Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two - Page 2

164

to either subjectivity or interpretation.

I think they're two different concepts --

A. I'm willing to answer either way,
but it would make it easier --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Could you give me an
example ofan instance where there is
subjectivity in drawing conclusions from data
in the field of biology?

MS. STURM: I'm having trouble
understanding what you mean.

Could you be more specific in terms of
what you mean by "subjectivity"?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, Dr. Ayala, do
you have a present sense of what the word
"subjectivity" means to you?

A. Well, perhaps, in face of the same
evidence, different people could have
different interpretations, not based on
objective fact, I presume.

Q. I think that's an excellent
definition. With that definition in mind ...

A. Okay. I hope the Attorney General
will understand the fact that it is not easy
for me to find such an example. I am trying
hard. So, I want to be allowed a few more
moments.

165

Yes. For example, the extent to which
animal groups may be judged to be organized as
societies.

Q. As society?

A. Societies. Very fuzzy boundary line
there as to what is a society.

Q. To a layman, could you explain to me
what you mean by the term "societies"?

A. For example, a beehive is clearly a
socially-organized group of bees. On the
other hand, a pair of doves, who remain as a
pair for all their lives and breed the young
ones, is not clear that it's properly a
society.

Q. Let me divulge my lack of knowledge
here and ask you a question about dividing
animals into species. Is that an exact
science?

A. Normally, the exact science is only
mathematics, and by the definition I
understand of what exact science is.

Q. Well, is there any degree of
subjectivity in dividing animals into species?

A. Oh, in a few cases, yes; in the
majority of cases not.

Q. Do you have an example where that

166

occurs?

A. Surely. There are populations at
different degrees of divergence. At which
point science calls them different species,
it's somewhat arbitrary. It's clear that
before a certain time, in the existence, they
are not different species; it is clear after a
certain time they are different species; and
the period in between there is often
subjectivity.

Q. Is it a necessary criteria of
different species that the two species cannot
breed?

A. Will you rephrase -- or repeat the
question.

Q. Is it a necessary criteria when you
are formulating the dividing line between
species, that the species cannot interbreed?

A. Yes, in sexually reproducing
organisms, species are identified by the fact
that they can not interbreed.

Q. Did you attend in August of this
year a meeting in Iowa City of the Education
Committee of the Society for the Study of
Evolution?

A. In August what?

167

Q. Of 1981.

A. What day of August?

Q. I don't know.

A. Okay.

Q. I assume that a trip to Iowa City
would be memorable.

A. I have been in Iowa City this summer.
but I don't think in August.

Q. Perhaps in July?

A. Yes.

Q. Sometime before August 30?

A. Yes, I attended a meeting there of
the Society for the Study of Evolution.

Q. Right.

A. That was not your question.

Q. My question was a meeting of the
education committee of the Society for the
Study of Evolution?

A. I don't think there was a meeting, a
formal meeting, of such committee.

Q. Okay. But there was a meeting of
the society itself?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that meeting, did you make
some comments concerning Creation Science to
the effect that the society must not get into

168

any, quote, "evolution versus religion," close
quote, stances?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you explain to me what you
mean by that?

A. Well, that very much refers to what
I said earlier; that is, first, there is no
opposition between evolution and religion, and,
second -- and this I did not say earlier, that
it's only a political ploy to present the
teaching of creationism as opposition of
evolution to the teaching of creationism as
opposition to religion, that is a political
ploy.

May I ask where you are reading or
quoting from?

Q. Sure.

A. I remember the situation, yes.

(Reviews document)

Q. To your knowledge, has any
evolutionary writer or theorist ever
postulated a theory of evolution that includes
the concept of a creator?

A. Yes.

Q. Who would that be?

A. Darwin, among others. But many

169

others.

Q. Are you aware of any who today --

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give me the names of ones
that come to mind?

A. By "today" you mean somebody who is --

Q. Modern, relatively modern?

A. Certainly Teilhard de Chardin, who I
referred to previously at the last time;
Bergson. ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

170

Q. When did Teilhard de Chardin
postulate an evolutionary theory which
included a creator?

A. Several of his books were published
starting around 1955, and some down to very
recently. Many of the books very explicitly
refer to the theory of a creator.

Q. Could you give me a summary of how
he viewed a creator within an evolutionary
theory?

A. Yes. To the best of my own
interpretation of his writings, and as can be
stated in a few words, he says that God can
create the world in any way that God chooses,
and that the evidence of science shows that
God has done so through the natural laws that
lead to evolution by having created the
natural laws in evolution.

Q. Would you consider Teilhard de
Chardin to be a competent scientist?

A. In paleontology and other fields of
evolutionary science, yes.

Q. Would you find discussion of his
theories in his writings in this regard in a
public school classroom to be appropriate?

A. Not in science per se, unless they

171

were in passing allusions.

Q. So you would have no objection as
long as it was not dwelled on at length; is
that correct?

A. Yes, because that's not a scientific
subject per se.

Q. You mentioned the fact that Darwin
had postulated a creator in his evolutionary
theory.

A. Stretching a little bit what he says,
as we discussed two days ago.

Q. And you would have no objection to
his writings which discuss a creator being
discussed in a public secondary school science
classroom, would you?

A. I must reformulate the question in
order to agree. I would not have objection to
the writings of Darwin being read or being
taught in public schools, including his
allusions to a creator, so long as it is done
in passing.

Q. And the Bergson, what is his theory
of creation which includes a creator?

A. This will be much more difficult for
me to remember in detail. I have not read
Bergson for many years now. He's primarily a

172

philosopher of evolution.

Q. Do you recall, and I certainly would
not try to hold you to your statement on this,
but do you recall generally what he talked
about in his writings concerning an creator in
evolution?

MS. STURM: You only need answer to
the extent you remember.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

That God was the author of the world and
God made creatures that possessed what he
called elan vital which was a sort of impulse,
a simple-minded definition of his elan vital,
a sort of internal impulse that propelled the
evolutionary process.

Q. Is this sometimes referred to as
vitalism?

A. Bergson would be considered by many
a vitalist, yes.

Q. And would you state again, with
regard to Bergson's writings, that you would
have no objection to their discussion in a
public classroom as long as the creator was
alluded to and was not dwelled on?

THE WITNESS: Well--

MS. STURM: Objection. The language

173

of the witness was it was mentioned or alluded
to in passing.

THE WITNESS: Yes. The writings that
I'm familiar with of Bergson are primarily
philosophical writings, and would not be
appropriate for scientific classes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. With regard to the
other two writings that we mentioned, to make
sure that I understand your position, is it
fair to say that you would not have objection
to their inclusion and discussion in a public
school secondary classroom as long as the
concept of creator therein is not given
substantial emphasis.

MS. STURM: Objection. I think you're
trying to put words in the witness's mouth.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm asking him if that's a
fair assessment. If it's not, please tell me.

THE WITNESS: No. I'll rephrase it.
Again, it would seem to me not inappropriate
if, in discussion of, say, Darwin, in a
classroom to mention that it was -- and in the
Origin of Species he mentioned that there is
grandeur in this view of the world where the
creator does not need to create everything
individually, every living organism

174

individually, but has created laws by which
these organisms themselves evolve.

It seems to me that allusions to
convictions or thoughts that are not strictly
scientific by people who are otherwise good
scientists are appropriate even in a science
classroom.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Are you familiar with
an organization called the Committees of
Correspondence?

A. I am familiar with the Committees of
Correspondence.

Q. Could you describe for me what that
is? Or what they are, I suppose, is more
appropriate.

A. The best description of what I know
of them is grassroots organizations at the
state level, for the purpose of being
concerned with appropriate teaching of biology.

I think it's primarily biology. I am not
quite clear it is only biology.

Q. Is one of their purposes as you
understand it to oppose the teaching of
Creation Science?

A. To oppose the teaching of it as
science, yes.

175

Q. Have you had any involvement with
this group?

A. Will you clarify what you mean by
involvement?

Q. Well, let's start with the broadest
sense. Have you ever discussed this before
with anyone?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you discussed it with some of
the individuals who are associated with the
Committees of Correspondence?

A. Yes.

Q. Who have you discussed it with, the
members?

A. Well, at least with Dr. Stanley
Weinberg, who is one of the liasons of
Committees of Correspondence.

Q. Are you familiar with the biology
text that Dr. Weinberg has authored?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that in a biology text
written by him one page is devoted to two
columns, one of which says, "Creationists" and
the other of which says "Evolutionists," and
gives the contrasting views of the two groups?

A. I have already stated that I am not

176

familiar with the book.

Q. Is Dr. Weinberg the head of the?
committees of Correspondence A. I don't
think that he's the head of Committees of
Correspondence.

Q. What role does he play with the
group?

A. To my understanding, he's the
liaison for the State of Iowa.

Q. Did you earler state that he
organized the committees, to your knowledge?

A. I don't know that he organized them.

Q. Do you know what the IAS Panel on
Controversial Issues is? If I might speculate,
perhaps it means the Iowa Academy of Science.
I don't know.

A. I am guessing that you are quite
right. Your guess is as good as mine.

Q. Have you served as a liaison or in
any capacity to the Committees of
Correspondence?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, are the
Committees of Correspondence -- let me
rephrase that. To your knowledge, do the
liasons and the participants of the Committees

177

of Correspondence try to keep their existence
a secret?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have you written a letter to someone
in California asking them to serve on the
Committees of Correspondence, to your
knowledge?

A. If I understand your question
correctly, the answer would be no. Asking
them to serve? I --

Q. That's fine.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 5)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I have shown you
Exhibit 5, which is a letter addressed to you
from Stanley Weinberg dated November 9, 1981,
in which he states to you that he is glad that
you are agreeable for assuming a role in the
leadership team of the embryonic California CC,
or Committees of Correspondence.

Could you tell me what the occasion was
that you received this letter and what role
you took?

178

A. I think the correspondence in the
hands of the attorney general will allow you
to follow the case with more precision than my
memory, but I am willing to quote from memory
if that is what is wanted.

I think that documentation is available.
Do you want me to recall?

Q. I am not trying to in any way trick
you, I can assure you. I have been given lots
of documents today, and I have not had a
chance to go through all of them myself. If
there are other documents that you are aware
of --

A. The full relevant correspondence
should be there.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 6)

THE WITNESS: Yes, I recall all this
correspondence quite well, and I think that is
what it is referring to, the previous letter.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. So after reviewing
Ayala Defendant's Exhibit 5 and 6, do you
recall, first of all, taking a role in the

179

leadership team of the California Committees
of Correspondence?

A. To the best of my knowledge there is
not a California Committee of Correspondence,
let alone a leadership team.

Q. Could you describe for me what if
anything that you did in regard to the
California Committees of Correspondence?

A. Dr. Stanley Weinberg asked me to
bring to the attention -- rather, to deliver
to Thomas Dukes some materials concerning some
activities of the Correspondence, and Dr.
Stanley Weinberg suggested that Dr. Jukes
might be a good liaison of the committee.

I performed the duty, as stated in my
letter of October 15th, after having failed to
communicate by telephone. There is more to
follow, but I think that is what you were
after.

Q. So at Stanley Weinberg's request you
did contact Thomas Jukes and request that he
serve as the California liaison for the
Committee?

A. I believe I did not request so. I
said "Stanley Weinberg has suggested that you
serve," I believe. Why don't we read it? I

180

hope you will appreciate the difference.

Q. So then you simply sent some
information to Jukes concerning the Committees
of Correspondence. What else, if anything,
have you done in relation to the Committees of
Correspondence, formally or informally?

A. Dr. Tom Jukes suggested that I be
the liaison, at which point I said I couldn't.
I was much too busy, among other reasons. But
I would consider cooperating with a liaison if
a committee were established with a proper
liaison, yes.

Q. Have you taken any further action in
regard to the California Committees of
Correspondence?

A. To the best of my recollection, that
letter of Dr. Weinberg that has been
introduced as Exhibit 5, I believe, is the
last event in this process.

Q. Do you know if the Committees of
Correspondence are currently functioning
within this state, first of all?

A. Within California? I believe they
are not.

Q. Are you aware of whether they are
functioning in any other states?

181

A. Yes, in Iowa. And I understand that
in thirty some other states.

Q. And just to make sure the record is
clear, you've stated that one of the purposes
of the Committees is to oppose the teaching of
Creation Science?

MS. STURM: Objection. I don't think
that that was the witness' statement.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's what I'm trying to
determine.

THE WITNESS: I think one of the -- to
my understanding, one of the objectives is to
object to the teaching of any religious
convictions under the guise of science,
including Creationism, in the general meaning
of the word, yes.

Q. I think we're quibbling over
semantics a bit. Creation Science is viewed
by this organization or these individuals as
religion under the guise of science; correct?

A. I suppose. I might want to qualify
still farther.

Q. Have you been involved in any other
groups or any other efforts to oppose the
teaching of Creation Science?

A. I'm always uncomfortable with your

182

mentioning the opposition of the teaching of
Creation Science, because my activities in
this matter, as the record shows, are not
directed to the teaching of Creation Science
but the teaching of Creation or religious
belief as science and interfering with the
teaching of evolution.

So I think it would simplify matters, at
least I would not have to reword the questions,
if you could address them in those terms.

Q. Doctor, my problem is we're dealing
with a lawsuit and an act of the State
Legislature of Arkansas which specifically
talks about Creation Science, and I can
understand, appreciate, that you may have some
difficulty perhaps acknowledging what Creation
Science is, in your mind, given your position
on this issue, but I would like to try to
refer to it, since those will be the terms
which we will be dealing with in trial, and
those are the terms which are defined in the
bill.

MS. STURM: Though you may continue to
clarify your terms and use what terms you feel
most comfortable with in responding to the
question. If it means we take a little longer,

183

so be it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Now, have you been
involved in any other efforts concerning an --
let me see if I can assist.

Have you been involved in any other
efforts concerning, as you put it, I believe,
the proper role or the proper teaching of
evolution?

A. Yes, other than those that have
already been mentioned earlier today, at least
one, when I was asked by some parents, I think
from the school district of Livermore in the
state of California, to write a letter to the
effect of, you know, what was science in this
context and what was not. I suppose that
would be a simple way of doing it.

I think my letter is also in the record,
then.

If I man continue --

Q. Excuse me. I would like to see if I
can locate that before we move on.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 7)

184

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I show you what's
been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 7.

THE WITNESS: I would like to continue
my answer, to simplify things for the future,
that also I recall on a couple of additional
occasions to have had correspondence where
people have asked me for clarifications in
these matters informally, and not members of
organizations, to the best of my knowledge.

Now we can go back to this document.

Q. Have you finished reading it?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the occasion of this
statement?

A. I was at the time at a meeting, I
believe, in Washington, and I was contacted by
telephone by a person, who I presume to be the
person that is here mentioned as Ruth Ann Hunt,
as to whether I would be willing to comment on
these matters and have my views presented to
the Livermore School Board.

And at the time and at that moment off
the top of my head, I stated what is Exhibit 7.

Q. You state in here in Exhibit 7 that
"The origin of the world or of living things
by Creation is not a scientific explanation in

185

that it is not a process that occurs by
natural laws."

Could you explain, elaborate what you
mean by that?

A. If one says that the reason why you
exist the way you are is because God created
you, that way does not tell anything about
natural laws or natural processes.

Q. What if the origin of the world or
living things is explained by natural laws but
is also, I guess, qualified, if you will, by
the statement that the creator might have used
the natural laws to create the world or living
things?

MS. STURM: Is that a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. I'm asking him.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is fine as far
as it goes. Then what we want to talk about
in science are the natural laws.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, the reason I ask
that question is, reading that sentence that I
just quoted to you, there seems to be an
indication that "Creation" could not have
occurred by natural laws. Is that a fair
reading of that?

A. Definitely not. I would encourage

186

the attorney general to read some of my
publications.

Q. In your opposition to the
introduction of what is called Creation
Science in Act 590 into the public school
classroom, how much of it is based upon the
detriment you see to science and how much of
it is based upon what you see as a detriment
to religion?

I'm reading from Defendant's 7, and there
seems to be an implication there, Doctor, that
you think it will be a detriment to religion;
is that correct?

A. Oh, yes. In this case, like in most,
I am asking to talk as a scientist, and as far
as the, quote-unquote, "interests of science"
are concerned, so that's my primary interest
too.

I have some concerns about the other, too.

Q. Why do you feel that the
introduction of Creation Science into a
science classroom would have an adverse effect
on religion?

A. Among other reasons, for the ones
stated there. People are taught that the
fundamental dogmas of religion are not subject

187

to the possibility of being false, but rather
are absolute truth.

Anything which is introduced in the
science class as science is thereby put into
question, as it were, because it is always
possible that something might not be true.

Q. Is it your understanding of what is
termed Creation Science in Act 590 that it is
based on some absolute truth and therefore
does not have the degree of being tentative
that science requires?

A. Will you repeat the question, please.

Q. Is one of the criteria of what is
science, as you understand it to be that a
scientific theory is always somewhat tentative
and subject to later modification?

A. Yes.

Q. And is part of your reasoning for
your position on Act 590 the fact that you
feel that Creation Science lacks this
tentativeness?

A. I don't see how I can answer that
with a yes or a no, frankly.

Q. Well, do you feel that Creation
Science does lack the tentative element of a
scientific theory?

188

A. I think it lacks many other things
much more important.

Q. I understand you may think there are
other things, but do you consider that to be
one of its shortcomings?

A. As it is presented in the Act and so
far as I can make sense of the presentation
there, I think not. I mean it is presented
that that could be scientific concept.

Q. Is it also presented there as if it
could be subject to disproof?

A. I think it is presented there that
way, yes.

Q. Is the concept of the insufficiency
of mutation, for example, in bringing about
all living kinds from a single organism, is
that subject to disproof?

A. That mutations are insufficient?

Q. Right.

A. You mean that the proof will be
therefore that mutations are sufficient?

Q. I'm quoting from memory, and I think
accurately, as to one portion of the
definition of Creation Science which talks
about the insufficiency of mutation to bring
about all living kinds from a single organism.

189

A. I think anybody who knows anything
about mutations knows that mutations are
insufficient to bring about evolution.

Q. So that is subject to disproof?

A. I'm sorry. The things which are
subject to proof or disproof are theories or
laws or principles, even perhaps statements,
but statements as such are not of great
interest to science.

I am unclear as to what is being asked.
Is it being asked that proving that mutations
are insufficient is possible?

Q. As a matter of theory, in trying to
look at whether something is a scientific
theory.

A. I think that is possible. I don't
know who would want to waste energy into it
because it's so obvious that they are
insufficient, but it is possible, yes.

Q. Looking at Defendant's Exhibit 7,
would you consider that to be a fair summary
of your position on this issue?

A. Of part of my position. I was
responding to some specific questions, yes.

It was also stated, you know, off the top
of my head so is not as precise as I might be

190

if I were writing on the subject. And it's,
of course, not explaining things as much as I
might want, again, in a publication as I have
in other places, but I think it's a fair
statement of my position in the relevant
matters.

Q. Would you anticipate that your
testimony that you'll be giving in this case
will consist in part of some of the statements
or ideas expressed in Defendant's Exhibit 7?

A. I must say I don't know what I will
be asked. I presume that there will be some
relation to the statements in the first part
of it, yes. I presume.

Q. Have you been given any instructions
to your testimony?

A. The attorney general should
appreciate by now that I don't take
instruction easily from anybody.

Q. By the term "instructions," I mean
any sort of suggested areas of testimony that
you will be going into, or requested areas.

A. I think only in the more general
terms, a matter of evolution, theory of
evolution.

Q. You have met with the plaintiff's

191

counsel for at least a day, have you not?

A. For a few hours.

Q. During the conduct of those
conversations, did you become aware of the
areas in which you would be testifying?

A. Only in the most general terms, as I
have stated.

Q. To the extent that it was general I
would still like for you to give me your
current understanding of your testimony in
this case.

A. I believe what is wanted is my
knowledge as to the theory of evolution, my
knowledge as to the relevant facts, my
understanding of what is science and what is
not. And I take that to be the primary
aspects of my expertise that are wanted in
this case.

Maybe the attorney general will have
helped them to realize they can use me in
other ways through these inquiries, as he has
unraveled some other knowledge of mine.

---
---
---
---

192

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In Exhibit 7 you
state that "Science is an intellectual
enterprise that seeks a natural explanations
for natural processes."

Can science ever admit it's own
inadequacies to explain --

A. Oh, yes.

Q. When science admits its own
inadequacies -- well, let me rephrase that.

When by the scientific inquiry, science
cannot explain some aspect, what does science
do? I mean, as a general principle, does it
just --

A. You don't have explanation, you may
have to find it somewhere else, like in
religion or other places.

Q. What if science could tell us that
it is impossible that something happened
according to natural laws?

A. If science were to tell us it's
impossible...

Fine.

MS. STURM: What's the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is, your
previous statement is that, as I recall, that
if science doesn't have the answer to

193

something, it just means that it doesn't have
the answer yet, as I understand it; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then what if, through the
scientific method of inquiry, one is led to
the result -- to a deadend, if you will, that,
as a matter of the natural laws, what we
observe is impossible?

MS. STURM: What's the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I'm asking, where is
science left then?

It's not just that there is no answer,
there's an impossibility there.

A. That something is impossible, or
just that we don't have an explanation for it?

You are asking me what if science will
conclude that something that we know to be a
fact is impossible?

MS. STURM: Is your question would
science conclude that. There seems to be a
number of questions. Would science conclude
that? Is that your question? What would a
scientist do if it were to conclude that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Where would science
be left if that occurred?

194

MS. STURM: I think there are two
questions in that.

First, the question is could science
arrive at that conclusion --

MR. WILLIAMS: We're assuming that. I'm
assuming that. That is an assumption in my
question.

MS. STURM: I'll Just note for the
record that that is an assumption which the
witness has not adopted as his own.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Assuming that
science, in resorting to the scientific method
of inquiry, could be led to the result or
conclusion that something which has been
observed could not or cannot be explained
according to natural law.

A. The question is, I presume, what
scientists will do, or science?

Q. What will scientists do?

A. They will conclude either the
observation is somehow mistaken; or, if that
would not be questionable, they would conclude
that, according to the natural laws as we now
know them, that could not be explained, it's
not accountable for.

Q. If something could have occurred by

195

chance, and the probabilities of this
occurring were one in ten to the power of 40
thousand, as a matter of probabilities, would
you say that that is -- well, my question is:
Would that be something akin to being
impossible?

A. If something was truly the
probability of ten to the minus 40,000th power,
which I think is what you said, one divided by
ten to the 40,000th --

Q. I was actually saying -- well, maybe
so. One in ten to the power of 40,000.

A. Okay.

Q. One in ten with 40,000 zeros after
it, as I understand it.

A. Okay. (Draws diagram)

Is that what you mean? One divided by
ten to the 40,000 power, this one tenth --

I presume that's what you mean. I'm not
trying to trap you.

Q. The way I have seen it formulated,
Dr. Ayala, is just one in ten and then with a
40,000 --

A. That would be this.

Q. I think it would be the same.

A. When you say it verbally it's

196

ambiguous. That way is fine.

If the calculation were correct,
something which has that probability, I would
take it to be in fact impossible.

Q. Did you assist the California
Attorney General's office in the preparation
of the so-called Seagraves case?

A. Yes.

Q. What was your involvement in that
case?

A. The Deputy Attorney General
consulted with me by telephone and at least
once was in my office. And he asked me
whether I would be willing to be an expert
witness.

Q. Did you testify in that case?

A. No.

Q. Did you give a deposition in that
case?

A. No.

Q. Approximately how many hours did you
spend assisting the Deputy Attorney General on
that case?

A. Ten. Very rough guess.

Q. Did I understand that your
involvement was requested by the Attorney

197

General's office here in California?

A. To the best of my recollection.

Q. Dr. Ayala, have any of the other
organizations or professional societies of
which you are a member adopted a position
formally or informally on Creation Science as
it's defined in Act 590?

A. As it is defined, not. The American
Society of Naturalists, I think, decided also
in 1980 to establish a committee, in effect,
somewhat similar to those of the committee in
the Society for the Study of Evoluton.

Q. Have you participated in that
committee?

A. No.

Q. According to your curriculum vitae,
you have served on several professional
journals, including, for example, "Evolution."

And you served as an associate editor for
two years there. That is a refereed journal;
is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in your capacity as an editor,
did you personally review articles submitted
for publication?

A. Yes.

198

Q. To your knowledge, were any articles
ever submitted on the issue or subject of
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. For your tenure as associate editor
of "Paleobiology," were any of the articles
submitted to you for review concerning
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. In your services on the editorial
board of "Biosciences Communications," have
any articles been submitted for your review of
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. Would the same be true for the
editorial board of the "Brazilian Journal of
Genetics"?

A. That's correct.

Q. For the "Journal of Molecular
Evolution"?

A. That's correct.

Q. And as the associate editor of
"BioScience"?

A. That's correct.

Q. Have you had other articles
submitted to you from other journals for

199

review and comment?

A. Concerning the subject matter of --

Q. Apart from this subject matter. Any
subject?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Have any of these articles concerned
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, have any of the
publications that you have listed on your
curriculum vitae as having served on ever
published an article on Creation Science?

MS. STURM: I know for the record that
none have been submitted, so ...

MR. WILLIAMS: To any of these journals,
I'm sorry.

MS. STURM: That's what the witness's
testimony has just reflected.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. As I understand his
earlier testimony, he has personally never
reviewed any.

MR. STURM: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMS: Which were submitted for
publication. My question is now a larger
question.

Q. To your knowledge, has any article

200

ever been published in any of these journals
on Creation Science?

A. The precise answer would be no, to
my knowledge. I have some vague recollection
that, in both "Evolution" and "BioScience," at
some point. some years back, some article was
published to that effect. But it is very
vague, so ...

Q. To you r knowledge, have any articles
on Creation Science been submitted for
publication in these journals?

A. No. I mean, within recent times,
I'm assuming. No.

Q. Some of the other journals which you
have reviewed articles for, do you know
whether any articles on Creation Science were
submitted to them for publication?

A. You would have to try to build up my
memory about each journal, which I think would
amount to quite a few.

Q. I don't know what journals you have
reviewed articles for, so --

A. Well, let me, off the top of my head,
say that -- and to show that I'm in good faith --
that the answer would be no, but I would want
to try to recall also some journals for which

201

I have reviewed at one time or another
articles -- which I had a vast number -- and
it might take me some time to recall.

Q. Well, if your answer would be no,
then there's no need to recall the journals.
I will certainly accept your recollection on
that point.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, your answer is to my question
as to whether you had personally reviewed any.

Do you know --

A. To that, it is a definite no.

Q. And do you know, or would you have
the means of knowing, of your own personal
knowledge whether any articles on Creation
Science had ever been submitted for
publication to these other journals which you
have served?

A. That's when I would say no, probably
not; but I would like to -- I mean, I could
say no, but I could -- it would be more
precise to say probably no, until I could help
my memory by going through trying to recall
what journals I have reviewed. Because I
review not only for scientific journals but
for philosophical journals and all sorts of

202

journals from time to time, because of my very
diverse expertise.

For example, I would have to make an
effort in recalling whether I have in my
review of articles for journals of theology,
and I might have. Or philosophy, where such
might have been submitted.

Q. All right. Let me ask one final
question, I think, on this area.

Would you be in a position, Dr. Ayala, to
be informed as to all of the articles which
are -- the subject matter of all of the
articles which are submitted for publication
to all of these journals which you have served?

A. No.

Q. So, there might have been articles
submitted on Creation Science that you would
not be aware of?

A. Yes.

Q. In your training in theology, did
you study creation as a religious doctrine?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall how many courses you
might have taken which may have considered the
subject of creation?

A. It will be in at least two kinds of

203

courses: one, courses in dogmatic theology,
where the main tenants or the main beliefs of
Christianity were being discussed; and, second,
in the courses in biblical exegesis,
explanation of text.

Q. Do you have a rough idea of how many
courses you might have taken which would cover
creation in both of those areas?

A. Well, I don't think there was any
single course dealing with creation; I think
several courses probably every year. At least
one may have discussed at some point or
another creation, yes.

Q. Would it be fair to say that in your
religious and theological studies you have
studied creation in some detail?

A. Surely.

Q. And, I suppose, in your tenure or
service as a priest, you would have been
acquainted with the concept of creation as a
doctrine of your religion, would you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to the first time you heard
the term "Creation Science" and you became
aware of the general controversy over Creation
Science, had you ever thought of creation in a

204

way which was non-religious?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm not trying --

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When had you thought that --
can you recall now -- of creation in a
non-religious way?

A. Many times.

Q. For example?

A. In terms of artistic creation. I am
very interested in art.

Q. When you see something like that, a
work of art, do you think about that as being
an effort of creation?

A. By some definition of creation, yes.

Q. And in that work of art, or that
creation, the artist has taken some matter and
put it in some form, has he or she not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is one definition for
creation?

A. Yes.

Q. Apart from that definition of
creation, have you, as it relates to the
origin of the world and of man, ever thought
of creation as a non-religious doctrine?

205

A. It would be difficult for me to be
clear as to what is being asked.

Q. Okay.

A. Can you rephrase it?

Q. Let me see if I can rephrase it.

My question is, apart from this artistic
creation that you spoke of, when you have in
the past thought about the concept of creation
as it related to the origin of man, the origin
of the earth and the universe and origins
generally, have you ever considered creation
in other than a religious context, in your own
mind?

MS. STURM: I think there is a lot in
your question. You've said creation generally,
creation of the universe, creation of mankind --

MR. WILLIAMS: Creation as it refers to
origin, is what I'm really speaking of. If
the question is unclear, I'll --

MS. STURM: And your question is whether
the witness has ever thought about creation in
non-religious terms?

MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.

A. Neither religious nor artistic, I
take it, that is what you are asking?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Right. We have

206

excluded artistic and the concept of religious
creation.

A. I would say yes, I have thought
about that, yes.

Q. Can you give me an example of how
you would have thought about it --

A. For example, with respect to the
origin of the universe, I have tried to give --
to explore as much as possible the problem of
how the universe may have come about -- that
is, the very beginning -- yes; so I have given
it thought.

Q. Do you label that a creation?

A. Well, I have given thought to the
possibility that the universe may have come
from nothing but an act of creation, yes.

Q. And you have given thought to that
in a non-religious way?

A. Yes. Trying to find out natural
explanations, yes.

Q. Could you enlarge upon what your
thoughts have been in that regard?

A. Very unsuccessful.

Q. But you have thought about the idea,
then, of a creation of the universe in a
non-religious way, but with the concept of a

207

creator in there somewhere?

I'm not trying to place words in your
mouth, I'm trying to understand, Dr. Ayala.

A. We have not mentioned the creator,
because then you change the rules of the game.

Q. All right.

A. You have asked me what I have
thought about the possibility of -- I mean, we
were specifically speaking about the origin of
the universe from nothing --

Q. Yes.

A. And I say, you know, as a
possibility, as a non-religious possibility,
that this is an event that might have been
explained by natural laws, and I have been
very unsuccessful in trying to find answers.

Q. Did you think of any mechanism that
might have been used?

A. Yes.

Q. What mechanism, non-religious
mechanism, did you think about?

A. Spontaneous generation, the eternity
for perpetual existence of matter, you know,
since infinity. I find both equally
unsatisfactory.

Q. Is that part of that steady state

208

theory?

A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Ayala, if someone could talk
with you, and someone who you considered to be
a competent, well-qualified scientist, and I
would like for you to assume for a moment --
and I know this is a big assumption on your
part -- to assume that they presented to you
scientific evidence for creation; could you --

MS. STURM: I'll have to ask that you
clarify the question.

I have the sense that your notion of
creation and the type of creation that Dr.
Ayala has been discussing for the last 15
minutes may not be the same. I want to be
sure that we're talking in the same terms.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, do you
have difficulty in understanding the question?

A. In this case, yes. I think you
meant with respect to the origin of the
universe itself -- that is, the origin of
matter from nothing -- and I would prefer if
you, for the moment, restrict it to that,
because we're simply --

Q. Fine. If someone had presented to
you scientific evidence for the creation of

209

the universe from nothing, could you accept
that as a scientist?

A. As a science or scientist?

Q. A scientist.

A. I could accept as a scientist. I
will always accept the --

Q. Could you as a scientist accept that
evidence?

A. I think any evidence which is
relevant to any scientific issue, I am ready
to accept, yes.

I hope you appreciate the fact that for
me there is a contradiction in terms in
talking about scientific evidence and creation.

Q. I understand that. I know I'm
asking you to do a lot of bending of your own
personal scientific beliefs.

A. Yes. Ultimately, I'm open minded.

Q. Let me pursue this for a moment
further.

If someone who wa a well-qualified,
competent scientist presented to your
satisfaction scientific evidence for an age of
the earth which was approximately, let's say,
10,000 years old, would you as a scientist
have any problem accepting that?

210

A. I will accept the evidence and weigh
it, all the evidence. I could accept it very,
definitely.

Q. If the same scientist could come to
you and give you evidence, scientific evidence,
for the existence of a creator, a supernatural
force, if you will, could you accept that?

A. In this case I cannot conceive of it
as a matter of principle, because scientific
evidence and supernatural are absolutely as
contradictory as white and not white.
Supernatural, by definition, is non-natural.
Science concerns only natural.

To me, you are asking a contradiction
that has no answer.

Q. Right. So, I think the answer to my
question is you could not accept that.

MS. STURM: I don't think that's what
the witness --

A. You're asking an impossibility.
Could you accept if white were presented as
not white? Could you accept that?

I mean --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is,
though -- please remember, my question assumes
that someone has scientific evidence that you

211

would accept for the existence of a creator.

A. I'm sorry?

Q. A supernatural force.

MS. STURM: I'm objecting to the
question, and the witness has stated that it's
impossible for him to answer the question with
a yes or no because the question is
contradictory in its own terms; so I think
it's just a question that a yes or no answer
will not be possible for it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What you are, in
essence, saying, are you not, Dr. Ayala, is
that you could not -- you cannot conceive of
scientific evidence for a creator?

A. I'm sorry, unless you qualify what
you mean by "creator," I would not agree with
that statement. I don't think that's
equivalent to what was being said before.

Q. Okay. A creator as would be
conceived with supernatural powers?

A. Will you be able to accept something
as being natural and not natural at the same
time? Are you willing to accept that?

That's what you're asking me.

How can anybody accept that. It's a
contradiction in terms.

212

Q. Well --

A. Unless you reword the question
differently, you know ...

MS. STURM: I think that the views of
Dr. Ayala on this point are fairly clear.

I have the sense that, perhaps, you'd
like to get him to say it in different
language, but unless there is some additional
point that you would like to get in this area,
I think it would probably be beneficial to
move on.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What is supernatural?
Is that a static measure, or could that be
subject to change?

A. I suppose either. It can be -- a
supernatural concept or supernatural
phenomenon may be conceived of either as
static or changing.

Q. Well, if you were to define
supernatural as being above and beyond the
laws of nature as we know them --

A. I could not -- I would not define
supernatural in that way. That, maybe, is
part of our problem.

Q. Well, if it were -- if it were --

A. Supernatural, for me, is something

213

which is outside nature, period. Not as we
know it, but it is not part of nature. I
think you understand now the problem.

Q. Yes.

MS. STURM: I'm going to object to the
line of questioning. I have the sense that
the questions are attempting to get the
witness to speak in terms that he obviously
does not agree with and thinks that, in and of
themselves, are inconsistent.

I don't see that it is fruitful, and I
think it is somewhat misleading.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, I think my
question is -- they may not be fruitful;
that's for later determination. But I'm
really trying to understand something here
that I don't have an understanding on, and I
don't want to belabor the point, and I will
move on just as quickly as possible.

Q. When you say that it's nature -
something outside of nature -- but is it not
true that we simply -- we have not fully
fathomed, if you will, nature?

A. That's correct, certainly. So,
there are --

Q. So, there may be things outside of

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two - Page 3

214

nature?

A. There is nature and not nature;
there are things about nature that we know and
things about nature that we don't know.

Q. Now, this is -- maybe our problem is
in terms of the use of the term "supernatural."

Now, when we talk about something outside
nature, what is outside nature today may be
inside nature tomorrow, as we understand it --

A. Well, what things for which we don't
have a natural explanation today, we may have
a natural explanation for tomorrow, yes.

Q. You stated the other day that your
definition of evolution was organisms changing
through generations, and the multiplication of
species.

Has there been any direct observation or
demonstration of the formation of a new
species is either the laboratory or in the
field?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give me an example?

A. The production of species known as
Raphanobrassica through hybridization and
chromosome duplication of to use common terms,
cabbage and radish.

215

Q. You're talking there about a new
species of plant?

A. Yes.

Q. Outside the plant world, are you
aware of any direct observation or
demonstration of the formation of a new
species?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give me an example?

A. Evidence of formation of new species?

Q. A direct observation or
demonstration.

A. What do you mean by "direct
observation or demonstration"?

Q. Well, I'm talking about the direct
observation or demonstration of the formation
of a new species in the lab or in the field.

MS. STURM: Could you define the term
"direct observation."

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Where there has been
a new species formed.

A. And we have evidence that the new
evidence was formed?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. That there's a
distinct new species --

A. Formed?

216

Q. Yes.

A. Within the -- I mean -- yes, I would
say yes.

Q. Could you give me an example?

A. I'm not sure about the spelling.
Psilopsa petrolei, I believe, is the spelling
(indicating). This is a species of fly that
lives in oil wells, and only in oil wells.

Q. And what experiments -- or, perhaps
not; maybe it was in the field; maybe there
was no experiment.

Where did this new species arise and how
did it arise?

A. I'm not familiar with the details of
this case as to the question you're asking now.

Q. You said something petrolei. I've
heard also something -- have there been some
studies purported to create new species on
fruit flies?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that --

A. No, that's not a fruit fly. That's
an example.

Q. Who conducted these studies that you
are speaking of now?

A. I'll have to review the literature.

217

Q. Are there other studies that you can
think of where a new species has been created?

A. Animal species?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes. So-called fruit flies, because
they are not fruit flies. Drosophila.

Q. That is one of your areas of study,
is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you in any of your studies
created a new species?

A. No, but I am trying.

Q. Is one of the people who had created,
Thoday?

Is that a study?

A. I would not consider his studies to
have led to the production of a new species.
He has done something along those lines.

If that is called production of a new
species, I have done it, too.

Q. Could you tell me who has, then?
Which researcher has done this?

A. Some will be -- for example,
Drosophila is a name which is purely
artificially produced in the laboratory by
manipulation of the chromosomes.

218

Q. Who conducted these experiments?

A. This was done in, I believe, in
Morgan's Laboratory in the '30s. I, again, do
not remember the names, but I could find them
out. Contrary to what may appear to be the
case, this scientifically is a trivial matter.
I will remember very well the names of people
who have done important things. That for us
is not important.

Q. Okay.

Have Morgan's studies successfully --

A. In his laboratory.

Q. In his laboratory, whoever did it,
have those studies ever been replicated?

A. Oh, yes. In fact, in recent years,
to quote one recent repetition, this has been
done, something very similar -- not exactly
the same thing but -- which makes it all the
more interesting.

Q. Has the change in species been found
to be a stable change? They remain a
different species?

A. In these cases, yes.

Q. Have there been other cases where
they kind of reverted back?

A. Off the record.

219

(Discussion off the record)

A. In other cases, a new species
reversing back, and that, presumably, in the
laboratory or under direct observation?

Q. Right.

A. I cannot think of such case.

Q. Okay. Other than what are commonly
called fruit flies, more correctly called --

A. Drosophila. Fruit files will do,
except it doesn't do in California now, as you
know. We don't want them confused with the
Medfly, which is a true fruit fly.

Q. Well, Drosophila sounds so much more
elegant than fruit fly.

A. Yes. Know what Drosophila means?

Q. No.

A. The lover of the dew.

Q. Has there been any other creation of
new species in other animals or --

A. Okay. Let me make sure that we
maintain the boundaries of the question as
being the same as before: naming cases where
direct observations, where one sort of can
identify a new organism, and this having
happened within a very short period of time?

Q. Found a new species.

220

A. Yes. Do you want to exclude all
plants, also? Because there are many cases of
plants?

Q. Right, exclude the plants.

A. All right. And you want to exclude
this other fly, which is not a Drosophila,
also?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay. Well, I cannot think of it
now. It's possible. I would like to point
out that I would not be surprised if there are
such cases; so if I could find them myself
after longer recollection -- these facts or
knowledge are not quite on my fingertips
because, from my point of view, these
questions are scientifically trivial.

Q. Why is this question scientifically
trivial to you?

A. Because science relies in only
trivial ways on direct observation, all
science. Are you an observer of gravity? Are
you an observer of my heart?

Q. How long have you been attempting to
try to create a new species?

A. Well, my object is not -- my direct
object is not to create a new species, but,

221

rather, to understand one of the mechanisms by
which new species come about; namely, the
development of sexual isolation. And I'm
interested in understanding the genetic basis
of this mechanism; so I'm trying to produce in
the laboratory as much sexual isolation as I
can, and I would hope eventually complete, so
that I can afterwards do proper genetic
analysis, because I will have control of the
variables. My interest is in the genetic
analysis of the process.

This experiment has been going on, I
would say, roughly eight years.

Q. And in eight years no new species
have been developed or observed by you?

A. In this eight years considerable
advance has taken place in the development of
reproductive isolation, which is what I'm
concerned with.

Q. What is the development of
reproductive isolation.

A. The reproductive isolation simply
says they cannot interbreed and, of course,
this matter which is achieved --

Q. You mean a species cannot interbreed?

A. Well, species do not interbreed.

222

Organisms of different species do not
interbreed, okay?

Q. Okay. I'm not sure if I follow
completely. Are you talking about two flies
of the same species, but somehow different,
who cannot interbreed?

A. I'm sorry. By now I'm totally
confused about what you are asking.

Q. I apologize for my lack of knowledge.

A. That's all right. It's fair enough.
Maybe we should start a little farther back,
and go -- are you interested in my experiments,
and --

Q. I'm interested to get a general
knowledge of your experiments, yes, I am.

A. Species -- organisms, or groups of
organisms, to be more precise, are considered
different species if they could not interbreed
with each other.

Now, the reasons -- biological mechanisms
that keep them from interbreeding are called
reproductive isolating mechanisms. We call
them RIMs for short.

One of those mechanisms -- and one that
plays an important role in animals -- is
sexual isolation; that is, when individuals of

223

different sexes attract each other and are
able to mate successfully, they are of the
same group. But not if they are in different
groups. Ant that is sufficient in some cases,
in many cases, to keep species as such. So,
I'm interested in understanding how this
process evolves.

So, I started with populations, groups of
organisms, that I label in some ways, I was
able to identify in some ways -- which are not
relevant, but I'll volunteer if you wish --
and I now started to experiment to see whether
I can gradually find -- see reproductive
isolation developing. That is, the experiment
starts with individuals of these two groups
meeting at random. At the beginning, males of
Group A are as likely to mate with females of
Group A as with females of Group B, and so on
for all the other possible combinations.

The experiment is designed to facilitate
the development of preferential meeting; that
is, that males of Type A will choose on their
own females of type A, and males of Type B
will choose preferentially females of Type B
and not across.

If at the end they -- I mean, if one were

224

to bring the experiment to a point where the
preference was absolute, then we would have
two species by definition.

So, the experiment, however, is concerned
with understanding the genetic basis of the
process. The process has made substantial
progress in some lineages. It is nowhere near
complete in most lineages. It's fairly
advanced in one of the experiments, you know.

Let me end on that for now.

Q. Now, if I understand in essence what
you're talking about, you have these two
groups which are -- while they are in some
ways perhaps different, they are of the same
species currently?

A. At the beginning, yes.

Q. And are they distinguishable?

A. Yes.

Q. By some physical or observable
characteristic or some genetic characteristic?

A. Let's call it genetic.

Q. But they can, nonetheless interbreed?

A. And can be unambiguously identified.

Q. So, your studies are designed to
determine what would, perhaps, lead them to
the point -- I'm using very lay language,

225

understand -- to the point where there would
be no interbreedings between the groups?

A. Yes, except that my object is not to
understand what would lead them there, but to
understand the genetic basis of one of the
processes that we know can lead them there,
which is how many genes are evolved and how
they interact. That is what the purpose of my
experiment is.

Q. All right.

226

Q. Are you familiar with a book
entitled The Complications of Evolution by
Kerkut?

A. How do you spell the name?

Q. K-e-r-k-u-t.

A. I don't think so. Not, at least, to
my present recollection.

Q. He's with the University of
Southhampton in England. I think it was
published about 1960, if I recall.

Would you state that your definition of
evolution is the same as what is termed the
"modern synthesis"?

A. The modern synthesis is very complex.
There are many components in it which try to
account for a great diversity of phenomena, a
great diversity of ways. What I gave to you
was the most bare-bone definition of what the
theory of evolution might state as I thought
was relevant to you at the time.

Q. So the theory of evolution, as it is
properly defined, might be somewhat broader
than the definition that you have utilized in
this deposition?

A. The theory of evolution concerns
many issues which are all comprised in my very

227

broad definition. Actually, my definition was
very broad. But there are many phenomena and
things involved there. And the modern
synthesis, which is the most generally
accepted version of the modern theory of
evolution, is a series of theories, statements
and principles that purport to account for the
relevant phenomena.

I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I
home I have clarified it.

Q. Well, to a non-scientist, when I
read your definition it is certainly of much
greater brevity and apparently much more
simple than what I have read or have
considered in the past to be a definition of
evolution. Perhaps it is deceiving in its
simplicity, because you say it's broad.

How would the modern synthesis differ
from your definition of evolution?

A. It does not differ.

Q. By "differ" I don't mean -- is it
not broader and involve more?

A. No.

MS. STURM: Again, I think that the
question as you phrased it before was, you
know, the same. And it's my understanding

228

that Dr. Ayala has responded that it's in fact
the opposite, that his theory is the broadest
statement, and that the synthesis explains in
much more detail the various phenomena and
mechanisms.

I'm unclear at this point about what
further question you're asking.

THE WITNESS: We may be running into
problems also about what we understand by
"broad" and such terms here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. When you talk about
an organism changing through generations as
part of your definition of evolution, would
the idea that, as I understand it, man --
using that term broadly -- homo sapiens have
been getting taller and taller through
subsequent mutations; is that an example of an
organism changing through generations?

A. If they are due to genetic changes,
yes.

Q. Well, is that through genetic
changes, as you understand it?

A. Some of the changes in height are.
For example the ones -- the difference between
Australopithecus and modern man, there is no
question that it is.

229

Now, if you are talking about modern man --
and I was not sure which you were talking
about -- then it is not so clear. Most of
those changes are due to changes of diet, from
all that we know.

Q. All right. Your definition said
"organisms changing through generations."

A. Through their generations through
time.

Q. And your definition does not include
a change caused by genetic changes as opposed
to being caused by diet, for example, does it?

MS. STURM: I'm unclear about the
question. Could you be more specific or
clarify your terms?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm taking his
definition.

If I am misquoting you, please tell me,
but I believe you have a very succinct
statement of evolution as organisms changing
through generations.

Q. Now, your definition does not
ascribe any particular cause for the change,
does it?

A. No. But, you see, they change
through generations. It has to be genetic.

230

An environmental change, which has no genetic
basis, will not be passed from one generation
to another one.

This one you spoke about, height, if you
are talking about genetic change as another
way of saying it is transmittable from one
generation to another, then yes.

Q. If you look at the fact that modern
man, as you term it, has gotten taller through
the years, and that it is attributable, at
least in part, to diet, are you saying that if
the progress or the change in diet was removed,
that man would again get shorter?

A. Depending what the change of diet
would be. The Japanese, the average height of
Japanese at the time of World War II was
several inches lower than the average height
of Japanese today, say forty years younger.
That is almost certainly due to change of diet.

If in the next generation of Japanese
they would be fed the same diet, and if there
were environmental conditions similar to those
under which the people who were adults in the
1940s grew, I believe that they are likely to
become shorter again.

That, incidentally, is a general

231

phenomenon in more than human populations,
that, in very recent years, of becoming taller
in just a generation or two. And I think that
can be largely attributed to a change in diet.

You have only to try to walk through one
of the old castles in Spain or France and you
have to be ducking all the time; you can't fit.

Q. My problem or concern is your
definition of evolution, because you have
stated without qualification that it is a
change in organisms through generations. And
that change may be caused by diet, but yet
under your definition it would be evolution?

A. I hope you appreciate the fact that
that was as simple a definition as possible to
avoid confusing you, which I could have very
well done if I wanted.

The implications of that change, e.g. a
change that persists through the generations
or is cumulative or continues, although
directions can change, but the change
continues through the generations. Change
which is due to diet only, in the context
which scientists will talk of these terms,
will not be passed from generation to
generation unless, of course, you keep

232

changing the diets every generation; something
like that.

Q. Well, if you were going to define
evolution, not necessarily in the most simple
terms but the fairest and and most precise
terms, would you have a different definition?

A. Yes. If I may get the book called
Evolution.

One definition -- which is by no means
complete because, like any reality which is
very complex, it is in fact effectively
impossible to define in just one or few
sentences -- but one definition which is
fairly satisfactory is in this book Evolution,
page eight, last paragraph.

"Organic evolution is a series of partial
or complete and irreversible transformations
of the genetic composition of populations
based principally upon altered interactions
with their environments. It consists chiefly
of adaptive radiations into new environments,
adjustments to environmental changes that take
place in a particular habitat, and the origin
of new ways for exploiting existing habitats.
These adaptive changes occasionally give rise
to greater complexity of developmental pattern

233

of physiological reactions and of interactions
between populations and their environment."

Q. Is that your definition? Did you
draft that or did you adopt that?

A. Professor Stebbins'.

Q. Did you bring with you a copy of
your book Evolving?

A. Yes. The answer to your question is
no. I think it was brought yesterday by
counsel.

Q. Have you ever testified before, Dr.
Ayala, in any case?

A. In any case?

Q. Yes.

A. Once.

Q. What case?

A. Oh, testified? No. I had a
deposition once.

Q. When was the deposition given? In
what case?

A. There was a young lady who got in a
relatively minor accident in my house. There
was a legal suit, which I believe never went
to court.

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

234

MS. STURM: Could you clarify that
question, please?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think I prefer not
to, since it comes from the plaintiff's
complaint.

THE WITNESS: "Final truth" is truth
which is absolutely established and forever,
and if we are talking about empirical issues,
yes. The scientific method doesn't say there
is no truth.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I've asked you some of
these questions before, I'll have to ask you
to forgive me.

Q. How is the evolutionist's model
observable?

A. Models are not observable. Theories
are not observable.

Q. A model or theory is not observable?

A. No.

Q. So the theory of evolution is not
observable?

A. As a theory, the statements are not
observable phenomena.

Q. For example, the definition you read
to me, the definition of evolution, that
theory is not, in and of itself, observable?

235

A. Those statements are only observable --
you read them in the book in a trivial sense
which, I presume, we are not talking about.

Q. I don't mean observable in the sense
of in that book.

A. Now remember, this is a definition.
That's not a theory; that is a definition of
evolution.

The theory of evolution is stated in that
book from page 1 to page 570 or whatever. And
not all of it is there.

You observe phenomena. You don't observe
theories.

Q. Well, is there an evolution model of
origins? What is the difference between a
model and a theory, if any?

A. I'm sorry; a model, yes, is a form
perhaps less precise if you're speaking of a
theory.

Q. So it's not correct if I sometimes
may unconsciously shift to the use of the word
"model"?"

A. No; it's fair.

Q. So in terms of the evolution model
of origins --

MS. STURM: It's not clear that Dr.

236

Ayala has been speaking about the evolution
model of origins. He's made it clear in his
testimony that may indeed not be his view of
evolution.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you understand, Dr.
Ayala -- perhaps you don't.

Q. Is it your understanding that
Act 590 deals with the theory of origins?

A. Yes.

Q. And that one of the models of
origins in Act 590 is the evolution model of
origins.

MS. STURM: Origins of what?

MR. WILLIAMS: Of man, life, the universe.

THE WITNESS: Yes, we are talking about
the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right; we're talking about
the Act.

Q. Now, is the evolution model or
theory, if you will, of origins observable?

A. I believe I have answered that. A
theory, a model is not observable. You
observe phenomena that relate to the theory.

Q. Is the evolution theory of origins
testable?

A. Yes. Let me qualify. I think this

237

is very important.

Let us assume, at least for the moment,
that we are talking about the origin of living
organisms so we avoid too many qualifications.

Q. Let me be more precise. Is the
evolution model of origins as it relates to
the original of life, the universe, the earth
and man testable?

A. I am afraid that to the best of my
knowledge there is no such single theory which
allows for such disparate phenomena. I think
there are different theories dealing with
those different things.

Q. Well, is there not some form of a
coherent, more or less, theory starting
perhaps with what's called the "big bang" and
then leading up to the origin of the earth,
and from that the so-called "primordial soup,"
leading up to the first life, leading up
eventually to man and other life?

A. A consistent single theory
accounting for all of those things? I would
say not, to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Not a single theory but several
theories, all under the general umbrella or
the general framework of an evolutionary

238

theory?

A. Yes, I presume. I mean, some people
do that, but I don't like it.

Q. But there are evolutionists who talk
about that?

A. You are begging the question by
saying there are evolutionists.

Q. Okay; I appreciate that.

Are there scientists who discuss that?

A. all those aspects, as it were, in a
single spread? Most rarely; let us put that
way.

Q. Carl Sagan, would he be one of those
people who do that?

A. Carl Sagan concerns himself
primarily with the evolution of the universe,
questions of astronomy. From time to time he
makes excursions outside his expertise and
talks about biological evolution and other
things. That's the main subject. There are
different fields of science, really.

Q. Dr. Ayala, considering this sort of
general theory of evolution which takes into
account the origins not only of man but also
of the universe and the earth and life --

MS. STURM: Objection. I'll continue

239

to make the objection that that is a theory
that is only contained in the model in your
question, and Dr. Ayala does not adhere to it,
nor has he treated it in his testimony as a
single theory.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, you did
state earlier what I refer to as the "general
theory," which subsumes the origin of all of
those different things, is discussed by some
scientists and is --

A. Some scientists discuss all these
various problems. I don't think they discuss
them as a single theory.

Q. But they all fit under the evolution
model or theory, do they?

A. I think when -- let me rephrase it
and say that they will discuss it while
discussing evolutionary problems. Okay? That
avoids the question as to how many theories
are involved.

Q. Can I refer to this, for shorthand
and to expedite matters, as just the general
theory of evolution?

A. I find it very difficult to accept
that. If you would say -- let me think for a
moment.

240

Why don't you call it the "problem of
origins," with the understanding that we are
talking about the origin of universe, life and
organisms. The "problems of origins"; I think
you were using that language before.

Q. Well, the only problem I have in
using that term is that the "problem of
origins" is treated in Acts V:90 under two
seemingly distinct theories; one is Evolution
Science and one is Creation Science.

So can I call it just the "evolution
approach to origins," if you will?

A. Good. Okay.

Q. Is the evolution approach to origins
falsifiable?

A. Yes. However, I feel obliged to
qualify that the status of falsifiability is
very different for different components of
that approach.

Q. All right. But you think it is
falsifiable?

A. Yes.

Q. How is it falsifiable?

A. By making predictions that can be
subject to empirical tests and by observing
whether the predictions are indeed the case or

241

not.

Q. The neutrality of protein evolution;
is it falsifiable?

A. Yes.

Q. Has it been falsified?

A. With respect to some parts of it, I
think so. I've been trying my best.

Q. Is it correct that scientific
hypotheses are subject to empirical testing?

A. Yes. If they are not, they are not
scientific hypotheses.

Q. And if a hypothesis is subject to
empirical testing, is it a scientific
hypothesis?

A. If it is well formed and meets all
the requirements.

Q. I notice in your article on
"Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or
Random Walk" you make reference to the fact
that Mendel's paper on his experiments with
peas in the garden in a monastery was first
published in an obscure journal.

A. That's correct.

Q. Can we assume from that that merely
because publications occur in obscure journals
does not necessarily make them any less

242

scientific?

A. I completely agree. I think they
should be judged on their merits.

Q. You state also in this article that
"The probability that highly organized systems
like living beings and their parts may arise
by chance is effectively nil."

A. Absolutely.

Q. Could you explain to me what you
mean by that?

A. I'm sorry; I mean what it says. It
probably is helpful if I just make the
statement.

MS. STURM: What page are you on?

MR. WILLIAMS: On page 693.

THE WITNESS: I know the statement. I
just want to facilitate things by not
introducing additional terms and confusing
things more. "The probability" -- okay.

I presume there's no problem
understanding that highly organized systems
like living beings -- a fly, a human, even a
bacterium -- under their parts -- by "their
parts" I refer to their having a single organ
like an eye or a hand -- may arise by chance;
that is, by pure random combination of the

243

component atoms and molecules, is effectively
zero. I think it's clear enough.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Would you disagree
with that statement if I changed one word and
said "would" evolve by chance is effectively
nil; or would you still agree?

A. I would still agree. Evolution by
chance is still effectively nil, yes.

Q. And in your own mind what is it that
involves the chance element?

A. I'm sorry; will you rephrase that
question, please.

Q. You state that the probability that
highly organized living systems may arise by
chance is effectively nil.

A. Yes.

Q. So if it wasn't by chance, then
there most have been some other mechanism?

A. Yes.

Q. To use rough language, "guiding
force"; whatever you want to call it?

MS. STURM: Well --

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. I'm not
trying to attach any legal significance to it.

MS. STURM: Well, I think there's a
distinction between "mechanism" and "guiding

244

force."

Is your question whether there is some
mechanism besides chance which accounts for
the change?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is my question. i
just want to make certain he understands what
I'm talking about.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Obviously, by what I
say and by what you can read anywhere else in
my writings or those by any evolutionists,
indeed, by chance evolution would be
impossible. You have other processes, of
which natural selection is one, which is
definitely not a chance process.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What about the
application of your statement to the first
life, whenever the first life was formed? Is
it applicable there?

A. Well, I --

MS. STURM: I would like to state for
the record that we did deal with this issue at
the first part of the deposition. I think
it's been covered pretty fully.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I still can answer?
Do you object?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't recall

245

discussing this specific statement as it
relates to that.

THE WITNESS: Is it all right?

MS. STURM: Go ahead and answer.

THE WITNESS: Yes. It would seem to, if
you're talking about going from pure, say,
atoms to something which would properly be
called "living," that those steps will occur
only by pure chance, I think the probability
will be effectively nil.

Let me clarify. Once again, by something
that I could call "living" I'm talking now
about something that is a cell, maybe as small
as a bacterium, but a whole cell. But going
from the atoms to cells or bacteria or any
other simple form of life by pure chance, I
would consider that still nil. It would be
much more probable than a higher organism, but
would still be nil.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you have an
opinion as to whether there was some other
mechanism other than chance in the origin of
the first life?

A. I am not an expert on such things,
but indeed there are some. In the later
stages of that process, natural selection

246

itself comes into being. In the earliest
stages other processes which involve poly-
molecularization -- interactions between small
molecules which are very directed. They are
not chance, but very directionistic.

And there are others. I could go on in
detail, but interactions which are not chance
interactions must have intervened, probably
from the beginning -- except perhaps at the
very, very, very beginning, and certainly as
the process went on more and more, so --

Q. Do you have an opinion personally as
to what caused the first life to come into
being?

A. Yes. I mean natural processes. I
think there are a variety of theories as to
the details, and on which I have not very
strong preference, although I have mild
preferences.

Does that answer the question? I've lost
track of both the question and my answer.

(Discussion off the record)

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think I asked
particularly with reference to the statement
that he made.

MS. STURM: Well, it's the same.

247

You're referring to a particular article, but
you're not asking a different question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the statement in the
article obviously has a specific reference to
that line of inquiry. That did not arise the
other day because I didn't have the article.

MS. STURM: The substance of the
article is identical. I don't want to waste
time arguing about this. If you do intend to
pursue this line of inquiry much further, I
will go get the deposition. We have it. I
can show you this was an area that has already
been delved into, at least to the degree of
depth that you're questioning now about the
issue of origins of first life.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you feel you're an
expert on the origin of first life?

A. No. Everything is relative, I hope
you understand. I know more about the origin
of life than most people.

Q. I'm sure that's true.

You wrote an article entitled "Biology as
an Autonomous Science" in 1968, I believe --
that's the publication date, at least -- in
which you discussed -- I hope I can say this
correctly -- teleology.

248

In this article -- and you have a copy in
front of you, if you want to refer to it -- I
notice that you discuss the concept of
teleology as having been somewhat discredited
in the past because it has been associated
with some sort of creator; is that correct?

A. Something more general.
Philosophically, the notion that in order to
have teleology, the end that is reached by the
process that is said to be teleological has to
be the agent itself of the process does not
require a creator at all. You see, it's a
general problem, although these matters can be
discussed also in the context of the creator.

Does that help?

Q. I think your statement is that the
main reason for this discredit of teleology is
that the notion of teleology as corresponding
with the belief that future events have active
agents in their own realization.

But then you go on to say that "The
nature of diversity of organisms are then
explained teleologically in such view as the
goals or ends in view intended from the
beginning by the creator are implicit in the
nature of the first organisms."

249

So as I read this article, I take it that
you perceive that in discussing the notion of
teleology, that some people would ascribe to
it connotations which are somewhat unscientific;
is that fair?

A. Yes. That is fair, yes.

Q. But when properly viewed, would you
not say that the concept of teleology is
necessarily unscientific?

A. Well, I'm sorry; the concept of
teleology is not scientific at all. It is
philosophical. Now it can be discussed in the
context of unscientific approaches to
empirical problems, but can also be discussed
in the concept of proper science. The concept
itself is not scientific; it's really a
philosophical concept.

Q. But it can be discussed properly in
science?

A. No. I think philosophers can use
this kind of concept, or scientists talking as
philosophers, as I am doing here, can take
proper scientific notions and use them in
discussing teleology. Teleology itself does
not belong in the realm of science, is not a
scientific notion. It is a philosophical

250

construct.

I realize these distinctions may be too
foreign to you, but they are not trivial.
They are important. I mean from my point of
view.

Q. But the fact that you would write
such an article as "Biology as an Autonomous
Science" and discuss in such detail teleology
indicates that in some manner that teleology
is appropriate for discussion of science.

MR. STURM: Is that a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doesn't it
necessarily follow?

A. Depends on what you mean. I could
say -- I mean, to avoid having to repeat
questions, I think it is a concept which
should be of interest to scientists and in
fact to many people.

I would point out two things. This is
not a scientific journal, and in fact this
discussion -- in spite of the name "American
Scientist," this is a journal that really is
very broad. It's not a technical journal,
perhaps would be a more appropriate thing.

This paper, the title itself, "Biology as
an Autonomous Science," it is not a paper
251

dealing with a scientific issue but with a
epistemiological issue, a philosophical
question.

So whether sometimes it's scientific or
not is really not a scientific issue, but a
philosophical issue. So the paper is a
philosophical paper, although it uses
scientific concepts -- and I hope they are of
interest to scientists -- but their concepts,
by and large, are not appropriate to be
discussed as science. They are not science,
which is not saying they are not true or wrong.

Q. There are two statements in here
that I was particularly interested in as I was
reading. You say on page 213, again for your
reference, that "Biological evolution can now,
however, be explained without recourse to a
creator or a planning agent external to the
organisms themselves."

And then you discuss that at some length.
And then further down the page you say that
teleology of nature could not be explained, at
least in principal, as the result of natural
laws manifested in natural processes without
recourse to an external creator or to
spiritual or non-material forces. At that

252

point biology came into maturity as science."

A. I'm amazed myself how well it reads.

Q. What strikes me about that, Dr.
Ayala, is the notion that teleology -- I want
to see if I understand this correctly -- that
teleology apparently at one time, even during
the philosophy of science, had connotations of
a creator; is that correct?

A. The teleology of organisms was
explained by the fact that the creator had
created living things, yes.

Q. And now, from what I understand,
you're saying in this paper that you believe
that teleological principles or the teleology
of nature can be explained without reference
to a creator; is that correct?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. So if you today talk about teleology,
if someone thinks about a creator, that's a
problem of semantics, isn't it?

A. I'm sorry; will you repeat that
question?

Q. That if today you are talking with
someone about teleology and the person you're
talking with -- and you're talking about it in
this sense that the other person may be

253

thinking about it in reference to those
connotations of a creator, it's a problem of
semantics?

A. No. If I understand you correctly,
I would not agree with that.

I think in the context of organisms some
people may say that the reason why organisms
are teleological -- why, say, the hand is made
for grasping, which is something teleological --
is due to the fact that God made it that way.
You see? The theological explanation of a
teleological organ.

On the other hand, you can provide a
natural explanation of this teleology through
evolutionary process. I don't think the
difference is semantic. It's philosophical;
very important.

Q. Oh, I agree with you. What you're
saying is you can have a theological teleology
and a nontheological teleology; correct?

A. Yes, and still other kinds?

---
---
---
---
---

254

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, just back
briefly to my reference to a problem with
semantics, my question there is simply, if you
are discussing with someone teleology in the
non-theological sense, if that person does not
know that, and he or she is resorting to other
notions, they may think you're talking about a
theological teleology.

MS. STURM: I think you're asking the
witness to hypothesize about something.

Q. I'm just saying -- its not a
hypothesis.

MS. STURM: But what someone using a
term might think if they didn't understand
what the concept meant.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think it's a
hypothesis when he has written an article in
which he, at some great length, has to
distinguish between the two.

MS. STURM: Except you're assuming the
witness will know what someone is thinking
when he confuses the concepts.

Could you clarify the question to
something that would be within the witness's
knowledge?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, let me ask you

255

from your personal experience, Dr. Ayala.
Have you discussed this concept of teleology
in the non-theological sense before, and have
you, in trying to do so, met with some
difficulty of trying to explain that you
really were discussing something of a perhaps
somewhat new and non-theological teleology?

A. Yes, it's correct. Often scientists
in particular, as I state there, assume that
teleology has certain implications; so when I
use the term, they attribute to the concept
those implications.

Now, those are good grounds on which one
might have been wise -- and I probably would
have done it, if I could be writing this paper
now with what I know -- to have changed the
term. I don't want to change the term,
because I thought the original meaning of the
term is the one I was giving in this paper;
but through history it had changed and had
been narrowed, and I wanted to broaden it and
pay due respect to the Greeks, for example,
Greek philosophers and Greek theologists. And
I therefore retain the term.

However, there has been a considerable
source of confusion for some people who

256

immediately say, "But, obviously your Catholic
upbringing is coming out," or something like
that.

I hope you appreciate the last comment
was made in jest.

Q. I understand.

As a result of this article, you have
encountered, if not resistance, some
misunderstanding?

A. As a result of the discussion of the
concept with people who have not read the
article or other articles where I have
explained it clearly, yes.

Q. Okay.

I don't want to go over this again, but I
just note, since I have the first time to look
at one of your books, "Evolving," you talk in
there, as a matter of fact, about Kuhn's
notion of paradigm. You discuss that and how
"scientists usually seek to extend the
paradigmatic explanations into new areas to
explain new data and to resolve observations
that do not seem, at least at first, to jibe
with the accepted paradigm."

A. That's written by my co-author to
explain something, which is said in very

257

different words, but I think with examples in
this paper, too, now that I think about it.

If you start the bottom paragraph of the
first page of this article and read that whole
paragraph -- not necessarily now -- you will
realize that the paragraph is making that
point, that one takes a paradigm and tries to
extend it to explain additional notions as one
goes along, and -- additional facts, I should
say, as one goes along -- and that's what
proves that the paradigm is fertile, that
helps you to understand more phenomena.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, I've got
some articles here I would like to show you.

Unless you have some objection, I don't
really care to make them exhibits, because I
just want to ask him where he got these and
just what he considers them to be.

A. (Reviews documents)

Q. Have you read this article before?

A. I don't think so. I have some idea
that I have seen it, but --

Q. Do you plan to rely upon it in your
testimony?

A. It would be nice to have time to
read it. I don't know what the implication of

258

you question that I am --

Q. Well, let me tell you that this is
one of the documents which was given to me
from the lawyers for the plaintiff as having
been a document in your possession, and it was
one of the first documents they gave me. So I
assume, since it was one of the first
documents that you gave me, that you have seen
it and you have copied it from somewhere --

A. It was in my file, yes. The request,
as you may recall, was very -- I presume you
know very well -- was very broadly stated. It
does not state I should provide documents that
I have read or plan to read.

I have seen it, and I have not read it in
extent, so.

Q. For the record, that is "Genesis
Kinds and Hybridization, Has Man Ever Crossed
With Any Animal," by Frank L. March.

Q. I'd like to show you "Genetics and
Creation Studies," by William J. Ouweneel.

A. (Reviews document)

Yes.

Q. Have you --

A. I have read it. Certainly not word
for word of this article, but I read through

259

it at some time in the past, yes.

Q. Do you recall now what your opinion
of that article was?

A. I would have to refresh my memory.
I read too many papers.

May I?

Q. If you would like. Perhaps if you
read the abstract, maybe that would refresh
your memory.

A. Okay.

(Reviews document)

Yes, I remember more or less what the
article was about and what the point was,
which is a fascinating one, because, if I
recall, he uses a lot of my data and papers
and such, I believe is the case.

I think if you go through it or look at
the list of reference, I think you -- unless
my recollection is mistaken -- he cites a lot
of my papers, and most of the data cited there
come from my papers.

Q. Do you recall now as to whether you
had an opinion about this article?

A. Yes. That, you know, he goes
through some notions of population genetics
that he understands almost - well, certainly

260

much better than most of the literature of the
other kind -- then concludes, because there is
a lot of genetic variation, that shows the
creator is around, because he has put it there
to provide for the future evolution of a
species.

That's all fine and good, but it's not,
in my view -- that does not prove more that it
is due to the action of the creator than it
will prove that this cup is upright here, and
the creator is around because otherwise it
would be upside down.

I mean, it's lack of logic at the end.

Q. Tautological?

A. Not tautological, but non sequitur.
You know, it's really -- I don't see, frankly,
in what way the fact that there is a lot of
genetic variation shows that there must be a
creator that has provided the -- in fact, you
formulated -- in some way, you could say it's
tautological.

I mean, he presumes what he's attempting
to show.

Q. Do you recall the article that you
wrote or was published in March of '70,
"Tautological Explanations in Evolutionary

261

Biology"?

A. Yes, very well.

Q. Is that somewhat similar to your
other article that you wrote, "The Philosophy" --

A. the half of that article is about
half -- very similar to half of this. The
other half is -- half of it is not there and
half of that is not here.

Q. Do you know whether you would plan
to rely upon this in your testimony in this
case?

A. If questions have been asked about
tautology, and in what way I could explain,
you know, that organisms appear to be made,
you know, to serve some purpose; for such
questions I would rely on my ideas which would
be expressed there as well, yes.

Q. Does this article relate to the
question of Creation Science at all to you?

A. It could be made to relate, yes.

Q. In what way?

A. In the sense that some of the things
that -- I'm sorry, I have to talk about
creationists. I think Creation Science is
what you ask, because Creation Science tries
to leave the creator out, making things even

262

more -- I mean, quite un-understandable, from
my point of view -- but creationists sometimes
argue that one of the reasons why we need a
creator is the obvious tautology of organisms,
the obvious fact that the eye is made to see,
which, of course, is something which I agree.
And if that is taken to be as evidence that
there is a creator, I could rely upon concepts
that are discussed in that paper to show that
that is not necessarily so, which... period.

Q. I show you this document, which is
entitled "Creation Evolution," issue 5, Summer
of 1981.

A. Yes.

Q. Have you read that? Do you recall
reading that?

A. I have gone through what is here,
and, you know, not read every word, but --

Q. I notice on that paper that the
first article on -- I think the definition of
"kinds" has been circled at least on the cover.
Have you paid particular attention to that?

A. No. That was not circled by me.

Q. And this is a book, or part of a
book, entitled "The Troubled Waters of
Evolution" by Henry M. Morris?

263

A. (Reviews document)

Yes.

Q. Have you read that --

A. Again, I have, you know, gone
through it and read parts of it.

Q. Did you put that together, those
pages?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Do you own a copy of that book?

A. I don't own it, I have seen it and I
have -- and I do have access to it. But I
don't own a copy.

Q. I notice they've quoted you some in
that book, it appears.

A. Yes. There is a quotation --
actually, it's I from that paper that you
referred to before -- well, from both of them --
"The Theological Explanations and Biology" --
I'm sorry; they quote from three different
papers of mine.

Q. What is your opinion of this work?

A. As I remember -- I would prefer to
refresh my memory -- as I remember, very poor.

Q. I hope in no part due to their
sources, since --

A. No, of course not. Because, you see,

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two - Page 4

264

they quote me. And says, "The creationists,
on the other hand," and that's where they
start to go wrong, when they say "on the other
hand," so...

A. In my frank opinion, it's
intellectually very soft, to put it that way.

Q. Did they incorrectly quote you at
all in this?

A. The quotations themselves -- I have
not examined every word of the quotations.
They seem to be all right in there.

If you wish, I will check. I'm sure I
will detect any misquoting, if such has taken
place, by just going through it.

Q. You should be somewhat complimented,
they refer to you as one of the "younger
leaders" of evolutionary thought.

(Short break taken)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In your preparation
of the Seagraves case, did you prepare any
documents for the Attorney General?

A. No.

Q. And have you prepared any for
presentation in this case?

A. No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can I have this marked as

265

an exhibit.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 8)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You have in front of
you a copy of what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit 8, Dr. Ayala.

Can you identify that document?

A. It's my handwriting for sure, and I
recall what is in there, yes.

Q. Could you translate this for me?
Start at the top.

A. Okay. "Pending, by FJA" -- that's a
note to myself that I still have to do
something about it, and the things which are
marked with arrows --

Q. Right.

A. "Society for the Study of Evolution,
9-24-80" -- that probably is the day when I
had some telephone conversations, September 24,
'90, concerning business of the Society for
the Study of Evolution.

I remind you that I was president of the

266

society at the time. Michael Clegg was the
secretary at the time, and Guy Bush was the
president elect; so I have reason to believe
that I just had telephone conversations with
them to discuss the matters.

The first one says, "Evelyn Hutchinson
for 1981 National Medal of Science." That is a
possibility that it was discussed by the
council at the time of the meeting that
Professor Hutchinson from Yale University be
nominated so as to receive the National Medal
of Science from the President of the United
States. The previous year we had nominated a
person, and that person was awarded such Medal
bu the President of the United States.

Q. That's fine.

A. Do you want me to go on?

Q. If you could just translate some of
this.

A. "Possible people to prepare" -- that
is, to prepare the nomination. "Deevey Brooks
from NSF, James and Karen Porter. Clegg will
talk to the Porters and call me."

I'm making notes to myself to know what
happened. Clegg is at the same university as
the Porters.

267

Number two says, "Have to be personal
member of AIBS." Now, this concerns, now, a
second matter; that is, the nomination for
Distinguished Service to Biology in the United
States, which is a nomination -- I mean, an
award -- given by AIBS, which is the American
Institute for Biological Sciences. So, I was
discussing with them who we might want to
nominate, and we were discussing Mayr as a
good possibility.

Yes. And it must have been the case;
although I don't recall that. I had checked
his membership in the society -- AIBS, not
Society for the Study of Evolution -- and
probably found out that Mayr was not a member
of AIBS; and obviously we came to the
conclusion that I could make him a member of
the society, AIBS, and then proceed with the
nomination.

And then I think our discussion came to
the following points; namely, that Karen could
be the candidate for the following year, but
we should start right now to work on it --
that is, in preparing the nomination -- and
that also Raven could be an additional
candidate. And that, you know, I should

268

consider Steve Gould or R. C. Lewontin as
alternatives.

Finally, reminding myself I should
prepare the nomination of Solbrig. This is a
professor at Harvard University who has agreed
to be nominated.

Q. I take it this has nothing to do
with Creation Science?

A. I think not. But this Harvard
traces back to the same meeting of Society for
the Study of Evolution, which is why I thought
you might have interest in it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to have this
marked as 9.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 9)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. This is Exhibit 9.
Dr. Ayala. If you could just -- without
editorial comments -- just tell me what is on
here, and if I have any questions, I can ask
you for it, because if it's not relevant to
this lawsuit we can move on.

269

A. Okay.

(Reviews document)

I take it the first message is that -- I
am fussy -- the first message is telling
myself to get copies and send them to this
person. Somebody must have told me he is
interested in these matters.

Now, I don't think this refers to the
following three pages --

MS. STURM: Could you hold on one second?

A. Yes

(Short break taken)

A. The message on top is addressed to
my secretary, and obviously this has been
stapled -- I don't know by whom, maybe by me --
to the wrong pages.

My guess is that these were not -- the
following three pages were not the three I was
asking my secretary to xerox.

Q. What does page two say?

A. John A. Moore, as you may recognize,
is the chairman, the person I appointed
chairman of the committee on education of the
Society for the Study for Evolution; so this
must be I was conversing with him, and he was
telling me, yes, he was willing to be the

270

chair.

I think he -- we must have started to
talk; although I do not recall, That is my
best interpretation.

Oh, no no. Well, you can continue with
the testimony.

I believe what it is saying here is that
he may have brought up the matter of expert
witnesses that should be identified. That is --
you recall the charge -- we thought that one
thing that should be done is to identify
people in various parts of the country that
could be served -- could be used as witnesses
when they were needed. And then there are a
number of names that probably were his
suggestions as to possible members for the
committee.

Then it goes on to say that 12 people
would probably be the right number; that we
should make a clear statement, and then mail
them materials.

Q. What is the next statement there?

A. "The arguments have not changed" --
don't copy that.

Oh, yes, these I recall fairly well. he
was telling me that the arguments that

271

creationists are using now are the same that
were being used at the beginning of the
century, and also some 20 years ago. And that
we should disqualify the arguments because
they are repeated every 20 years. They seem
to reappear.

Q. Okay.

A. You want me to go on?

Q. Sure.

A. This one is obviously a previous
conversation with the same person. He was
saying -- this must have been the first
contact I was having with him on this matter.

And he was saying this was a serious
problem, remember Reagan's statements on the
matter; and then he was informing me that the
National Association of Biology Teachers has
appointed a similar committee, the chair of
which is Dr. Mayer and it would be a mistake
to, I take it, rely on this committee, but we
could contribute names and resources and
support to Mayer's committee.

Q. I think there's nothing else on that
page that we want to ask about.

(Discussion off the record)

A. The next one is the name of a person

272

that obviously was suggested to me as a
possible member of that committee.

Q. What's that on the next page?

A. The next one, I think, is a
combination of my notes during the meeting of
the council, that meeting in June, in late
June '80, with additions later, just in a
different pen to, you know, for my own benefit.

Q. What does that first line --

A. "Membership crisis."

Q. You were having a membership crisis
at that time?

A. Different societies are always
having membership crisis.

Q. What society was this?

A. Society for the Study of Evolution.

We should make a campaign, you know, to
members to increase membership.

I was pointing out that our science has
4,000 subscriptions from libraries, maybe we
could get the list from them and send them our
literature.

Q. How many Members are in the Society
for the Study of Evolution now?

A. I would say as a rough guess 1500 or
so.

273

Q. And is that an increase from five
years ago?

A. I would think so, but probably not
by much, because the society has increased the
fees very substantially in recent years --
simply for the increased cost of
publication -- and that simply puts off
people. But you would have to check that if
you would care to.

Then the next point, of course, is
relevant. This must have been when I proposed
to the council that the committee on
Creationism to be a committee dealing with the
issue of teaching of evolution and creation,
and then a number of names that obviously were
discussed at the time, and some suggested
later --

Q. Dr. Ayala, is it -- I notice your
rough notes reflect that you refer to this as
the committee on creationism.

A. Yes. Because that's the way in
which people referred to it, and indeed, I
made a point, to the rest of my recollection,
at that point not to -- that we should not
call it so, and that I very much dislike the
idea of identifying anti-evolutionism as

274

creationism. Because one can be an
evolutionist and a creationist, and I don't
like the idea of the creationist
appropriating -- the so-called creationist --
because -- you see, I'm trapping myself in
this -- I don't like the idea of
anti-evolutionists appropriating themselves
the word of being a creationist. I think
there are good creationists who believe in
evolution. I believe I made a point of it,
and the note is written that way to remind me
of the argument to be made.

Q. Does this reflect that at the
genesis, if you will, of this committee, that
it was concerned with creationism? That's
what was being discussed there?

A. I think in the minds of many people,
probably so. I think in my mind, very much
the opposite, if I understand the thrust of
your question.

It is and has been my conviction for a
long time that we should not call people who
are anti-evolutionists the creationist. And I
was very much trying to make a point of it.

You may recall that we read some document
before where somebody was describing my having

275

said so at some other occasion.

Q. Correct.

MS. STURM: Could you wait one second?

(Short break taken)

A. Again, we encounter number six, and
probably the reason that has a number six
there is so I can maintain the connection with
a six, point number six of the meeting of the
society.

And this probably is notes to myself on
things to do or expressions of thoughts, get a
list of resource scientists, prepare a
statement -- I'm scribbling here notes as to
what the charge of the committee should be.
And then I am -- the farther points I don't
think would have any reference.

I'll go on if you want.

Q. No, that's fine.

A. The next point must have been a
telephone conversation with William Mayer.

Q. Could you just read what it says
there?

A. Says "We have a committed for
evolution education and teaching." That is
the "National Association of Biology Teachers
to help teachers primarily understand

276

evolution and science. William Mayer is chair.
Would be most valuable to have a committee
from the Society for Study of Evolution. Too
many things to do. Professional evolutionists
are apathetic, do not understand the potential
dangers, our SSE committee would carry most
weight. John Moore is a splendid. B. Glass
is great also."

So this is obviously mostly recalling
what he was saying.

Q. Next page would be just a list --
A. Of possible members, yes. You can
see that somebody added my name -- not in my
handwriting. How that happened, I don't know.

Do you want to go on?

Q. Yes.

A. I take it the next page is the first
page of the one that we have seen before.
"National" -- this obviously is not following
up on matters that have been discussed at our
annual meeting; so I think point one is of no
interest to you. I assume point two either.
We went through it above.

Number three is a point that refers to
the appointment of a Washington representative
of our society. You know, with scientific

277

societies meeting often in Washington for
business, so that we could have a
representative there.

Number four concerns a prize to be given
to a student, a very young scientist, for
proposing some interesting research.

Number seven is to discuss the meeting of
the society to take place in '82, which would
occur in Sturn Brook. Futuyama, this is a
scientist. Says "Kohn has ascertained that
the university charges no fee." And the
meeting was tentatively planned for June 27
through 30th. That's obviously the
information, the second one, that I got when
following up.

Then about a new secretary for the
society.

Q. Thank you.

A. You are welcome.

MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit 10, please.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 10)

278

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, you have
before you what has been marked as Defendant's
Exhibit 10 to this deposition.

Can you identify that document?

A. Yes, it's an issue of a journal
called the "Watchtower."

Q. Do you know who that's published by?

A. It says -- I believe it's the
Jahovah's Witness's. It does not say that,
but maybe I'm mistaken.

Q. The other day during your deposition,
I believe you stated, the record will reflect,
that part of the information which you had
considered in making assessments of Creation
Science was some document by someone -- by
Garner Ted Armstrong or the "World Tomorrow."

Was this perhaps what you had reference
to?

A. No. Let me refresh your
recollection by my recollection, and the
record will show which one is more correct. I
believe I was being asked whether I had in
recent times read statements about, you know,
Creation Science or creation explanations of
origins, and I was saying, yes, some articles
that I have read were a series of articles in

279

the journal, which I forget --
"Plain Truth," which is published by Ted
Armstrong. There was a series of five or six
articles all dealing with this issue.

Now, this is not the one I was referring
to. You want to ask me something about it?

Q. I want to ask you if this is part of
the documents on Creation Science which you
have read and upon which you form your current
opinion on Creation Science?

MS. STURM: You want to divide it into
two questions?

A. This is -- first of all, let me say
it's a document that I have not read. This
was -- I have fairly good recollection of how
this is in my file.

A student from one of my classes came to
me and said, "This might interest you." And I
spent a few minutes with it, probably was '78,
and put it in my file. I glanced through it
and got some notions that indeed are repeated
again by various people, various
anti-evolutionists, and found that it was not
much new or not particularly interesting, and
the arguments were fallacious and the evidence
often wrong.

280

So, I recall not spending much time and
putting it in my file just in case at some
later time I would have time to get back to it.

Q. So, did you read the article on
"Design Requires a Designer."

A. I glanced through it at the time,
but, you know, I'm sure I didn't read every
word.

Q. Okay.

A. This is what I was referring to. I
don't find anything particularly new or
interesting.

Q. Okay. I have a copy of something
which is marked "Population and Evolutionary
Genetics," a primer, by Francis J. Ayala.

Is this a book which is in publication?

A. In press, yes.

Q. Who is publishing this book?

A. Benjamin Cummings, same publisher of
that book.

Q. To what level is this book directed?

A. This is intended as an elementary
textbook in population genetics. So it will
be addressed primarily to undergraduates,
either lower-level undergraduates, if they are
interested in genetics, or, perhaps, as

281

supplementary reading to advanced
undergraduates taking courses in other subject
matters.

Q. Okay. Do you presently know whether
you would rely on any information in here in
your testimony at trial?

A. It's very likely that some of the
information that is there, some, may be used;
but I don't have any specific plans as of this
time.

To be extremely cooperative, I could say
it contains redundant information, information
that is not very different from the
information that is in some of the other books;
particularly when we are dealing with an
elementary textbook.

Q. I've been supplied copies of some of
your more recent grants, or, at least, some
evidence of the grants.

A. Some cover pages.

Q. right. For example, this one is
dated 1976 and covers some $250,000 in the
grant itself. Is that somewhat in the range --
I was looking at several of these, and they
all seem to be around $250,000.

A. They have large grants, which is the

282

one from NIH, and, as the years go by,
increase in value. It's a collective grant
that four or five independent scientists share.
All the other grants would be considerably
smaller, under a hundred thousand. That is
the ones -- the grants to me individually.

Q. Would it be fair to say that the
grants you have been awarded, you, personally,
but which have been --

A. Part of that is to me personally in
a way, although.

Q. Part of it would pay part of your
salary?

A. Oh, no. It's awarded to me as
principal investigator, but none of this money
comes to me.

Q. I understand.

(Interruption, discussion off the record)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. It would be fair to
state, would it not, that the total dollar
value of grants which have been awarded to
institutions where you have been a principal
investigator would exceed several million
dollars?

A. It would not be accurate, no, the
part of which I am responsible.

283

I made a guess the other day, and said it
was a rough guess at the time, of a million
over the last few years. I think this
definitely was not correct in "several million."

I just -- I tried to point out that there
are several people involved in one of those
grants.

Q. Do you think science can be the
basis for religion?

A. I think it can inspire people to be
religious. In that sense of being the basis
of, yes.

Q. Well, do you think people can
believe in science the way some people believe
in religion?

A. I think so, but I don't think those
people would be scientists.

Q. I'm not asking you to assume that
I'm talking about that some people might.

A. Yes, some people seem to.

Q. Are you familiar with physics?

A. A little bit.

Q. Are you aware of the parallels and
similarities between modern particle physics
and Eastern mystic religions at all?

A. I have heard that they use some

284

terms and some symbols which in very many ways
resemble, you know, symbols in terms of
mystical religion.

(Short break taken)

---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

285

Q. This article that you wrote in the
Journal of Heredity, I take it, is a tribute
or memorial?

A. It's biography, a short biography,

Q. And it sets forth his life as well
as some of his theories, does it not?

A. Yes, to summarize what his main
contributions to science were, as well as
summarizes his personal life.

Q. I have an article, "Genetic
Variations in Evolution." Has this been
published?

A. If I've given it to you that way, I
presume it has not. Not to the best of my
knowledge.

It should appear very soon.

Q. Has it been accepted for publication?

A. Yes.

Q. In what publication?

A. It will appear as a separate booklet
in a collection which used to be called The
Oxford something, and now is called Oxford/
North Carolina something. Just little
booklets in biology. Each one of these will
be an independent sort of booklet, sixteen
pages or so.

286

Q. As will this one, "The Origin of the
Species."

A. Carolina Readers, yes. They are
called Oxford/Carolina Readers.

Q. This is entitled "Origin of the
Species." What do you go into in here?

A. Discussing how species come about,
species originate.

Q. Is this also part of that same
series?

A. No. There are only two, so there
should be no more, no.

This, as it says at the bottom, is a
speech that I gave in Rome almost exactly one
year ago, and they asked me afterwards to
write it down and send it because they wanted
to publish it. So I think it's to appear in
some Italian journal.

Q. Are all of these books still in
print?

A. May I see "Molecular Evolution"?
That is the third one from top.

I think this is out of print now. It's
gone through three printings. To the best of
my knowledge there are no plans to reprint it.

Q. You were a contributor to this

287

book?

A. I organized the symposium on which
the volume is based, and then I edited the
volume and wrote an introductory chapter.

Q. Are these two still in print?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the handbook for faculty
members of the University of California
contain anything on how to teach courses or
professional --

A. Professional standards, yes.

Q. Is there something on here that
talks about the discretion left to the
teachers?

A. I'm sure it does.

Q. Can you recall anything?

A. I'm consulted very often, and when I
have to find something, by secretary finds it.
So you're as able to find something as I, but
I'm willing to give it a try.

Q. Dr. Ayala, perhaps you can assist me?

A. Yes; I will try.

MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

(Concluded at 7:40 o'clock p.m.)

                                  Signature of Witness

288

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 me,

                KAREN L. WILLIAMS,

a Certified Shorthand Reporter and
disinterested person, and was thereafter
transcribed into typewriting, and that the
pertinent provisions of the applicable code or
rules of civil procedure relating to the
notification of the witness and counsel for
the parties hereto of the availability of 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

289

the parties to said deposition, nor in any way
interested in the outcome of the cause named
in said caption.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and affixed my seal of office the
       day of                    , 1981.
 
 
 
KAREN L. WILLIAMS, C.S.R. No. 2933