Frair 101
church?
A No.
Q Is there a particular point in your
life that you can identify as when you embraced
Christianity?
A Yes.
Q At what point is that?
A When I was in the Navy.
Q And what event or series of events led
you to embrace Christianity?
(Continued on page 102.)
Frair 102
A Other associates were speaking to me
and I realized that this met the needs of my life as
a person.
Q Do you attend church regularly?
A I do.
Q Do you belong to any church groups?
A Like what?
Q Does the church sponsor any organiza-
tion? Does the church sponsor any groups of which you
are a member, apart from attending the church?
A I participate in meetings, different
types of meetings.
That's about it.
Q What types of meetings?
A They will have socials from time to
time, for instance.
Q Do you consider yourself to be a
Fundamentalist?
A What's a Fundamentalist?
Q What do you understand by the term
"fundamentalism"?
A People have different definitions of
that term.
Q What would your definition be?
Frair 103
A Possibly, somebody who holds to the
fundamentals of Christian faith.
Q Given that definition, do you believe
yourself to be a Fundamentlist?
A Well, it would be necessary to talk
about the fundamentals.
Q What are the fundamentals, then?
THE WITNESS: Do we get into this?
MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that
you know, or you have an opinion, you can give
your opinion.
I don't mind that you are asking him
the question. I do not think this individual
has been qualified as a witness on what is a
fundamental or on religious matters.
He can give, perhaps, an impression,
his statement or opinion, but it would not be
in the nature of an expert.
MR. LAHIFF: It may, in fact, be
based on his membership in these organizations.
His membership in these organizations
may have some bearing on whether or not he is
an expert in theology.
Let's go off the record for a second.
Frair 104
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. LAHIFF: Let's go back on the
record.
BY MR. LAHIFF:
Q Do you have problems with the term
"Fundamentalist"?
You gave me a definition of "Fundamen-
talist". I then asked you, if given that definition,
you considered yourself to be a Fundamentalist, and
you told me it depends on what the fundamentals are.
I then asked you what are the fundamen-
tals, and, at that point, you had a problem.
What are the fundamentals?
A Most conservative Christians would be-
lieve that the Bible is their guide for life; that
man is a sinner, that Christ died for the sins of man-
kind, that Christ is coming again.
We could insert in there that Christ
was resurrected, and that he's coming.
I think those would be the fundamentals
that the National Association of Evangelicals would say
hold Christians together.
Q Given all of that, do you consider
yourself to be Fundamentalist?
Frair 105
A I prescribe to those concepts.
Q Do you have a personal religious
counsellor?
A I don't know what that is.
Q Do you have someone that you turn to
about questions of faith or religion?
A We have a pastor of my group, who is
kind of in charge of our group. I think that he
would be in that role.
Q Did you discuss your testimony with him
at all?
A No.
Q Which version of the Bible do you
read?
A Currently, I'm reading the New Interna-
tional version.
Q Have you read any other versions?
A Yes.
Q Which ones?
MR. WILLIAMS: You mean entirely?
MR. LAHIFF: No.
In part.
A Many other versions.
Q Could you identify them for me?
Frair 106
A King James Version, Revised Standard
Version.
Q Any other versions?
A American Standard.
Q Any others?
A Living Bible.
Q Have you read each of these in full,
or only in part?
A I think I've read them in full.
Q Have you read any other versions?
A Yes.
Q Which versions?
A I've read Goodspeed. I've read the
Williams translation; Philips translation of the
New Testament.
Q I didn't know there were so many.
How often do you read the Bible?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think he's answered
earlier that he read it daily, I believe, or
almost daily.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q You do read the Bible daily, or almost
daily?
A Yes.
Frair 107
Q Do you, as a scientist, consult the
Bible?
A No.
Q Do you consider the Bible to be a
source of personal revelation?
A Yes.
Q Is a belief in evolution inconsistent
with a commitment to God?
A No.
Many evolutionists do not feel that it
is.
Q Do you consider it to be inconsistent
with a commitment to God?
A Not necessarily.
Q Would you elaborate on what you mean
by "not necessarily"?
A It could be for some people.
Q Which people?
A People who use evolution as a substitute
for religion.
Q Do you believe that the choice between
either creation-science or evolution to be an act of
faith?
A Basically, yes.
Frair 108
Q Does the Bible predict future events?
A Yes.
Q What events does it predict?
A Christ is coming back.
Q Any other events?
A Yes.
Q What other events?
A It predicted that Israel would return
to their land.
Q Anything else that you are aware of?
Any other predictions?
A There are other predictions mentioned
in the Book of Revelations, for instance.
Q What events does that predict?
A Some things that will be associated
with end times.
Q What kind of events are associated with
end times?
A Judgement.
Q Do you consider the Bible to be a source
of scientific learning?
A No.
Q Has the Bible ever been an inspiration
for your research?
Frair 109
A Indirectly, yes.
Q How, indirectly?
A It has.
Because I believe the Bible, I have
studied into some matters that I probably would not
have studied otherwise.
Q Such as?
A Matters regarding creation and evolution.
Q Specifically, what matters involving
creation and evolution?
A What model should I hold, creation
model or evolution model.
Q Has the Bible ever given you a specific
project to investigate?
A I know that it has for some people,
but I can't say that it has for me.
Q Has it ever suggested methods of inves-
tigation?
A Not directly.
Q Could you elaborate on that?
A I have learned certain scientific
procedures which I don't find in the Bible.
Q Such as?
A My biochemical taxonomy work. The tools
Frair 110
I use have been learned in science classes, university
classes.
Q But, how does that relate to the Bible?
A It doesn't.
You asked me if I had obtained any of
the methodology in my science from the Bible; is that
right?
Q Right.
And, I understood you to say, "indirectly
A Well, indirectly, in that I'm concerned
about what is the best view to hold creation model,
evolution model.
So, this inspires me to follow procedures
that can help me in understanding that.
Q How does the Bible have an impact on
which model you choose?
A Well, if it weren't for the fact that I
believed the Bible, I probably wouldn't concern myself
as much about this issue.
Q Do you believe that the Bible is
scientifically true?
A I don't recognize scientific errors
in the Bible.
Q What description of scientific processes
Frair 111
or events are set forth in the Bible?
A I have to think about that a little bit
more.
Q If in an experiment, you derive some
data which was in conflict with the scientific truths
expressed in the Bible, what would you do?
A I'd continue my studies, looking into
it in more detail.
Q What is your political affiliation?
A I vote for candidates who I think are
best in the office.
Q Are you a member of the Moral Majority?
A I'm a registered Republican.
Q Are you a member of the Moral Majority?
A I get their publications, or I get some-
thing from them.
Q Have you had any contact with any of
the defendants in this case?
A No.
Except as we talked about earlier,
I was called my Mr. Humphries on the phone.
Q Mr. Humphries isn't a defendant.
MR. WILLIAMS: He's talking about
counsel for the defendants.
Frair 112
THE WITNESS: Who are the defendants?
MR. WILLIAMS: He can show you.
Q I'll show you a copy of a motion to
intervene as parties defendant, and ask you if you
had any contact with the defendants or applicants for
intervention.
(Handing to witness)
A Have I had any contact with these
people?
MR. WILLIAMS: Except for the State
of Arkansas.
A (Continuing)
I don't know any of these people.
Q The next page has a reference to
applicants for intervention.
Have you had any contact with any of
those individuals?
A I don't recognize any of these names.
Q Have you ever had any contact with an
individual by the name of Wendell Bird?
A I heard him speak last summer.
Q But, have you had any contact with
him about this case?
A No.
Frair 113
Q Have you had any contact with an indi-
vidual by the name of John Whitehead?
A No.
Q Have you ever testified before in any
court proceedings?
A No.
Q Have you ever testified in any legisla-
tive proceeding?
A No.
Q Have you ever testified in any administra
tive proceeding?
A No.
Q Before any school boards?
A No.
Q Have you ever participated in any
debates dealing with creation-science?
A yes.
Q Where were those debates held, or where
was that debate held?
A I guess you could call it a debate,
but I was in a meeting in Philadelphia about eight years
ago.
Q Who participated?
A There was an evolutionist named
Frair 114
Roellig, R-O-E-L-L-I-G.
He represented evolution. I represented
creation.
Q Who sponsored the debate?
A I think it was -- the Christian Medical
Society was there, and there may have been another
sponsor, as well.
Q What is the Christian Medical Society?
A It's an organization mostly of physicians
who are conservative Christians.
Q Does it take a position on the creation-
science model?
A I don't think so.
Q It has in the past at least sponsored
one debate?
A It has just a regular meeting, and they
were discussing the issue.
Q Are there any transcripts available of
that?
A I don't know.
Q Were you paid for your appearance?
A I forget.
I think they paid my expenses.
Q Are you receiving any remuneration for
Frair 115
your testimony today?
A No.
Q Are your expenses being paid?
A Yes.
Q Are you receiving any remuneration for
your testimony at the trial?
A Not that I know of.
Q Are your expenses being paid?
A I hope so.
Q Have you ever been arrested?
A Not for other than speeding.
Do you call that being arrested?
Q Were you arrested, or did you just re-
ceive a ticket?
A Just a ticket, that's all.
I've never been put in jail, if that's
what you mean.
Q Do you consider yourself to be a crea-
tion scientist?
A Yes.
Q Why do you consider yourself to be a
creation scientist?
A Primarily because I hold to a limited
change model.
Frair 116
Q Any other reasons?
A That's the main reason.
Q Do you believe yourself to be a crea-
tion scientist because of your belief in the inerrancy
of the Bible?
A No.
Q Could you define creation-science as
you practice it?
A Creation-science is the hypothetical
or the theory that basic groups of organisms are not
genetically related.
Q Are there any other elements to the
creation-science model?
MR. WILLIAMS: Your question was as
he practices it?
Q The first question was as he practices.
Now I'm asking: Are there any other
elements to the creation-science model?
A It can include other aspects, yes.
Q Do you know if your testimony will be
limited to a description or a discussion of the limited
change model?
A I don't know.
Depending on what I get asked, I suppose.
Frair 117
Q Do you have any expertise in any of
the other elements of the creation-science model?
A I'm not a geologist. I'm not a cos-
mogonist.
I'm a biologist. That's all. That's
where my expertise lies.
Q Have you always been a creation scien-
tist?
A I would say no.
Q When did you become a creation scientist?
A I believe my thinking on this was solidi-
fied during the 1950's, after reading certain materials.
Q What materials did you read?
A Frank L. Marsh's book, Evolution, Crea-
tion and Science. John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis and
Evolution.
Q Did any particular event precipitate
or act as a significant cause for your becoming a
creation scientist?
A Well, I think I had to have some kind
of a position, because I have a position on the Bible.
I had to have a position on the way I
viewed living things.
Q Do you consider your becoming a creation
Frair 118
scientist as involving a religious experience?
A No.
No, I don't.
Q Do you do work in the field of creation-
science?
A I do scientific research, and the results
of my research can be interpreted by those who study it.
Q Do you consider evolution to be a science
A It can be considered a science in the
same sense that creation is.
Q What are the attributes of science?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think we went over
that this morning.
MR. LAHIFF: This morning, we described
what scientific methodology was.
I'd like to know what the attributes
of science are.
A Are you looking for a definition of
science?
Q Do you consider one of the attributes
of science to be falsifiability?
A Yes.
Q Observability?
A Yes.
Frair 119
Q What about testability?
A Yes.
Q What about predictability?
A Yes. Definitely.
Q Are there any other attributes of the
science other than the ones that I've mentioned?
A You said "observability"?
Q I did.
A Observability, testability, falsifiabi-
lity, and predictability.
That covers it quite well.
Q Does evolution measure up to those
attributes which we've just been talking about?
A The problem comes with the testability.
Q What's the problem with testability?
A Because it's a historic event, and we
cannot test an historic event using a scientific method.
Q Does creation-science measure up to the
attributes of the science that we've just discussed?
A In the same sense that "evolution-
science" would.
Q Is there any fact or series of facts
that would lead you to doubt the validity of the crea-
tion-science model?
Frair 120
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
a fact that he presently knows, or any con-
ceivable set of facts?
MR. LAHIFF: Any conceivable set of
facts.
A I mean, as far as I presently know, I
would say -- I'd have to say no. No.
Say the question again, would you please?
MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat the ques-
tion?
(Question read by the Court Reporter.)
A Yes, I would say it was.
Q What are those facts?
A These would be facts which could demon-
strate the genetic continuity between groups.
Q Do you believe that creation-science
and evolution-science are equally non-scientific with
respect to the fact they can't be tested?
A Yes.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to take a little
break.
I think that I'll be done in a little
bit.
(Recess taken)
Frair 121
(After recess)
Q What book or books would you consider
representative of the creation-science viewpoint?
MR. WILLIAMS: Creation-science view-
point at large, or as opposed to under Act 590?
A I think that we have referred to some of
them in the bibliography of our book.
Q Could you just give me the names of
them, please?
A Yes.
The Zimmerman series of books. They
are the best.
Q This morning, I asked you about books
that you would consider authoritative, and you identi-
fied Scientific Creations by Henry Morris.
Would that book be considered represen-
tative, as well?
A It represents a more narrower view than
may be given in some other books.
Q But, it is representative of creation-
science?
A It represents a good many creation
scientists, but it is not as general as some of the books
like those of Zimmerman or of Klotz.
Frair 122
Klotz is another good one.
Q Could you give me the title of that,
please?
A Genes, Genesis and Evolution.
Q If I wanted to learn about creation-
science, what books would you recommend to me?
A Are you coming at this from the stand-
point of a scientist?
Q Non-scientist; a layman.
A From the standpoint of Christianity or
just general knowledge?
Q Just general knowledge?
A I think I probably would recommend as
a first book, Parker's book.
I don't remember the title of it.
A new book that deals with the subject.
Q Do you have any idea of what the title
might be?
A I can get it for you.
Q Could you?
Do you know of any creation-science
books that reflect the creation-science model as
described in Act 590?
A Please repeat that question.
Frair 123
(Record read)
A I think Henry Morris' book, Scientific
Creationism, would be one that would do that.
That's one of them.
Q How would creation-science be taught
in a classroom?
A It would depend somewhat on responsibi-
lity of the teacher to inform himself about the position.
Q Have you ever taught a course in crea-
tion-science?
A Yes.
Q What courses have you taught?
A I teach a course entitled "Creation and
Evolution".
Q Is that the only course that you've
ever taught dealing with creation-science?
A Well, over the years, I've taught dif-
ferent courses, but this is a current course that we
offer at our college.
Q What textbook do you use?
A We utilize some creation literature
and evolution literature.
Q Which creation-science literature do
you utilize?
Frair 124
A In one assignment, they are required to
read the "American Biology Teacher" article by Duane
Gish on creation.
And, they are also required to read an
article by D.B. Zhansky entitled "Nothing Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution".
So, they get both sides of the question.
Q Do they read any other creation-science
material?
A My book is utilized.
Q Do you believe that the Bible is evidence
of creation?
A That the Bible is?
Q Evidence, a piece of evidence.
MR. WILLIAMS: Scientific evidence,
you mean?
MR. LAHIFF: Yes.
A No. No.
I said that before.
Q Does the creation-science model require
the suspension of natural laws or processes?
A It certainly suggests something special
happened at the start.
Q What's "the start"?
Frair 125
A When these organisms appeared.
Q Under the creation-science model, how
did they appear?
A They're here, and before that, they
weren't here.
Q Did God create them under the creation-
science model?
A No.
Not necessarily.
Q Do you personally believe that God
created them?
A You're asking me --
Q Your personal belief.
A I think I've stated that in print.
Q As a scientist, are you aware of any
evidence of the suspension of natural laws or processes?
A Scientists -- science or scientists
operate on the basis of faith in these laws, and this
is the whole basis of science.
Q Could you define "religion" for me,
please?
MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think this
witness is competent to make a definition or
give a definition of "religion".
Frair 126
He is a scientist.
MR. LAHIFF: Again, based on his member-
ship in some of these evangelical associations,
and his long study of the Bible, I think he's
competent to define "religion".
MR. WILLIAMS: He stated that he was
accepted for membership in those societies or
organizations not on the basis, necessarily, of
his religious beliefs, but some of his training
and some of his other background that he had.
MR. LAHIFF: I think that his training
would qualify him as an expert.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would point out that
his last formal course that he said that he took
was at undergraduate school.
Q Whether you're an expert or not, could
you define "religion" for me?
A The philosophy of life, the main philo-
sophy of life.
The person's -- the guiding philosophy
of his life.
Q The guiding philosophy of life is
religion?
A I'm thinking about that.
Frair 127
Q Are you nodding your head "yes,"
that you do consider that a definition?
A Yes, yes, I do.
Q Is it necessary to have any reference
to a creator in a religion?
A No.
Q Do you consider evolution to be a religion
A It can be.
Q How can it be a religion?
A If a man or if a person uses it as the
guiding philosophy of his life.
Q Who are the authorities who agree with
your understanding of the limited change model?
A Are you talking about secular authorities
or religious authorities?
Q I'd like both, secular and religious.
A Okay.
Q Why don't you give us the secular authori-
ties first?
A Leo F. Berg, B-E-R-G, Nomogenesis or
Evolution Determined by Lay; Austin H. Clark, Zoogenesis;
another one would be Herbert Nilsson, N-I-L-S-S-O-N,
Synthetische Art Bildung.
Kerkut is another one.
Frair 128
Well, Kerkut.
Q Kerkut is an evolutionist; isn't he?
A Well, I guess he is, but he's not happy
with it.
I've tried to give ones that were, had
more consistence with the limited change, but strictly
on the scientific work, no religion whatsoever involved
in their work, to my way of thinking.
Q Is it limited to the three authors that
you've just mentioned?
A No.
But, they are outstanding.
Q Which religious authors agree with your
description of the limited change model?
A There are many.
Q Could you give a few examples?
A Here's one, Ritland, R-I-T-L-A-N-D,
A Search for Meaning and Nature.
That is the title of his book.
The book by Gary Parker.
Q That was the book that you discussed
earlier, the title of which you could not recall?
A That's right.
I think the Zimmerman series would be
Frair 129
consistent with that approach.
Q Have you ever heard any creation scientist
say the creation-science is a ploy to spread the faith?
A I don't think I directly have heard that.
Q Indirectly, have you heard that?
A There may be some who are using it that
way.
Q Do you use it that way?
A Basically, no.
Q Could you elaborate on that?
What do you mean by "basically, no"?
A I think of this as a model for understand-
ing the past history, and when I deal with this subject,
it's with that approach.
Q With what approach?
A With expressing it in terms of understand-
ing what happened in the past and how organisms are sup-
posed to be thought out today.
But, I'm a scientist, and I think of it
in that light.
Q But, do you think that it is useful in
spreading the faith?
A I know of some evolutionists who use
that doctrine to spread atheistic humanism.
Frair 130
Q I'm not speaking about evolutionists
who attempt to spread atheistic humanism.
Do you believe the creation-science
model is useful in spreading your Christian Faith?
MR. WILLIAMS: In other words, you're
saying one of the purposes?
You're saying is it useful?
Q Is it useful?
MR. WILLIAMS: As opposed to can it be
used for that, without consideration of whether
that is a proper use of it?
MR. LAHIFF: Right.
A I don't make a point of using this.
Q But, have you?
A Have I?
Q Yes.
Have you?
You said that you don't make a point of
it?
A I don't make a practice of it.
I'm trying to think about this a little
bit more. I want to give you a fair answer.
The answer is no to that.
Q The three books that you've described
Frair 131
as agreeing with your position, authored by Berg,
Clark, and Nilsson, are they in general circulation
and usage?
A Clark is an older book.
Yes, Bert, and as far as I know,
Nilsson is.
Q Are they generally accepted?
A They are not well-known by the scientific
community.
Q But, are they generally accepted by the
scientific community?
A As far as I know, when they read them.
These men were all competent scientists.
Q I gather if they're not generally known,
then they can't be generally accepted?
A Yes.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as
Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 a photocopy of the book
that you brought with you to the deposition
today, The Case for Creation, co-authored by
Wayne Frair and P. William Davis, with Bates
numbers 135031 through 135078.
(Photocopy of book entitled The Case
for Creation marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for
Frair 132
Identification.)
Q On Page 7, the second paragraph, the
last two lines read:
"The doctrine of evolution in its
present form is the creation of men of genius.
To underestimate it and its impact is danger-
ous."
What do you mean by that?
A You must remember that this book was
written for -- primarily for Christians. It contains
accurate scientific information.
And, we're considering here a philoso-
phy of evolution as extended to the field of religion.
Q Is there some distinction between your
writings for Christians and your writings for scientists?
A Yes.
Q What is the distinction?
A This book was designed for a more
general audience. It's less technical.
Q Is that the only distinction between
when you address a Christian audience and a scientific
audience, the level of the sophistication of the material
presented?
A It depends on what I'm discussing in
Frair 133
front of the scientific audience.
Q What do you mean by "the impact of
evolution is dangerous"?
A If it becomes a religion.
Q Is evolution now a religion?
A For some people.
Q Creation-science is not a religion?
A No.
Q Why is creation-science not a religion
and evolution is?
A I'd have to think about that some more.
Creation-science could be consistent
with many formal religions.
Q Which formal religions could it be con-
sistent with?
A Any formal religion that recognizes some
power beyond nature.
Q Isn't the creation-science model consist-
ent only with religions which believe in the literal
account of creation?
MR. WILLIAMS: Which account?
Q (Continuing)
In Genesis?
A No.
Frair 134
Absolutely not. Not at all.
Q Do you believe that science cannot give
man an understanding of the universe?
A The scientific method is very valuable
for understanding the universe.
It's a valuable tool.
Q But, do you believe that only God or
the Creator can know the universe as it really is?
A Science is an approach. Science deals
with statistical probabilities.
In other words, there's a percentage of
doubt in science.
Q You have written, however, on Page 18
of your book, which you co-authored, The Case for
Creation, that:
"As Christians, we believe that only
God can know the universe as it really is."
A I believe that.
I am speaking there as a Christian,
however.
Q Does your Christian faith put any
limits on you as a scientist?
A No.
My Christian faith is an encouragement
Frair 135
to understand it.
Q I don't mean to be rude or argue, but
you state that "only God can know the universe as it
really is," and, yet, you also say that your Christian
faith doesn't put any limits on you as a scientist.
How can both of those statements be
reconciled?
A Perhaps, I should back off of that.
My Christian faith would not permit me
to infringe on the rights of other people on the basis
of science.
Q I don't understand what you mean by
that answer.
A There have been people in the past who
have abused other members of mankind in order to obtain
scientific information.
I, as a Christian, would be prohibited
from that type of research.
Q How many views of the origin and develop-
ment of life are there?
MR. WILLIAMS: Scientific or religious?
MR. LAHIFF: Scientific.
A Basically, there would be two.
Q What are those two?
Frair 136
A Creation and evolution.
Q Which of those two views do you accept?
A Creation.
Q What do you understand by "creation"
then?
MR. WILLIAMS: You answered that ques-
tion already.
A Groups or organisms not genetically
connected.
Q That's "creation"?
A That's a limited-kind model.
Q I asked you what creation is, not for
what a limited-kind model, but what is creation?
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
creation in the sense of creation-science, or
are you talking about creation in the sense of
religion?
Q You testified that there are only two
processes, evolution or creation?
A Yes.
Q What is creation?
A Creation is a model that involves a
starting point for organisms which are not connected,
they didn't come from common ancestors.
Frair 137
Q Who or what created them?
A I think creation implies that there's
something beyond matter.
Q What beyond matter?
A A force, a power, something that was
active there at that time.
Q Was that force or matter a natural
process, something that could be understood by a
scientist?
A I think there's an implication in the
creation that there could be something that would extend
beyond science.
I don't want to rule out the possibility
of understanding more than we do.
Q But, at some point, science can take us
no further, and faith begins?
A In a sense, that's true.
Q In what sense is it true?
A In the sense that science deals with
material that's observable -- that's obtainable through
the senses.
Q On Page 79 of your book, the first
paragraph, the last two sentences of the first paragraph,
you quote such a theory, and in the context of this
Frair 138
paragraph, you state:
"An alternative to evolution to be
adequate, must take full account of all
scientific data, and if it is to be Christian,
it must additionally accept and build upon
biblical revelation as valid information."
A I believe that.
Q Do you believe that the creation-science
model is Christian?
A No. Absolutely not.
Q Do you believe the creation-science
model is an alternative to evolution?
A Of course.
Q I'll be honest with you, I don't under-
stand how you can write that first paragraph and then
not admit that the creation-science model is Christian
and builds upon biblical revelation.
A Such a theory to be adequate, must take
account of all scientific data.
You can have a Christian -- you can have
a creation model built upon the scientific data.
Q That is not Christian?
A That's right.
That's what we have with your 590.
Frair 139
To me, that's very clear.
Q But, it does make reference to creation?
A Yes.
Q And to the sudden creation of the universe,
energy and life from nothing?
A What does that have to do with Christianity
Q I'm asking you.
Does it have anything to do with Chris-
tianity?
A No.
Not necessarily.
It may be consistent with a Christian
position, but there's no compulsion to go from that to
Christianity.
Remember, this book is written for
Christians. You can have the creation position as stated
in that law without Christianity at all.
You can belong to another religion or
no religion.
I mean, you'd have, I think, to recognize
something there at the start.
Q Can you have reference to a Creator and
not have it be religious in content?
A Let us say philosophical rather than
Frair 140
religious.
Religion is a more personal thing, and
I think you can.
Q What is evangelical research?
A Where are you looking?
Q Page 82, second paragraph, first sentence.
A This would be research carried on by
conservative Christians.
Q Have you ever conducted any evangelical
research?
A Yes.
Q What research?
A In the sense I just described it, I can
consider my research that type of research.
Q Yet, you still have no idea what a
"kind" is?
A I didn't say I had no idea what a "kind"
is.
Q Can you point to a "kind"?
A I already mentioned mankind.
Q Isn't there scientific evidence that
shows that mankind is related to other creatures?
A There's a big gap that exists between
man and --
Frair 141
Q But, isn't there evidence that shows
that man is related to other living creatures?
A There's evidence which some people
interpret to indicate that man bears a genetic rela-
tionship to organisms.
Q Is there any evidence to the contrary?
A I think --
Q I'm not talking now about a different
interpretation of the evidence.
But, is there any evidence to the con-
trary?
A To me, the gap between mankind and apes
is very significant.
MR. LAHIFF: I have no further questions.
MR. WILLIAMS: No questions.
(End of proceedings)
.o0o.
__________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this___day of_____________, 1981.
_________________________________
November 25, 1981 142
I N D E X
WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
Wayne Frair Mr. Williams 3
EXHIBITS
PLAINTIFFS' FOR ID.
1 Defendants; list of witnesses. 7
2 Copy of Act 590. 33
3 Article entitled The Proto-
stomia-Deuterostomia Theory. 78
4 Copy of Dr. Wayne Frair's
curriculum vitae. 79
5 Application for Admission to
the Creation Research Society. 91
6 Copy of Case For Creation 131
143
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
I,Perry Auerbach, a Notary Public, duly qualifie
to act in and for the City of New York in the County of N
York, State of New York, do hereby certify that the witne
WAYNE FRAIR, was by me first duly sworn
according to law, to testify to the truth, the whole trut
and nothing but the truth, relating to said cause; that
deposition of the said witness was taken down by me
stenographically and reduced to typewriting under my
supervision and control; that there was an appearance on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and appearance on behalf of the
defendants;
That the said deposition was taken at the offices
Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 919 Third Avenue,
New York, New York, on the 25th day of November, 1981,
at 9:45 a.m., and that the foregoing testimony is a
complete, true and correct transcript of the testimony
given by the witness;
That I am not interested in the outcome of this
action or related to any of the parties or counsel.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 26th day of November, 1981.
_______________________________
Perry Auerbach, CSR, RPR