutory
definition of evolution, and the second question then
is if he knows of evidence contrary to that statutory
definition.
You are assuming he agrees with the statutory
definition when you proceed directly to the second
question.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm really not assuming that. I
73
am really not. I just want to know if he knows, taking
that statement at face value, of any evidence against it.
THE WITNESS: If the statement is understood as
"emergence by mutation and natural selection as well
as other processes," et cetera, then I do not know any
evidence against it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. (4) states:
"Emergence of man from a common
ancestor with apes."
Are you aware of any evidence against that statement?
A. No.
I do not like the word "emergence," and this keeps
repeating it. It's not a proper word.
Q. Why do you not like that word?
A. Because "emergence" has certain implications
in science and in the philosophy of science.
If he would say "evolution of man from a common
ancestor with apes," I do not know of any statement
against it so long as women are included.
Q. (5) states:
"Explanation of the earth's geology
and the evolutionary sequence by
uniformitarianism."
Are you aware of any evidence against that statement?
A. In the normal tradition of uniformitarianism,
yes.
Q. What evidence are you aware of against the
statement?
74
A. We know that geological processes change
through time, tectonics, for example.
MR. KLASFELD: T-e-c-t-o-n-i-c-s.
THE WITNESS: That is one example of geological
processes not having been uniform through time.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, concerning (5), again,
what other evidence is there against the statement?
A. I have said I am not an expert in geology,
but I think uniformitarianism in the traditional sense
of that word is not generally accepted in geology in
that many processes are not uniformitarian.
Earthquakes occur, for example.
Q. Would that be catastrophic?
A. Not in the traditional sense of catastrophism.
Q. Is there not in geology some talk of
catastrophism and a movement toward catastrophism?
A. In the 19th Century there was a polemic
between uniformitarianism and catastrophism.
I think, in my limited knowledge in this field,
that today no true expert in the field would call
himself either a uniformist or catastrophist. That is
a problem we are having all of the time, you know.
Q. No. (6) says:
"An inception several billion
years ago of the earth and somewhat
later of life."
Do you know of any evidence, scientific evidence,
that is against that?
75
A. No, I don't.
Q. Could you please state for me the reasons
why you oppose the teaching of Creation Science?
A. Because it is not science; and also, because
endangers the teaching of religion.
Q. It endangers the teaching of religion?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, tell me first of all why it's not
science.
A. I don't know of any of their statements
that are testable in the scientific sense.
Q. What if there were such statements?
A. Well, the theory, as such, in terms of
general principles is not testable.
Specific statements of fact may be testable, but
that is relatively trivial in science. What has to be
testable is the theory, the principles.
Q. Is the general theory of evolution testable?
A. Yes. The principles that make up the theory
of evolution are testable, yes.
Q. But your definition of evolution is much
more narrow, is it not, than what some people would
consider to be or what some experts would consider to
be the theory of evolution?
A. I think most experts would say there are
several ways of speaking about the theory of evolution,
and the more precise way, I feel, is that it is a
biological theory that applies to the evolution of
76
life. I think most experts would define it that way.
Q. But evolution can take into consideration,
can it not, merely the evolution of life, in the terms
as you have defined it, from one form of life to
another, but it can also take into consideration the
evolution of the universe?
A. Yes.
Or the evolution of this dialogue between you and
me and --
Q. I'm talking about evolution in the
scientific sense: evolution in the universe, evolution
in the earth itself, as well as evolution of life from
nonlife.
A. Evolution of human history, evolution of
sociological systems, evolution of political systems,
which are scientific.
Evolution comes in many things, and I think it is
wise to define the context in which one is speaking.
Q. Have you discussed the creation model of
origins in your classroom?
A. Yes.
Q. In what context?
A. Trying to explain that there is not
incompatibility between the message of creation as
conveyed in Genesis and the theory of evolution. It
is only a literal interpretation that is incompatible.
But the Bible, as most theologians understand it, is
not incompatible.
77
MR. KLASFELD: If I could just interject a
question, please, which of your classes was this in?
THE WITNESS: In almost all of them, at different
levels of complexity or sophistication.
Part of my goal is to avoid the problem that I
have with this kind of situation, namely, that people
feel obliged to reject their religious convictions after
they become overwhelmed by the evidence for evolution,
and I think that they feel obliged to reject it when
they have been told that the two are incompatible, and
I think that is unfortunate, because they are not
incompatible.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Your rejection of religious
values came after you learned about science?
A. I don't reject religious values.
Q. You don't personally reject them?
A. Oh, no.
Q. You still hold the beliefs of the Roman
Catholic Church?
A. No.
Q. What religious values do you hold to?
- - -
78
A. Oh, very many. Respect for human life,
respect for the universe, respect for people who believe
in the Catholic principles, and others, Protestant, that
exist over this.
Q. Is that a religious belief?
A. Certainly it is a religious value.
Q. Respect for human life is a religious value?
A. Yes.
Q. Respect for others is a religious value?
A. For persons.
Q. It is a religious belief, you say?
A. A religious value. I would not call it a
belief. We are talking about respect and it's not a
belief. Respect refers to attitudes, to values.
Q. How do you differentiate between a religious
belief and a religious respect?
A. Respect is a matter of attitude. Belief is a
matter of thinking, an intellectual matter.
Q. Is it a religious belief for you that you
have a respect for people who have faith?
A. It's a religious value.
Q. A religious value.
How is that value necessarily religious?
A. Because it has to do with the ultimate
meaning of life and the universe.
Q. And how does that, in your mind, become
religion?
A. That is what religion is, concern for ultimate
79
values and the significance of the universe and human
life, or life, if you want it more generally.
Q. I am curious because you have stated that in
1967 or 1966 you ceased to be a member of the Roman
Catholic Church, but you state that you have religious
respect but no longer have religious belief; is that
correct?
A. Religious values.
Religious respect, I don't know. I don't know that
that is a very meaningful phrase.
I have religious values, yes. And I have religious
beliefs also.
Q. What are those religious beliefs?
A. That there is goodness in nature.
I think we went through some of them before.
Q. Are there any others besides goodness in
nature?
A. Just that human life is sacred.
Q. How do you define "religion"?
A. As concern for -- as ultimate concern. Let
me put it that way. Ultimate concern. That is my
definition of religion.
Q. That has no meaning to me. I don't under-
stand it.
A. There is a book by a great American
theologian which has that title as the definition of
religion.
Q. "Ultimate concern"?
80
A. Ultimate religion is ultimate concern.
Q. For what?
A. For the ultimate significance thing.
Q. Of life, would that be one of them?
A. Yes.
Q. Of the universe, would that be another?
A. Yes.
Q. What else, ultimate concern for anything
else you can think of?
A. There is nothing beyond the universe. Concern
for life is a qualification.
Q. The universe we start with and we come into
life; is that correct?
Can we come in any further when we talk about the
ultimate concern for --
A. Human life.
Q. Human life.
Who is this book by, by the way?
A. Paul Tillich, T-i-l-l-i-c-h.
Q. And what was the name of it again, do you
recall it?
A. Not exactly. I recall that he defines
religion as ultimate concern.
Q. So you would generally agree with Tillich's
definition of religion?
A. As one definition.
Q. As one which you can personally agree with?
A. Yes. And I hope everybody else does.
81
Q. Are you familiar with the term "humanism"?
A. Excuse me.
Q. Are you familiar with the term "humanism"?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with the Society of
Religious Humanists at all?
A. Very vaguely.
Q. Would you consider, under Tillich's definition,
humanism to be a form of religion?
A. Possibly. Some people would. I wouldn't.
Q. I'm sorry. I didn't understand you.
A. You see, it depends on what you mean by
"humanism," so I have to qualify it.
Q. What definition of humanism would you include
as a religion?
A. Can you give me a list of definitions of
humanism? And then I will tell you which one.
Q. I think your answer to me was that, depending
upon how humanism is defined, it can be a religion, so
there is obviously something in your mind which constitutes
religion from the prospective of humanism and I would
like you to tell me that.
A. One definition of humanism is valuing the
human person or persons as the greatest value in the
universe. Now, that is consistent with a religious view.
Q. All right. Do any of the organizations to
which you belong have a position on whether the creation
model of origin should be discussed in the classroom?
82
A. In an officially formulated policy?
Q. Yes, something which has been articulated
either orally or in writing.
A. You mean explicit formulation?
Q. Right.
A. I think not.
Q. When you have discussed creation in the class-
room, I take it from your comments that you would be
discussing creation from what you considered to be the
religious sense of the word.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had any difficulty with your
students?
A. Yes.
Q. What are some difficulties you have
experienced?
A. Well, students from time to time come for
clarification and some of them come with objections.
The majority, however, find relief.
Q. I am sorry. What did you say?
A. The majority find relief.
MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry, David. Was your
question there --
Dr. Ayala testified previously, I think, that some
of the students he had found difficulty with their own
religious beliefs and the massive amount of scientific
information they were getting. Was your question about
whether there were people who, on the other hand,
83
continued to believe in --
MR. WILLAIMS: I asked him the question whether he
had any difficulties with his students and he started to
answer on that point, so I was going to get him to go
ahead and answer.
MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. So the difficulties, as I under-
stand them, Doctor, have been that some students have
objected to the notion that science, the scientific
theory of evolution, and their own religious theory of
creation or origin, were not inconsistent?
A. No.
What I said was that some students come with
objections to my interpretation of the Bible, for
example. Most of the students come for clarification,
trying to understand.
Q. When you say they come to you, they come to
you personally, outside of class, you mean?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you feel that is unhealthy that they have
these questions?
A. Oh, no.
Q. Do you feel like it's unhealthy to discuss
creation in a science classroom as a matter of academic
principles?
84
A. Discussing it as science, yes.
Q. Well, do you feel it's unhealthy to discuss it
as being religious in a science class?
A. Well, I dedicate only a few -- a small amount
of time to it, and that is why most of the clarifications
take place at my own time and expense afterwards. I
think it's fair to the students, since it's such an
important issue, to spend a few minutes on it.
Q. About how many minutes would you spend on it?
A. It depends on what course it is, but maybe
fifteen minutes, half an hour.
Q. fifteen minutes to a half an hour?
A. Yes.
Q. What courses would you go into this in?
A. In general genetics, when we come to
evolutionary genetics; in my evolution course; and of
course, in the philosophy of biology course.
Q. How many years have you done this?
A. Since I have been teaching these courses.
Q. If a student does take a literal interpre-
tation of the account of Genesis, would then the theory
of religious creation we are talking about now in
Genesis, would the theory of evolution be incompatible?
A. The theory of evolution is incompatible with
a literal description of the origins of man in Genesis,
yes.
Q. Here are some of the texts you have brought
with you.
85
As to the articles you have read, for example, by
Mr. Armstrong, did they include some religious or
scriptural references?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that any scriptural reference
is prohibited by Act 590 or any religious writings or
religious references?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that, wasn't it in the first
few editions of Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species,"
that he made reference to a creator?
A. Yes. In the next to the last paragraph.
Q. Is it correct that he stated that the first
life had been breathed into these forms by a creator,
that there was a grandeur in this view -- I think his
words are "there is some grandeur in this view."
A. Yes.
Q. Would you think that would be an inappropriate
study for a science class or a student to read "On the
Origin of the Species," which talks about a creator?
A. No, because it's one paragraph out of 450
pages.
Q. Sure.
A. As I told you, I spent a few minutes on the
matter, too, so I hardly disagree.
Q. but in that book,, did not Darwin, if you will,
ascribe to the creator a role in evolution; he was not
talking strictly, perhaps, in a religious sense there,
86
but he was writing a book on science and he said that the
creator had done this?
A. No. He said there is grandeur in this view
of the universe, which is where the -- I am paraphrasing
-- where the creator does not necessarily create every-
thing but has created the world whereby the laws can
evolve and produce this enormous variety and beauty.
I am paraphrasing.
His point, however, is that what he says is that
there is grandeur in this view of the world as evolving.
That is why the creator doesn't have to be put in every
little thing there but there is change by natural laws.
That is what he is saying, and I feel there is grandeur
in that view.
Q. So I take it you would not object to that
being read, that work being read and studied by a science
student, although he does mention the concept of a
creator.
A. No, I do not object to it.
Q. Do you have an opinion on the origin of the
universe?
A. May I ask for a clarification: the universe
as we know it today or the very beginning of everything,
the very beginning of matter, of reality?
Q. Well, let's start with the universe as we
know it today.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have an opinion on that?
87
A. Yes.
Q. What is your opinion?
- - -
88
A. Living things have evolved gradually, have
diversified, have become extinct.
Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
A. Living things have evolved gradually,
diversified into main species, and at different times
some species have become extinct.
Q. I don't mean to cut you off, but I am
really talking about the universe in terms of the
planets and stars.
A. Oh, I'm glad you clarified that.
When somebody talks to me about the universe, the
most important universe is the living things.
Q. I understand that might be to you, but I
am asking about the universe in terms of the planets
and stars and all of that.
Do you have an opinion as to that?
A. I accept what astronomists generally say,
namely, that they are a result of what is referred to
as a big bang.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to what caused
the big bang?
A. No.
Well, let me qualify that. It depends on what you
mean by "cause."
Yes, in terms of the physical forces. Matter
cannot stay together that way. So my answer would be
yes, if that is what you mean.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to how the
89
matter came together?
A. No.
Q. Do you ascribe to the notion of the
pulsating --
Is that right? Isn't there a notion that if it
was pulsating, the bang, then it will come back together
again?
A. I think that is a possibility.
It's not generally accepted; but I have no position
on that.
Q. So you have no general position as to what
brought that matter together in the first place?
A. That is right.
Q. Do you ascribe to any personal hypothesis
on that?
A. My own?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Do you have one you agree with?
A. No.
Q. Do you have one that you agree is more
authoritative or more likely than others?
A. No.
Q. What is your opinion, if you have one, on
the origin of man?
A. Mankind came by evolution from nonhuman
ancestors, I suppose is what you are referring to.
Q. Are there any transitional forms that you
90
know of to those nonhuman ancestors?
A. Between nonhuman ancestors and present
mankind?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. What are the ones that you believe are
transitional forms?
A. Australopithecus, homo habilis, homo erectus.
Q. When you speak of australopithecus, how do
you determine that it was not human?
A. It was human.
Q. It was human?
A. I thought the question was between modern
mankind and nonhuman ancestors.
Q. So it was fully human?
A. It was humanoid.
It's not homo sapien.
If by "fully human" you mean homo sapiens, it
wasn't. If you mean it belongs to the family of hominids,
it was.
Q. Have you an opinion on the origin of the
earth?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. The general one accepted by astronomers.
Q. You have to forgive me. Could you describe
it?
A. You realize it's not my field of knowledge,
91
so your knowledge and my knowledge may not be
different in this case.
It's just that it formed by condensation of gases
that were rotating with the sun or around the sun.
MR. WILLIAMS: This is just a housekeeping matter.
Are you going to provide the documents in our document
request?
MR. KLASFELD: Absolutely.
MR. ENNIS: Those we don't object to.
MR. WILLIAMS: All right.
When will those be provided?
MR. ENNIS: As fast as we can get them to you.
MR. KLASFELD: We will give Dr. Ayala a copy of
them and --
MR. WILLIAMS: Can I get them in the next couple
says?
MR. KLASFELD: Well, we hope so.
MR. ENNIS: I can't answer that because we don't
know if there is one that is responsive or 4000 that
are responsive. We will do our best to discuss it with
Dr. Ayala today and get the documents to you as fast as
we can.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Have you done any consulting
work, Doctor?
- - -
92
A. What do you mean by "consulting"? Students
consult me all the time.
Q. I mean for pay.
For example, with businesses or other entities.
A. Not with businesses but with the U.S.
Government.
Q. The grants we talked about, or something
other than that?
A. Advisory bodies in the Federal Government.
Q. Have these been compensated positions?
First, are they listed on your curriculum vitae?
A. Probably. I didn't list everything so let
me check.
Q. How much were you paid for these; for
example, as a member of the advisory general medical
sciences council of HEW?
A. $100 per day for services.
Q. Would that be the same for all of them?
A. I think so.
Q. Approximately how many days have you served?
A. In a year?
Q. Yes.
A. Six to eight a year.
Q. Would these also be in the area of your
expertise in evolutionary biology?
A. My expertise is relevant there, yes.
Q. Have you ever written anything on the subject
of Creation Science?
93
A. No.
Q. Have you given any interviews on the subject?
A. Do you mean public interviews?
Q. Yes. Interviews which have been published.
A. I don't think so, no.
Q. Have you ever made any speeches on the
subject?
A. No.
Q. Have you in any form, other than entirely
private conversations, ever made any comments on the
subject of Creation Science?
A. I have.
Q. Where?
A. Well, in passing, for example, at the annual
meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution last
June, July, a brief comment.
Q. Do you recall the comment or was there a
recording made of it?
A. No, I am sure there is no recording.
Q. Tell me about the Society for the Study of
Evolution.
Where is it located?
A. Off the record, in Heaven.
On the record, there is no formal physical location.
There is an office of an editor, an office of the
treasurer, an office of the secretary and the president,
and these people change from year to year. They are
scientists that get elected.
94
Q. Does it publish a journal?
A. Yes.
Q. What journal is that?
A. "Evolution."
Q. Have you been an officer of that organization?
A. Yes.
Q. What offices?
A. Vice president and president elect and
president.
Q. Is there a stated position or purpose of the
organization reduced to writing?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a copy of that?
A. Not with me.
Q. Do you have a copy at your office?
A. I can get it. It's probably in the library.
It's probably in the records.
Q. If you could give me a citation to that or if
you could provide me with a copy, I would like to have
one. You could provide it to your attorneys.
A. All right.
Q. The general thrust of the organization, I
would take it, though, is the study of evolution, is it
not?
A. Yes. A variation on evolution or anything
relevant to evolution, yes.
Q. To further knowledge concerning evolution,
would that be correct?
95
A. Further knowledge concerning matters of
evolution, yes. The order of the words is very important.
Concerning knowledge, it is.
Q. I understand.
Has the Society had as its purpose to study whether
evolutionary theory is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Has the Society or any of its members ever
published a paper which said that evolutionary theory
might not be correct?
A. Do you mean parts of evolutionary theory?
You realize that evolutionary theory is a big name for
many, many things.
Q. I am speaking of evolutionary theory in
general, not just a small part of evolutionary theory but
the theory in general.
A. Well, I don't think anybody has published
that the whole of evolution theory is not correct.
[Brief recess]
- - -
96
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Could you define academic
freedom?
A. Yes. I suppose privilege of a person in an
academic position to express his or her views concerning
the subject matter in which he or she is a specialist.
Q. Do you think in order to teach a subject that
a teacher must agree with all the theories he is
teaching.
A. Definitely not.
Q. You refer to it as a privilege.
A. Freedom is a privilege. Call it a right.
I'm not an expert in such things.
Q. Well, would you agree that the manner in
which courses are to be taught particularly in public
schools and public secondary schools there are some
limits on the manner in which they can be taught?
A. Oh, surely.
Q. and subject to appropriate control by the
state and local authorities that are appropriate, that is
an appropriate exercise of sometimes limiting academic
freedom? Sometimes it would be appropriate to limit
absolute academic freedom?
A. No, I do not agree with that. I do not agree
that the state or anybody has the right to interfere with
academic freedom of a teacher, academic freedom as I
have defined it.
Q. And you have defined it as the freedom to
give their professional opinion about a particular theory
97
within their area of expertise, is that correct?
A. The freedom to express their views and make
a fair presentation of what their field of knowledge is,
yes.
Q. I think there are two parts in there perhaps.
You said one, to express their views, and then you said
something about to make a fair presentation.
A. Well, if a teacher is not making a fair
presentation, then he should be removed.
Q. What is a fair presentation?
A. Generally it is very difficult recognizing
what is generally accepted, what is generally accepted
and making those presentations which are presentations
which are irrelevant.
Q. Isn't that a highly subjective area?
A. I think the area of freedom concerns human
rights and exercises, and there is an element of
subjectivity in its application.
Q. If there is a teacher who in their honest
professional opinion believes that there is scientific
evidence to support the theory of Creation Science, do
you think they should be prohibited from teaching that?
MR. ENNIS: Objection. Are you asking the question
of the witness if this is a matter of law?
MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of academic freedom that
he has espoused.
THE WITNESS: Somebody who is engaged to teach the
subject.
98
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is not entitled to teach the
matter of evolution, the subject matter of science?
A. Within science he is teaching evolution as
part of his duty on the subject of evolution.
Q. He is teaching chemistry and he feels there
is evidence to support the theory of Creation Science
in the area of the origin of first life and the way the
chemicals came together and he wants to teach that.
A. I don't think that subject belongs within the
area of chemistry. It's not a subject of teaching within
chemistry.
Q. I appreciate you feel that way, Doctor, but
my question is if he sincerely feels --
A. I think a teacher who teaches things which
are not within the general subject matter of what is
the agreed consensus as to what belongs in the field is
not a competent teacher. He should be removed.
Q. So if someone teaches something which is
not generally recognized, they should be removed?
A. As relevant to the subject matter. If I
asked to teach sociology and start to lecture on genetics,
I should be removed from teaching sociology.
Q. If many years ago before Copernicus's
theory concerning the fact we don't have a geocentric
universe, before that was accepted, if a teacher taught
that theory before it was accepted by the scientific
community, if a teacher taught it, should he have been
fired under your opinion?
99
A. If he was teaching a subject which was
totally irrelevant to the subject matter he was charged
to teach, yes. You are changing the grounds of the
previous question.
Q. Perhaps my question was ambiguous. Let me
clarify it. I have in mind, for example, a chemistry
teacher who in his chemistry course deals with, as I
understand it, the origin of first life, and he mentions
in there how it would be possible for certain elements
to come together to form some form of "life," and he
wants to include in that discussion some of what he
considers to be evidence for Creation Science, that is
the very high odds against that occurring by pure
science, other than having it occur with some force?
MR. ENNIS: I object because it was done twice
now before. Evidence against the formulation of those
proteins based on probability is not evidence for
creation.
MR. WILLIAMS: That is what part of this lawsuit
is about.
MR. ENNIS: Your question assumes the answer to
that.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm saying in this teacher's
opinion he thinks that it is.
THE WITNESS: First, is it part of the syllabus
of chemistry to deal with the origin of life? I think
it's not part of the syllabus of chemistry classes, so
I think he would have to be told it's not part of the
100
syllabus.
Q. What if it is?
A. But it isn't.
Q. What if he is not given a syllabus and has
the freedom to choose that?
A. That is precisely where there is a general
agreed consensus in the scientific community or local
boards as to what belongs appropriately within a given
field of science and that is for science really to
establish what is an appropriate field of science.
I'm not trying to be difficult. It is difficult
for me to handle the question.
Q. We have gone back to the essential premise,
one of academic freedom, and as I understood what you
were saying about academic freedom you would not want
a teacher to be limited in the manner in which they
could teach.
A. So long as he does it on the basis of
appropriate knowledge.
Q. Appropriate knowledge. All right.
And how do you define what is appropriate knowledge?
A. Well, being knowledgeable in the field and
able to judge the evidence as it exists, the principles
as they are known by the scientific community at large.
Q. So now let's go back to my other example.
At one time under your definition I assume that
Copernicus's theory of the universe could not have been
taught because at one time it was not generally accepted
101
in the field; is that correct?
A. No, it's not correct because for one thing,
if you read Thomas Aquinas and even the Greeks, already
they had theories about the earth not being the center of
the universe.
At the time of Copernicus these things were
debatable and scientists debated them and they sometimes
brought them in in script to avoid the church deciphering
their communications. I think at the time that it was
a legitimate debatable question. It is a debatable
question today.
Q. But at the time was it not true that the
geocentric theory of the universe was the predominant
theory?
A. Probably, but I'm not sure. There were some
astronomers.
Q. But if it was the predominant theory, then
at that point under your theory you could have not taught
anything except the geocentric universe?
A. No. So long as it is taught from knowledge
and a proper teacher at the time would say, "Here we
have a theory," and "There is another theory," and I
think if the evidence favors this theory, he would be
able to handle it properly.
Q. As long as scientists are debating the
question you think it would be proper to discuss both?
A. Yes, so long as one understands the word
"scientists" properly, in the plural, properly.
102
Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether the
state may prescribe a curriculum in the secondary schools?
A. I'm sure some aspects of it they can prescribe.
Q. In your opinion should the classroom and
secondary schools be open to all academic discussion?
MR. KLASFELD: If you understand what that means.
THE WITNESS: Anytime anybody would discuss
anything.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you think that academic
discussion in the secondary schools should be limited to
only what for example -- let me give you an example.
Do you think that academic discussion in a secondary
school should be limited only to what has been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt in the area of science for
example?
A. Yes, in terms of presenting it as proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. One can mention other things.
Q. Perhaps you don't understand my question.
My question was in terms of the discussion in the
scientific classroom should the discussion be limited to
those theories which have been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt?
A. No.
Q. In your opinion should the evolutionary
model of origins be subject to criticism in the public
school classrooms?
A. What do you mean by "evolutionary model of
origins"?
103
Q. Well, the evolutionary model of origins may
include several things. I'm talking generally. Do you
think it's above criticism?
A. No. There are many aspects of it if you read
my papers. There are many components of the theory of
evolution that are being discussed in my papers that
should be discussed in classrooms.
Q. Are you familiar with The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your opinion of that work?
A. A very interesting book.
Q. Could you be more specific?
MR. KLASFELD: Specific in what sense?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you agree with it?
A. Not with all of it, no.
Q. What parts do you agree with?
MR. KLASFELD: Which pages?
THE WITNESS: Parts was the question?
MR. WILLIAMS: If I can fairly summarize --
MR. KLASFELD: Are there some things you agree with
or disagree with?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Can you generally agree with the
work?
MR. KLASFELD: Apparently not.
MR. WILLIAMS: He may not agree with it.
THE WITNESS: Okay. So the question is whether
I generally agree with it?
104
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Yes.
A. And I say I agree with many parts of it.
Q. When he discusses his concept of the
paradigm, p-a-r-a-d-i-g-m, which arises in the scientific
community and then all concentration and research
essentially are directed in support of futhering that
paradigm, is that one of the things he discusses as you
understand it?
A. Yes, but he uses paradigm in the book in two
different meanings. He will have to spend twenty years
of his life to clarify that. He has written many papers.
He uses that term "paradigm" in two different meanings
in the book.
Q. What are those two different meanings that
can be fairly said in two minutes?
A. Let me go off the record. It is very
difficult for me to be precise.
MR. ENNIS: You are not required to remember all
these books.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I want your knowledge, the best
you recollect.
A. One of many books is the Philosophy of
Science that I have read. I read it years ago. I have
reread it again more recently. It would take me some
effort to recollect with precision the two meanings, and
I would like to have some time to look at the book again
and be able to be precise.
Q. First you mentioned the last twenty years of
105
his life talking about these two paradigms.
A. I have a copy that was published in 1970,
and this is around '62, maybe '65, no later than '65.
Q. He talks about what is normal science.
A. I suppose you realize that as a way of
speaking he spent the last twenty years of his life.
Q. I don't take your terms literally.
A. Technicalities.
Q. When he talks about the idea of a paradigm
as being normal science, do you recall that discussion?
A. Yes.
Q. A paradigm is something of a universally
scientific principle or accepted theory, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is one of the meanings/
Q. What is the second meaning?
A. I would have to have the book and you allow
me a few minutes.
Q. Given the fact that your attorneys have said
you have to leave at 1:00 o'clock, do you have to leave
at 1:00 o'clock?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a class?
A. I have to introduce a speaker and I am
engaged to do something at 3:00 o'clock.
Q. Did your attorneys ever ask you as to whether
or not you could cancel that?
A. Yes, and I couldn't because it's a major
engagement I accepted many months ago. It involves some
106
very important scientists.
Q. Let's take the paradigm that I mentioned,
universally scientific principle of theory, and does
Kuhn not talk about there is pressure -- that may not be
the right term. I don't want to mischaracterize it, but
there is some force of continuity to change the paradigm,
the data that fits the paradigm, and if the data does not
fit, to try to modify it.
A. Yes, that is the way science works. You have
some of general models talking about more or less general
models, and as evidence accumulates we modify the
paradigms.
Q. He also says when discussing paradigms that
many times if there is data that does not fit in the
paradigm that sometimes it may not be seen at all in the
figurative sense.
A. If it is done by a competent scientist.
Scientists take great pride in showing evidence that goes
against prevailing theories because it's one way of
getting attention and challenging scientists, so I think
it's unlikely as a general statement.
Q. Does Kuhn's book include the concept that it
has been historically difficult once a paradigm is
established for a new paradigm to come along and
supplant it?
A. The book largely consists with precisely the
fact that the history of science consists largely of
scientific revolutions, changes of paradigms. I think
107
he overstates that rather than understates it.
Q. How does he overstate it?
A. I don't think paradigms are so fully replaced
in the history of science as he claims. Maybe some
branches of science it does.
Q. Why is it difficult in your opinion for one
paradigm to be replaced by another?
A. Because usually a paradigm if it is an
accepted set of principles is usually supported by an
enormous amount of evidence. By the time it has reached
that stage having many scientists gather in lots of
evidence, people don't give up that easily and they
shouldn't.
Q. You said they what?
MR. KLASFELD: Don't give up so easily, and they
shouldn't.
THE WITNESS: What is accumulated information?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. He talks about the difficulty
for those who go outside the paradigm who try to establish
a new one that they may be met with resistance from the
community.
A. Those who do it within the scientific
community don't get resistance; they get a lot of
attention. He is not a good sociologist.
Q. Does he say that?
A. No. I'm saying that.
Q. So you disagree with him?
A. Yes, that fact.
108
Q. Would you agree this book is generally
recognized as something of an authority on general
scientific principles?
A. He is an authority but an authority which is
very much questioned.
Q. Many authorities are much questioned, are
they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your opinion that there are no
competent scientists who espouse a scientific theory of
creation?
A. Competent scientists in the field of
evolution. Yes, that is my opinion. You phrase your
question they are not competent specialists on evolution-
ary theory or knowledge relevant to evolution. You
formulated it that way. My answer is yes, there are no
such competent specialists in the field. I'm sure that --
Q. Please go ahead and continue.
A. I'm sure there are competent specialists
in microelectronics, somebody who does not know about
evolution and may espouse that.
Q. You think there are no competent scientists
in the general study of origins, origin of life, the
universe, man, plants and animals?
A. Evolution of life, yes.
Q. There are no competent scientists who would
espouse creation science or a portion thereof?
A. In my opinion the evidence is such that only
109
an ignorant person or person who is unable to judge the
evidence fairly can deny it.
Q. Are you aware that there are even some
experts who would agree with you on evolutionary theory
and would differ with you as to whether it would be only
an ignorant person who espouses Creation Science?
A. I said a person ignorant of the relevant
evidence. A person may be very knowledgeable in other
fields.
Q. My question is: Will you not agree that there
are experts in the field of evolutionary theory who would
disagree with you as to the existence of other competent
scientists who believe that a Creation Science model is
supported by scientific evidence?
MR. KLASFELD: Is the question are there experts
in evolution who think there might be a legitimate reason
to believe in creation science?
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is; In your opinion
are there any or can there be maybe, can there be an
expert in evolution who would admin or agree that
creation science was a valid scientific model?
A. If he is a real expert, I don't think it's
possible.
MR. WILLIAMS: For the record I want to strenuously
object to the cessation of this, or recess I should term
it, of this deposition. I have been given only this
morning, as I said, the curriculum vitae that has over
two hundred publications, none of which we have had a
110
chance to get beforehand. Further, the request for
documents which I gave to plaintiff's counsel last week
apparently was not shown even to their own co-counsel and
certainly not to this witness until such time as I
presented it to them today, so we are being severely
prejudiced by this, and either we will have to take it
up by way of further deposition or by way of motion to
the court.
MR. KLASFELD: I have one question for cross-
examination.
EXAMINATIN BY MR. KLASFELD:
MR. KLASFELD: Q. To the extent that you make
any reference to Creation Science in the courses that
you teach, is that reference to the evidence in support
of Creation Science?
MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. The question is leading.
It suggests an answer.
MR. KLASFELD: You have your objection. You can't
direct him not to answer.
MR. WILLIAMS: I think in this deposition when it is
your witness and you are asking what is blatantly a
leading question --
MR. KLASFELD: You can't direct him not to answer.
You have your objection.
THE WITNESS: What is the question?
MR. KLASFELD: Q. The question is: To the extent
that you teach Creation Science in your classes, do you
teach the evidence, the scientific evidence, which
111
supports Creation Science?
A. I do not reach Creation Science in my classes.
When I refer to creation, I refer to the story of the
origins of man and living things as it is told in the
Book of Genesis.
_________________________________
DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA
112
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named
DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA
was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said witness
was reported by
CAROLINE ANDERSON and DEAN MC DONALD,
Certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and that
the pertinent provisions of the applicable code or rules
of civil procedure relating to the original transcript
of deposition for reading, correcting and signing have
been complied with.
And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome of
the cause in said caption.
IN WITNESS WEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office this _____ day of
November, 1981.
___________________________________
113
I have read the foregoing transcript and desire
to make the following corrections:
Reads Should Read
Page Line Page Line
_________________________________
DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA