IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
- - -
REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al.,)
)
Plaintiffs,)
)
vs. ) NO. LR-C-81-322
)
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et )
al., )
)
Defendants.)
_____________________________)
DEPOSITION OF
DR. MARGARET HELDER
Tuesday, November 17, 1981
Reported by:
CAROLINE ANDERSON, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1903, and
DEAN MC DONALD, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1869
2
I N D E X
PAGE
DEPOSITION OF DR. MARGARET HELDER
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE 5
- - -
EXHIBITS
Plaintiffs'
1 Copy of curriculum vitae of
Dr. Margaret Helder 5
2 Copy of one-page published letter
to the editors of Discovery
Magazine 59
3A, 3B Two pages of drawings of algae 87
- - -
3
BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of
Taking Deposition, and on Tuesday, November 17, 1981,
commencing at the hour of 9:45 o'clock a.m. thereof, at
the offices of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market
Plaza, San Francisco, California, before us, CAROLINE
ANDERSON and DEAN MC DONALD, Certified Shorthand
Reporters and Notaries Public in and for the State of
California, personally appeared
DR. MARGARET HELDER,
called as a witness herein, who, being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.
- - -
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by STEPHEN
G. WOLFE, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.
KAPLAN, HOLLINGSWORTH, BREWER & BILHEIMER, The
Tower Building, Suite 955, Fourth and Center Streets,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, represented by PHILIP E.
KAPLAN, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.
STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,
represented by DAVID WILLIAMS and CALLIS L. CHILDS,
Deputy Attorneys General, appeared as counsel on
behalf of the defendants.
4
SUSAN STURM and BRUCE ENNIS, Attorneys at Law,
American Civil Liberties Union, 132 W. 43rd Street,
Seventh Floor, New York, New York 10036, appeared as
counsel on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Also present: Dr. James Hickman and Dr. George
Carroll.
- - -
5
MR. WOLFE: The stipulations which govern the
deposition will be that the witness need not sign her
deposition before the same Notary who took it and that
all objections except those as to form of the question
are reserved to the time of trial.
Plaintiffs have requested that the witness review
and correct and sign the deposition within five days of
receipt of the original, and the position of plaintiffs
is that if that proves to be impossible, plaintiffs
are entitled to use the deposition as though that had
happened after five days.
- - -
DR. MARGARET HELDER,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE:
MR. WOLFE: Q. Please state your name and address
for the record.
A. Margaret Helder; **** **** ******, ********,
*******,******.
MR. WOLFE: I will ask the reporter to mark as
Helder Deposition Exhibit 1 a copy of the curriculum
vitae provided to us by the defendants.
[Copy of curriculum vitae of
Dr. Margaret Helder was marked
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for
identification.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, I will show you Exhibit 1
6
and ask you if you recognize it.
A. Yes.
MR. CHILDS: Steve, I would like to say one thing
just for the record, and I probably won't say anything
else, and that is that Dr. Helder made available this
morning at approximately 9:00 o'clock or thereabouts all
the documents which she felt were responsive to the
request that had been relayed to her by Tim Humphries
of our office and that you all do have those available
to you during the day for her deposition today.
MR. WOLFE: Yes, that's right. We received them
at approximately 9:00 this morning.
MR. CHILDS: And we requested that they not be
copied during the day so that you all would not be at
a disadvantage, that we want them to be available to you
to question her about them.
MR. WOLFE: Very good.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, did you prepare the
curriculum vitae, Exhibit 1?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, have you studied at any colleges
other than those listed on the vitae?
A. No.
Q. Have you had any educational training since
the granting of your Ph.D.?
A. As stated, I did postdoctoral research two
years. Then I was hired as an assistant professor, so
7
the answer is no.
Q. Doctor, can you tell me what the National
Research Council is?
A. Yes.
The National Research Council is the government
granting agency from the federal government, and most
research in Canada is funded either by the National
Research Council or by the Medical Research Council.
Most medical research would get Medical Council
research grants and just pure research would get National
Council grants.
Q. Doctor, your answer might have been somewhat
ambiguous. The National Research Council is an agency
of the Canadian federal government?
A. That is right.
Q. Are research grants from the National Research
Council competitive grants?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Can you tell me approximately how many
graduate students were at the University of Western
Ontario in the years that you were studying there for
your Ph.D.?
A. Botany graduate students? 60?
I have no idea. It was a lot.
Q. 60 is the best approximation you can make?
8
A. 60 would be conservative.
Q. Are you able to approximate how many of those
60 graduate students would have had research grants from
the National Research Council?
A. Do you mwan scholarships?
Q. Well, let me withdraw that question and ask
another.
Can you distinguish for me, please, a research
grant and a scholarship grant?
A. Research grants go only to faculty. A
scholarship grant goes to support a graduate student.
The research grant to a faculty member goes to
undergraduates, plus a research grant can be used to pay
a graduate student, but the graduate students can only
get scholarships for studentship.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, were any of your
degrees granted with honors?
A. With honors? I don't know what the
classification for my Ph.D. was except that the outside
examining professor said that it was one of the best
theses he had ever read, and the examining professor
from the university said that it was one of the best
defenses they had ever read, so I assume that it would
have been given a very good grade; but we aren't
informed. You get your Ph.D. or you don't. So I don't
know what grade I would have got.
My Bachelor's degree was an honors degree, which
9
means that it's more difficult than a pass degree; but
we don't have cum laude, that sort of stuff that you
hear about in the states.
My outside examining professor was Dr. F. K.
Sparrow from the University of Michigan. He is deceased,
however, so you can't consult him, but that is who it
was.
Q. Doctor, could you describe the responsibilities
of your position as assistant professor in bioscience
at Brock University?
A. That is a typical faculty position.
I would have had all the responsibilities of any
other faculty member.
Associate professor means rank and, of course, you
come in at the rank of assistant professor.
I taught courses; I directed fourth-year research
programs for honors courses; I had a graduate student;
I conducted my own research; I sat on faculty committees.
Whatever any other faculty member did, I did.
Q. Were the courses that you taught graduate
or undergraduate courses?
A. They were undergraduate courses.
We did not teach -- in Canada you do not teach
graduate courses, as such. Graduate students do
research, but they do not take courses that are listed
as graduate courses in most cases.
Q. I believe you said earlier that you
supervised the research of one graduate student.
10
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And were your duties any different while you
served as a part-time lecturer?
A. Oh, yes. A part-time lecturer only lectures
in set courses.
Q. And were you doing research on your own at
the time that you were a part-time lecturer?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, is the University of Western Ontario
accredited by a Canadian accrediting body?
A. The University of Western Ontario is one of
the five top universities in Canada, probably ranks
about three or four.
Q. Doctor, do you know whether it's accredited
by an accrediting body, and if you do, can you tell me
which one?
A. Of course, it's accredited. I don't know
what the proceedings in Canada for accrediting are
except that, as I said, it is one of the top
universities.
A degree from Western Ontario is a really good
degree.
Q. Is Brock University accredited by an
accrediting body?
A. It has the same status as any other university
in Ontario. It's a small university so that it's not
as prestigious, but a degree -- it's a university run
by the Province of Ontario as are all the other
11
universities in Ontario.
Q. I take it then that you do not know the name
of any accrediting body that has accredited Brock
University?
A. I do not know how universities are
accredited in Canada.
Ok, I think they get a charter. It would have
whatever a university is supposed to have, however.
Q. Doctor, while you were assistant professor
at Brock University, did you have a writing or
publishing obligation?
A. It's considered a good thing to publish.
There is nothing that says you must publish within such
and such a time, but most people do try to publish.
Q. Have you ever been tenured in any of your
positions?
A. No.
Tenure would come after four years full-time
appointment at any given institution. I wasn't there
that long.
Q. So that you were never eligible for tenure?
A. I was never eligible.
Q. Doctor, did you ever study at any universities
other than the two listed on your vitae?
A. I took one course in mathematics one summer
at the University of Manitoba.
Q. Did you ever leave any university in the
midst of a course of study?
12
A. No.
Q. Was your Ph.D. thesis published, Dr. Helder?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Dr. Helder, have you ever made any grant
applications which were not funded?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been subject to academic
discipline?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been subject to any professional
action by a professional group?
A. No.
Q. Could you describe for me the membership
criteria and the purposes of the American Society of
Limnology and Oceanography?
A. The American Society of Limnology and
Oceanography is made up of people who study freshwater
biology, which is limnology, and oceanography, which
is biology in the ocean.
Physical processes would be included in limnology,
so physics and biology and chemistry -- so physics,
biology, chemistry, freshwater and biology and
chemistry of the oceans.
Mainly the membership would be American scientists,
but, of course, there are a sprinkling of Canadians,
as well.
You have to have the signatures of two members in
good standing to join.
13
Q. How long have you been a member of the
American Society?
A. I guess since '67, either '66 or '67.
Q. Do you recall who your sponsors for membership
were?
A. Yes.
It was Dr. Hamish Duffy, who is a limnologist on
the faculty of the University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, and a graduate student of his whose name I
wouldn't know.
Q. Is there any classification of membership
within the American Society which is honorary or
elective?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Have you ever been an officer of the American
Society?
A. No.
Q. Do you know approximately how many members
the American Society has?
A. Hundreds.
I have no idea.
There is a membership list that comes out every
several years, and it's thick like this [indicating] and
might be even thousands, for all I know.
Q. Would you describe for me the membership
criteria and the purposes of the Creation Science
Association of Alberta.
A. The purpose of the Creation Science
14
Association of Alberta is to inform the public of the
merits, scientific merits of the Creationist's position
and to promote the inclusion of the scientific merits
of Creationism in educational institutions; so it's
educational and informative.
Q. How long have you been a member of the
Creation Science Association?
A. Since 1978.
Q. Is membership in the Creation Science
Association sponsored?
A. No.
Q. Do you know how many members there are?
A. I do not know.
Q. Can you approximate the size of the
membership?
A. It would be in the hundreds.
Q. Do you know when the Creation Science
Association was founded?
A. Yes.
It was founded in 1975.
Q. Have you ever held any office within the
Association other than vice president?
A. No.
Q. How long have you been vice president?
A. '79, I think.
Q. Does the Creation Science Association publish
a journal?
A. Yes. We publish Creation Dialogue.
15
Q. How long has that been published?
A. Since 1975.
Q. Does the association have a full-time staff?
A. No. It's all volunteer.
Q. Will you tell me who the editor of Creation
dialogue is.
A. It's a chap called Ronald Bellamy.
Q. Is Creation Dialogue a referreed journal?
A. Of course not.
Q. Doctor, is the Canadian Journal of Botany a
referreed journal?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the Journal of Development in Industrial
Microbiology referreed?
A. Yes, as far as I know.
I know it was read, so I assume it's referreed,
but I don't know for sure.
Q. Doctor, have you any publications that are
not listed in the publications list in your vitae?
A. There is one.
Q. What is that, please.
A. In our church periodical, a very obscure
periodical, and you have it in your file.
Q. Could you tell me the name of the church
periodical.
A. Clarion.
Q. And by what church is that published?
A. The Canadian Reformed.
16
Q. Can you tell me the title of the paper?
A. Well, if you had the paper in front of me,
I could tell you.
Q. I'm sorry that I don't.
MR. CHILDS: It's one of the documents she made
available this morning.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Do you know the subject matter of
the paper?
A. Environmental issues.
Q. Doctor, have you ever had a paper submitted
for publication which was rejected?
A. No.
Q. Are you a member of any scientific societies
other than the two listed on your vitae?
A. I have been a member of the Canadian
Botanical Association.
I didn't pay my dues for the last year, so I don't
know whether I qualify as a member or not.
Q. Are there any others?
A. I did belong to the International Association
for Great Lakes Research.
Again, I haven't paid my dues for about two years,
I guess, maybe more, because we moved away from the
Great Lakes.
Q. Is membership in the Canadian Botanical
Association elective?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Is membership in the Canadian Botanical
17
Association elective?
A. No.
Q. Did it require sponsorship?
A. Normally, it does.
I was at a scientific meeting where they were
signing up graduate students, so I just got signed up.
I didn't have to go and collect signatures.
Q. When did you become a member of the Botanical
Association?
A. Have you got my vitae here?
Okay. That was in June of 1967.
Q. Is it correct that the Canadian Botanical
Association publishes the Canadian Journal of Botany?
A. No.
The National Research Council of Canada publishes
the Canadian Journal of Botany.
Q. Could you tell me the membership criteria
of the International Association for Great Lakes
Research?
A. I don't recall getting signatures.
I think anybody who is interested can sign up.
Q. Do you recall when you became a member of
the International Association?
A. I think this was in 1970.
Q. Have you ever held an office in either the
Canadian Botanical Association or International
Association for Great Lakes Research?
A. No.
18
Q. Does the International Association publish a
journal?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Do you know the name?
A. The Journal of International Association of
Great Lakes Research, a long handle.
Q. Do you know approximately how many members
the Canadian Botanical Association has?
A. That would be in the hundreds.
Canada is a small country.
Q. Do you know if there is an elective or
honorary membership classification in that association?
A. I do not think so.
Q. Doctor, have you ever sought membership in
a professional association which was denied?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had membership in a professional
association which was terminated aside from the two
possible instances that you have mentioned?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had any adjunct teaching
positions that are not listed in your vitae?
A. I don't understand what you mean.
Q. Well, I simply wonder whether you have
taught any class or seminars perhaps on a one-time
basis that may not be listed on your vitae.
A. Yes.
I lectured this summer in the Institute for Creation
19
Science at Three Hills, Alberta, and that was sponsored
by our Creation Science Association.
Q. Doctor, could you tell me the subject of
the lecture that you gave this summer.
A. You have the lecture notes that I gave to
the students.
I talked about the origin of cells in nuclei, and
the technical term is eucaryotic.
I talked about the fossil record of plants; I
talked about natural selection, and I talked about
environmental issues.
[Recess taken.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, what are the membership
requirements of the Creation Science Association of
Alberta?
A. The membership requirement is that one sign
a statement of principle and pay $5.
Q. Do the documents that you gave us this
morning include a copy of that statement of principle?
A. No.
It never occurred to me that was relevant.
Q. Are you able to recall the substance of
that statement?
A. Yes.
The statement affirms assent with the six-day
creation week, with a deluge in the time of Hoah and a
belief in Christ as savior.
Q. Okay.
20
Doctor, does the statement of principle take any
position on the literal truth of the Bible?
A. I do not recall.
Q. Does it take any position on the use of the
Bible in scientific inquiry?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, I would request that when you return
to Canada, you would make available to us a copy of
that statement of principle.
MR. CHILDS: You can send that to us to distribute.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, have you heard of the
Creation Research Society?
A. Creation Research Society -- the words
sound familiar. Where are their headquarters?
Q. Well, ma'am, they are an institution with
headquarters in San Diego, I believe.
A. There are a number of organizations that
have similar titles.
Q. Are you a member of the Creation Research
Society?
A. No.
Q. Have you heard of the Institute for Creation
Research?
A. Of course.
Q. Are you a member of that institute?
A. Of course.
Q. Are you a member of that institute?
A. No.
Q. Have you heard of the Creation Science
21
Research Center?
A. The Creation --
Q. Science Research Center.
A. Again, the words sound familiar. I do not
know if I have heard of it. I don't know where it is.
Q. I take it then that you are not a member of
that Center.
A. No.
Q. Have you heard of the Bible Science
Association?
A. I have heard of it, yes.
Q. Are you a member of the Bible Science
Association?
A. No.
Q. Have you heard of the Citizens for Fairness
in Educational?
A. The words sound familiar.
I have possibly read of it in the newspaper. I
do not know.
Q. I take it you are not a member of that
group.
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Have you heard of the Citizens for Balanced
Education as to Origin?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Doctor, are you a member of the Moral
Majority?
A. No.
22
Q. Are you a member of any Right of Life
organization?
A. No.
Q. Were you --
A. Oh, yes, I beg your pardon, we are, yes.
Right to Life, yes.
Q. Can you tell me who you meant by "we" in
your previous answer?
A. My husband and I.
Q. Can you tell me the name of the organization?
A. I can.
It's Right to Life.
Q. Do you recall how long you have been a
member?
A. Let me see.
I think that was 1977.
Q. Can you tell me what the criteria for
membership are?
A. Payment of $2.
Q. Doctor, were you listed as one of the persons
who applied to intervene in this lawsuit in July?
A. No.
Q. Were you contacted by anyone about the
possibility of being an intervenor in this action?
A. In the file that you have I received a
letter from Wendell Bird.
I think that was September.
I did not reply to it.
23
Q. Doctor, are you a member of a church?
A. Yes.
Q. What church is that?
A. Canadian Reformed Church.
Q. And when did you become a member?
A. When I got married, 1972.
I guess it was 1973.
We were married in '72 in December, and I joined
that church in '73.
Q. Is your husband a member of that church?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Had you been a member of a church prior to
your marriage?
A. Yes.
Q. What church was that?
A. Anglican.
Episcopalian, you would call it here.
Q. And how long had you been a member of the
Anglican Church?
A. Well, I was baptized when I was a baby.
Q. Have you been baptized in the Canadian
Reformed Church?
A. They baptize infants. No.
Q. Do you hold any offices in the Canadian
Reformed Church?
A. They don't let women hold office.
Q. Do you attend church services regularly?
A. Yes.
24
Q. Are you able to estimate how often on a
weekly or monthly basis?
A. Every Sunday.
Q. Do you belong to any groups or associations
within the church?
A. Yes.
It's a couples club.
Q. Are there any others?
A. That I belong to?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. No.
Q. Doctor, do you consider yourself a religious
fundamentalist?
A. Could you define the term "fundamentalist"?
Q. Well, I'm interested in your definition of
the term and whether you consider yourself to be a
religious fundamentalist by your own definition.
A. Well, as I stated, my background is
Anglican and very Anglican. I have a brother who is
an Anglican minister, and my grandfather was an
Anglican minister.
Anglicans are generally not included in the
designation "fundamentalist." Therefore, I would not
consider myself a fundamentalist.
Q. Would you say that your joining the Canadian
Reformed Church changes your opinion as to whether you
were a fundamentalist?
A. Canadian Reformed people do not like the
25
designation "fundamentalist," and they would not apply
it to themselves.
Q. Do you have a personal religious counselor
or advisor?
A. I don't know what you mean.
Q. Do you have one person to whom you look as
your personal religious advisor?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever done evangelical or conversion
work in the church?
A. Ho.
Q. Have you ever read the Bible?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know which versions of the Bible you
have read?
A. Well, at home we have the New English Bible.
We have the American Revised Standard, I think it is.
I can't remember the title exactly.
We have the Revised Standard, and we have the King
James.
Q. Doctor, could you estimate how often you
read the bible?
A. We read the bible once a day.
Q. Do you consult the Bible in your work as a
scientist?
A. No.
Q. Do you regard the Bible as a source of
personal revelation?
26
A. I don't understand what you mean.
Q. Do you regard the Bible as setting out a
code of conduct for an individual life?
A. A code of conduct, yes.
Q. Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant
or infallible?
A. Could you define that?
Q. Well, the ordinary English meaning, that is,
that the Bible has no mistakes in it and is never
wrong.
A. That is a difficult question because, of
course, there are texts. You know, different texts have
different translations, so sometimes they don't exactly
agree on the translation; but as a general principle,
I would say the Bible does not have errors, though
there might be errors in the translation in different
translations.
Q. Do you believe that the Bible is literally
true?
A. That is the same thing as the previous
question.
Yes, it is.
Q. Could you tell me why you believe that the
bible is inerrant or infallible excepting the
possibility of translation error?
A. Why --
MR. CHILDS: I will object to that as being
ambiguous.
27
I would appreciate it if you would ask her the
source of her belief, and I think without that the
question would be ambiguous.
MR. WOLFE: I accept that modification.
Q. Could you state, please, the source of your
belief that the Bible is inerrant excepting the
possibility of translation error?
A. I would say that it's a priori assumption.
Q. Doctor, I'm not certain if I understand.
Will you explain that last answer.
A. I assume the Bible to be correct. This is
what I was taught.
Q. When you say that is what you were taught,
by whom were you taught?
A. Well, one could refer to the 39 articles of
the Anglican Church.
Q. Doctor, I'm not familiar with the 39
articles of the Anglican faith.
Does one or more of those articles state that the
Bible is inerrant?
A. I haven't read them lately, but basically
that is what the 39 articles set out, is the basic
elements of the Christian faith, and that is one of
them.
Q. I see.
Do you regard belief in the inerrancy of the
Bible as a basic article of the Christian faith?
A. I would say that there are a lot of people
28
who would not think so, so it is not a sine qua non.
Q. Do you regard it as a basic aspect of the
Christian faith?
A. From a personal -- for myself I think it
important.
Q. In an earlier answer I believe you said that,
I think it was, a lot of people would not regard belief
in the inerrancy of the Bible as a basic tenet of the
Christian faith.
Did you mean a lot of Christians when you said a
lot of people?
A. Yes.
Q. Does the Canadian Reformed Church have a
view as to whether the Bible is inerrant?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. It is inerrant in the Canadian Reformed
statement of whatever.
They have three statements of principle which are
common to the Presbyterian Church.
Q. Can you tell me what the substance of each
of those is?
A. No.
Things like -- I can't even think of the names of
them -- creeds.
Q. Do you regard the Bible as a product of
divine revelation?
A. Yes.
29
Q. Do you know if that is the position of the
Canadian Reformed Church?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your understanding that the 39 articles
of the Angelican faith also regard the Bible as a product
of divine revelation?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, would your religious belief permit
you to tell a lie or a half truth in order to spread
the faith?
A. In order to --
Q. To spread the faith?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if that is the position of the
Canadian Reformed Church, as well?
A. They wouldn't be keen on telling lies.
Q. Do you know if the telling of a lie or half
truth is regarded as a different matter if it's in aid
of conversion of someone who does not --
A. It would not be looked upon with favor in
any circumstances.
[Recess taken.]
MR. CHILDS: We are going to object to anybody
being present for the deposition other than the witness
being deposed, counsel for the respective parties and
representatives of the parties.
MR. KAPLAN: The basis of the objection?
MR. CHILDS: That is what my understanding of the
30
law is.
MR. KAPLAN: I don't think there is anything in the
rules that says we cannot have a consultant with us and
our own people with us who have helped us prepare for
the deposition. I don't think there is anything in the
rules or the law that suggests we can't do that.
MR. KLASFELD: In any event, Mr. Childs has his
objection.
MR. CHILDS: Until I hear to the contrary from
David, we are not going to proceed under those
circumstances until we get a ruling from the judge.
What I would suggest is that they be absent until
the judge gives us a ruling on that.
MR. KLASFELD: Let me suggest then that we do that,
and we will just raise it with the judge at 11:30, if
you are not going to let the deposition continue.
MR. CHILDS: I researched that particular subject
five years ago, and the law I found at that time
supports me. I cannot cite it to you now.
MR. KLASFELD: Let's not delay the deposition any
longer.
MR. KAPLAN: It's only 30 minutes.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, does the Bible predict
future events?
A. Could you define what you mean by "future
events."
Q. Does the Bible state that any things are
going to happen in the future that haven't happened yet?
31
A. I think most theologians would say yes.
Q. Do you have an opinion of your own?
A. I would agree that most theologians' opinions
are correct.
Q. Do you agree because of some independent
thought or analysis on your part or merely because
most theologians say so and it must therefore be
correct?
A. I would say I agree because it is the opinion
of most theologians that that is the case.
Q. Can you name any instances that you are
aware of?
A. I would say there is only one that I can
think of, and that is that there will be an end to time.
Q. Are you aware of any instance in which the
Bible has predicted something that had not happened
yet which has happened since up to this time?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Can you recall any instance in which you
would say that the Bible 2000 years ago predicted
something that happened a thousand years ago or that
has happened up to now that is a prediction that was
made and come true?
A. No.
Q. Do you regard the Bible as a source of
scientific knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Is the Bible an inspiration to you at all
32
in your research?
A. Not in my research.
Q. Do you use it at all in your research in any
fashion?
A. No.
Q. Has the Bible ever suggested a specific
project to you for investigation?
A. No.
Q. Has the Bible ever suggested to you a
possible solution to a problem that was raised by the
research of yourself or another?
A. Not even remotely.
Q. Dr. Helder, when did you first learn about
this legal action?
A. Well, I read the newspapers last March and
they referred to a trial coming up in Arkansas. that is
when I first learned about it. All the Canadian papers
talked about it.
Q. Who first asked you whether you would be
willing to testify in this case?
A. Mr. Campbell.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was Thanksgiving, the day after
Thanksgiving in Canada, and that is around the middle
of October.
I can't recall the exact date.
I could consult a calendar and find out.
Q. Do you know how Mr. Campbell was given your
33
name?
A. Yes.
Q. How was that?
A. In your files you have a letter from Wendell
to me, which I did not reply to, but Wendell Bird gave
Mr. Campbell my name.
Q. When did you first agree to testify in this
action?
A. When Mr. Campbell phoned.
Q. That was the day after Thanksgiving?
A. That is correct.
Q. On how many occasions since then have you
talked or corresponded with someone from the Arkansas
Attorney General's office?
A. Mr. Tim Humphries phoned about my coming
for a deposition. That is the extent of my contact with
Arkansas.
Q. So that is one phone call with Mr. Campbell
and one with Mr. Humphries?
A. No. Mr. Humphries phoned once to say would
I come to San Francisco, and he phoned another time to
tell me where in San Francisco.
Q. Do you recall when those two conversations
with Mr. Humphries were?
A. I talked to Mr. Humphries this past Sunday
afternoon. I do not recall the other one.
Q. Doctor, in your phone call with Mr. Campbell
on the day after Thanksgiving, can you recall for me
34
the substance of your conversation with him, what he
said and what you said?
A. It was a very brief conversation.
He said that act, whatever had been passed, but
that a trial was coming up; would I testify on behalf
of the State; and I said yes.
Q. Did you discuss at all at that time what
your testimony might be?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, I will show you now a copy of
defendants' first list of witnesses, which is dated the
19th of October 1981 and which bears the numbered
paragraph 3, your name and address and a description of
your expected testimony.
A. That is my field.
Q. Did you ever discuss with anyone from the
Arkansas Attorney General's office the description that
would be given for your testimony?
A. I guess I said that was my field.
Q. Do you recall having had that discussion?
A. I do not recall mentioning these exact words
or any words aboutit.
Q. You don't recall such a conversation with
either Mr. Campbell or Mr. Humphries?
A. It must have been when Mr. Campbell phoned.
I must have said something about my field of expertise.
Q. But you don't actually recall that
conversation any longer?
35
A. No.
Q. Doctor, I will show you another document
which is plaintiff's first set of interrogatories, and
I ask you if you have ever seen that before.
A. No, I have not.
Q. Could you read paragraph 1A through 1D and
tell me if you have ever had any discussion with a
representative of the Arkansas Attorney Genera's office
about any of those matters?
A. As far as A is concerned, I sent them a
vitae.
We have already discussed B.
I had no discussion on C prior to last night.
and D, nothing.
Q. Doctor, do you recall when you were asked
for your vitae?
A. That was when Mr. Campbell phoned.
Q. Do you recall when you sent it?
A. I sent it several days later.
Q. Doctor, have you ever seen a list of
documents which were requested by plaintiffs from each
of the experts who were expected to testify?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you ever discussed a request for
certain documents with any representative of the Attorney
General's Office?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
36
A. Sunday afternoon.
Q. And with whom did you have that discussion?
A. Mr. Humphries.
Q. Did Mr. Humphries read to you from any
documents so far as you know?
A. I presume he was reading.
Q. Are the documents that you brought with you
today and that you gave to us a couple of hours ago all
that you know of that were relevant to the subjects that
Mr. Humphries mentioned to you on Sunday?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you ever had a discussion about a
request for documents prior to this past Sunday?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, are you being paid for testimony
in this action?
A. No.
Q. Are any of your fees or expenses being
reimbursed?
A. My expenses are being paid.
Q. What expenses, Doctor?
A. Air fare and hotel accommodations and taxis.
Q. Do you know by whom they are being repaid
to you?
A. I presume the State of Arkansas.
Q. Has anyone told you who will be paying?
A. The State of Arkansas.
Q. I'm not certain that I understand.
37
Are you saying that the State of Arkansas -- do
you recall what individual spoke to you about the subject
of your being reimbursed?
A. Mr. Campbell.
Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. When he phoned.
Q. That day after Canadian Thanksgiving?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, I will give you a calendar now and
ask if you can recall which day your discussion with
Mr. Campbell may have been.
A. It was either the 6th or the 13th of
October. I do not know which one of those dates.
Q. Doctor, I believe you mentioned earlier a
discussion last evening.
Did you have any discussion last evening with anyone
from the Arkansas Attorney General's office?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell me the substance of that
conversation?
A. Well, I have never had any experience with
litigation whatsoever. I had never heard of a
deposition before. So Mr. Campbell and Mr. Childs
outlined what takes place at a deposition.
Q. Did you have any discussion with them about
the substance of what your testimony would be?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the substance of that discussion?
38
A. As I stated to you -- that gentleman over
there -- I stated that I would center my discussion on
discussion of the nucleus of green algae, of systematics
of algae in general and definition of science.
Q. Prior to the discussion last evening, had
you ever discussed the specifics of your testimony
with anyone from the Attorney General's office?
A. No.
Q. Of the three topics that you have mentioned,
did Mr. Campbell or Mr. Childs suggest any of them to
you?
A. Not one of them.
Q. Have you ever discussed the substance of
the testimony that you might give in this action with
anyone else?
A. My husband.
Q. With anyone other than your husband?
A. My brother-in-law lives with us, also.
Probably at suppertime conversation we did discuss it.
Q. Can you approximate on how many occasions
you might have discussed your possible testimony with
your husband or your brother-in-law?
A. I cannot approximate.
Q. Do you recall any of the substance of any
one of those conversations?
A. No.
Q. In those discussions with your husband or
your brother-in-law, did you discuss any topics other
39
than the three that you mentioned to me just a moment
ago?
A. No.
MR. CHILDS: I would like to add for the record
that she had her three subjects broken down represented
by documents in three folders, the three folders that
were given you this morning.
I hope they were all kept together, because they
might create some confusion if they are not in the
right folder.
MR. KAPLAN: We did not alter that.
MR. WOLFE: I expect they will be.
Q. Doctor, was there any subspecialty of botany
that you concentrated on in your Ph.D. studies?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that?
A. Aquatic fungi.
Q. And did your studies of aquatic fungi involve
work with algae, as well?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the relationship of aquatic fungi
and algae in the work that you did for your Ph.D.?
A. The aquatic fungi on the algae, either
parasitizing algae or growing on dead, nonliving algal
material, usually dead cells.
Q. Doctor, have you had any contact with any
of the named defendants in this action?
They are essentially the Arkansas State Board of
40
Education, a local school board in Arkansas.
A. None.
Q. Have you discussed this case with any
Creation Science groups or members of any Creation
Science organizations?
A. Yes.
Q. I told the organization of which I am a
member that I would be coming to Arkansas.
Q. Did you have any other discussion about the
case with members of the Creation Science Association of
Alberta?
A. No.
Q. Are there any other Creation Science groups
with whom you have discussed this case?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had any discussion of the
Arkansas statute that is at issue in this action with
any Creation Science organization?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen a copy of the Arkansas
statute that is in question?
A. Yes. It sits in the file that you got.
Q. How did you obtain that copy?
A. Mr. Campbell sent it to me.
Q. Do you recall approximately when that was?
A. I do not.
His covering letter with the date is in the file.
Q. Have you ever seen a Creation Science bill
41
or model statute from another jurisdiction?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, have you ever had any contact with
Wendell Bird?
A. He wrote me a letter.
I have not had any contact with him.
Q. None at all aside from the letter you
received?
A. None at all aside from the letter that I
received.
Q. Have you ever had any contact with John
Whitehead?
A. No, I never heard of him.
Q. Have you ever given any testimony before a
legislative hearing or administrative hearing of any
kind?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever spoken to a school board in
the past?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever given any lectures or
participated in a debate about Creation Science or
Evolution Science?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever participated in a debate or
given a lecture about the Bible?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, have you ever had a criminal arrest
42
or conviction?
A. I have not.
Q. Doctor, could you tell me your understanding
of the term "Creation Scientist"?
A. Well, first of all, I would like to define
the term "scientist."
A scientist is someone who studies nature, who
follows a set procedure to study nature, specifically
observation, prediction, hypothesis, experimentation and
acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis.
Now, when it comes to observing present-day
phenomena, all scientists are the same. When it comes
to topics on origins, these could be defined as
metaphysical.
For example, there was an editorial in Nature this
past summer. it's in your file. I can't remember the
exact date. I think it was March 12, '81.
Now, in that editorial it defines anything that
cannot be repeated at the present time as a metaphysical
topic.
Now, basically, as outlined in that Nature
editorial, there are two groups of scientists. One
group has a prior assumption that there is no
phenomenon that cannot be explained by mechanistic
processes; the other group has a prior assumption that
it is possible that there are some aspects of origins
that cannot be explained by mechanistic processes.
That is the difference.
43
Q. Doctor, would you characterize Creation
Scientists as belonging in one of those groups rather
than the other?
A. Yes, the Creation Scientist would question
whether all aspects of origins can be explained by
mechanistic processes.
Q. Would you say that Evolution Scientists
belong in one of those groups rather than the other?
A. Yes, according to the definition in Nature
of the 12th of March -- I think it's the 12th of March
-- Evolution Scientists would be in the first category,
assuming that there is no phenomenon that cannot be
explained by mechanistic processes.
Q. Doctor, given the definitions that you have
just given, would you consider yourself a Creation
Scientist?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you consider yourself an Evolution
Scientist?
A. No.
You can't be both.
Q. Have you always, since the time that you
were first a scientist, been a Creation Scientist?
A. Yes.
Q. When would you say that you first considered
yourself to be a Creation Scientist?
A. That is my background from the time I was
a child.
44
Q. Doctor, when you say that your background
since the time you were a child has been what has made
you a Creation Scientist, are you referring to your
religious education?
A. Now, you are saying is that what made me a
Creation Scientist?
Q. I believe my question was unclear.
I think you mentioned before essentially that your
background since the time you were a child had been as
a Creation Scientist.
A. No, not as a Creation Scientist, because a
child isn't a scientist.
Do you want to know when I became a scientist?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, Creationism was taught to me as a
child.
When I approached university, I did not know if I
would find support for my position from science, but I
have never in any science that I have seen, seen
anything to cause me to doubt that my position is a good
one.
Q. Then is it correct that you have been a
Creationist since you were a child and you have been a
Creation Scientist from the time that you were a
scientist?
A. That is correct.
Q. Could you tell me by whom Creationism was
taught to you as a child?
45
A. Creationism was taught to me as a child by
my parents.
Q. Was Creationism taught to you at all in
your church or Sunday school when you were a child?
A. No.
Q. Was Creationism taught to you at all in
school when you were a child?
A. No, definitely the opposite.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, could you give me your
understanding of the definition that you would use of
religion?
A. A series of beliefs.
Q. Are there any particular contents of a series
of beliefs that make it a religion?
A. I would say so.
Q. Given your understanding, would you regard
Creation Science as a religion?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Creation Science has nothing to do with
religion.
Creation Science is just looking at natural
phenomena.
Q. Given your understanding of religion, would
you regard Evolution Science as a religion?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
46
A. Again, it's looking at natural phenomena.
Q. Doctor, would you regard the Creation
Science Association of Alberta as a religious
organization?
A. Emphatically not.
Q. Why not?
A. We deal with science only.
Q. Doctor, I believe you stated earlier that
the Creation Science Association of Alberta requires
those applying for membership to sign a statement of
principle; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you regard the contents of that
statement of principle as a series of beliefs of the
sort that you defined as religion?
A. I defined religion as a series of beliefs.
Are you asking me, are the statement of principles in
the Creation Science statement of principles, are they
a series of beliefs; is that what you are asking me?
Q. Yes.
A. I would say they are a series of prior
assumptions.
Q. Could you distinguish for me your
understanding of a series of prior assumptions and a
series of beliefs?
A. The two can be equated.
Q. Doctor, by your statement, "the two can be
equated," do you mean that a series of prior assumptions
47
as you understood it and used the phrase is the same as
a religion?
A. No.
Q. What equation would you make between a
series of prior assumptions and a series of beliefs, as
you define religion?
A. Well, in that any group of beliefs can be
defined as religion; I just won't concede that religion
is a relevant term.
Q. Doctor, I'm afraid I didn't understand your
answer that you would not concede that religion is a
relevant term.
A. I'm just not going to say any more.
Q. Doctor, does it remain your view that the
Creation Science Association of Alberta is a scientific
group?
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Will you read the question back,
please.
[Record read.]
THE WITNESS: I never defined it as scientific.
I said it was educational and informative.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Then is it true that you did not
regard the Creation Science Association of Alberta as
a scientific group?
A. It deals with natural phenomena. In that
it deals with natural phenomena, it is scientific.
MR. CHILDS: I would like the record to reflect
48
that it's approximately 11:45 and two gentlemen have
entered the room pursuant to Judge Overton's order that
the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs be allowed to
attend the deposition of Dr. Helder, and I would like
for the record at this time to reflect exactly who
these gentlemen are, what their role in this case is
and whether or not they will be called as witnesses in
the trial.
MR. WOLFE: These gentlemen have been named, and
the court reporter has their names. They have not
been listed on the plaintiffs' list of witnesses.
There is no present expectation that either of these
gentlemen will be a witness at trial, although that is
not precluded. They are simply here as consultants
to the attorney taking the deposition.
THE WITNESS: Could I hear your names?
MR. CARROLL: My name is George Carroll, C-a-r-r-o-
l-l.
I am Associate Professor of Biology at the
University of Oregon in Eugene.
THE WITNESS: Could I ask what your field is?
MR. CARROLL: I am a mycologist, m-y-c-o-l-o-g-y.
MR. HICKMAN: I am Jim Hickman. and I am an
associate research botanist at the Jepsom Herbarium,
J-e-p-s-o-m, H-e-r-b-a-r-i-u-m, the University of
California at Berkeley.
My area is plant ecology and systematic botany.
MR. WOLFE: Will you please read back the last
49
question and answer.
[Record read.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, do you regard the Creation
Science Association of Alberta as a religious group?
A. No.
Q. Do you regard the statement of principles
that members of the association are required to subscribe
to as a religious series of beliefs?
A. As I stated, it is a series of prior
assumptions.
Q. Does that mean that you do not regard it as
a religious series of beliefs?
A. I just won't answer.
Q. Dr. Helder, would you explain to me why you
won't answer?
A. You are dealing with semantics, and I
don't think it relevant.
Q. Well, Doctor, I certainly hope to deal with
something more substantial than merely semantics, and I
have been trying to parse the testimony and the
definitions that you have given me in the last short
while, and I just want to find out whether you regard
the statement of principle that we talked about off and
on as a series of beliefs, that is, a religion, which
I understand to have been the definition that you use
of religion.
Do you regard the statement of principle as a
religious series of beliefs?
50
A. I don't have to answer you.
Q. Well, no, of course, you do not.
Then do you refuse to answer that question?
A. I refuse to be trapped.
Q. Doctor, could you recall for me, please, the
substance of the statement of principle that members of
the Creation Science Association of Alberta subscribe
to?
MR. CHILDS: We have already gone over that. She
brought up three of them, and you asked her about two
others that were not.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, was it your testimony
earlier that among the contents of the statement of
principles is a belief in Jesus Christ as savior?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you regard that as a religious belief?
A. As I just stated, it's a prior assumption.
Q. Would you explain to me your understanding
of the difference between a series of prior assumptions
and a series of beliefs?
A. Well, when people talk about religion they
have a connotation of it which isn't necessarily my
connotation, so I would rather use a term that does
not have connotates associated with it.
Q. Doctor, perhaps I haven't made myself
sufficiently clear in this series of questions that we
have had trouble over, but all I want to find out
about is your own views, and I would be happy to have
Transcript continued on next page
51
you add to your definition or refine it or include what
connotations you want to assign to the definitions or
in any way accept whatever transcription or review
would be full enough for you to expect to have it
understood and to answer the questions that I have put.
A. I'm not going to equate the two. You can
talk as long as you like.
Q. Well, Doctor, I'm not asking you to equate
the two. I would be happy to have you answer the
question yes or no, but I wonder if you are willing to
answer the question.
Can you distinguish for me your understanding of
the difference between the concept of a series of
prior assumptions and the concept of a series of beliefs
which make up a religion?
A. I'm not going to do it. You can go on to
another topic.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: In view of the witness's refusal to
answer questions, I'm going to move on to another topic.
I want to make it clear that plaintiffs reserve
the right to move to preclude the witness from
testifying at all in view of her refusal to answer
what we certainly regard as proper questions.
I would be happy to hear from the witness or from
counsel a legal ground for the refusal to answer, if
you are aware of one or want to advance one on the
record.
52
MR. CHILDS: We realize that she would not be
waiving any rights by proceeding on to any other
different subject matter, and we merely point out for
the record that whether or not the series of beliefs
and series of assumptions are the same has the same
semantic difficulties inherent in it as would at least
the semantic difficulties in it as determining how
many angels could dance on the head of a pin; and we
suggest that because this witness has to leave at 3:00,
that we move on to substantive aspects of her proposed
testimony at trial.
MR. WOLFE: I certainly would not accept the
contention that this is not a substantive area, that the
questions have no more than semantic content.
The witness has stated that she expected to
testify among other things about the definition of
science.
One of the central issues of the case, arguably
the central issue of the case, will be the distinction
between the definition of science and the definition
of religion.
There is some question as to whether or not the
witness can testify about any of these areas if she
is unwilling to discuss her definitions of science
and religion, and it certainly must be obvious that
she is not entitled to testify at trial about the
definition of science if she is unwilling to distinguish
science from religion, which, after all, will be one of
53
the things on which this case turns.
I certainly do agree with you that we do not waive
any of our rights to object to her being able to
testify in any way or indeed to testify at all by
virtue of moving on to other questions when she refused
to answer questions in this area.
[Luncheon recess.]
- - -
54
AFTERNOON SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1981 12:35 O'CLOCK P.M.
- - -
[Also present, in addition to those present
during the morning testimony, were:
RICK CAMPBELL, PHILIP KAPLAN and BENU
MAHMOOD]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE [RESUMED]:
THE WITNESS: I will volunteer to answer your
question this morning.
To my mind, the two are not the same thing. I
can't explain why, but they aren't.
MR. WOLFE: Q. That is, when you say "the two," you
mean a series of prior assumptions and a series of
beliefs?
A. I thought you were talking about religion.
Q. Well, let me withdraw the last question and
ask you, when you said that, to your mind, the two are
not the same, what do you mean by "the two"?
A. Religion and a series of prior assumptions.
Q. Doctor, I will just try to cover this
quickly.
Then you believe that the Creation Science Associa-
tion of Alberta is not a religious organization?
A. I do believe that, yes.
Q. And the statement of principles of that
organization is a series of prior assumptions?
A. Correct.
55
Q. But that is not the same as a series of beliefs
which are religious?
A. That is correct.
Q. And is it correct that you don't know the
ground for your belief they are not the same, but you
believe they are not the same?
A. That is correct.
Q. Dr. Helder, would you say that a series of
beliefs which are a religion embody faith or spring from
faith?
A. Embody what?
Q. Faith.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe that any of the principles from
the statement of principles we've been discussing embody
faith?
A. I would say that they could.
Q. Do you believe that any of them do?
A. It depends on the person.
Q. Does the statement of principle of the
Creation Science Association of Alberta embody your
Christian faith?
A. Personally, no.
Q. Doctor, I am sorry, I think I have asked you
this before, but I have forgotten your answer.
Do you regard Creation Science as a religion?
A. No, it is not. It doesn't deal with religion;
it deals with natural phenomena.
56
Q. Are you familiar with books and periodicals
that are written by or published by Creation Science
groups?
A. I have seen a number, yes.
Q. Have you read such books and articles about
Creation Science?
A. I have read some.
Q. Doctor, are you aware of Dr. Duane Gish?
A. Dr. Duane Gish in --
He has a PhD in biochemistry?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Have you read any of Dr. Gish's published
work?
A. I cannot recall anything specific.
Oh, yes, I can. Yes, I have.
Q. Would you regard Dr. Gish as a Creation
Scientist?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. Would you say that he is a leader or an
authority on Creation Science?
A. I would say he is very articulate.
Q. Would you consider him as an authority on
Creation Science?
A. Well, if you can tell me he is an authority
on evolution, I will tell you if he is an authority on
Creation Science.
Q. I am merely trying to find out whether you
57
would regard Dr. Gish's work in Creation Science as
giving him a knowledge or expertise such that he could be
considered an authority in the field.
A. I would say that Dr. Gish is widely published.
Whether I would regard him as an authority on every
aspect of what he writes, I would say probably not,
because scientists -- you can get any two scientists and
they don't agree on everything. It doesn't matter what
two scientists you get together.
So if you are asking do I subscribe to everything
Dr. Duane Gish says, I would say probably not.
Q. Well, Doctor, without regard to whether or
not you might agree with Dr. Gish in any given matter, is
he recognized as an authority in Creation Science?
A. By whom?
Q. By Creation Scientists, generally.
A. I would say he is well-known.
Q. Are you able to give a yes or no answer to
this question:
Is Dr. Gish recognized generally by Creation
Scientists as an authority on Creation Science?
A. I do not know. I haven't discussed it with
anybody.
Q. I see.
Then your answer is, you are not able to give a yes
or no answer?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are you aware of any writing of Dr. Gish in
58
which he has stated that Creation Science is a religion?
A. I'm not aware of any statement like that.
Q. If Dr. Gish had stated that Creation Science,
or if he had written that Creation Science is a religion,
would you agree or disagree with him?
A. I would disagree.
MR. WOLFE: I will ask the reporter to mark, as
deposition Exhibit 2, a letter by Dr. Gish to the editors
of the magazine, "Discovery," published in that magazine
in fall of 1981.
[Copy of one-page published letter
to the editors of Discovery
Magazine, marked for identifica-
tion as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, I will give you this
exhibit in a moment.
The letter begins,
"In his essay, Evolution as Fact,
Stephen Jay Gould states the
Creationists claim Creation is a
scientific theory. This is a
false accusation. Creationists
have repeatedly stated that neither
Creation nor Evolution is a scienti-
fic theory (and each is equally
religious)."
That is the first few sentences in the letter?
A. Right.
59
Q. Would you agree with the statements that I
have just read into the record?
A. I would like to have you define what Dr. Gish
means by "religious" there.
He is, I presume, talking about metaphysical presup-
positions such as we discussed this morning. He means
that they are prior assumptions. He chose to use the
term, "religious."
I would not use the term, "religious." Therefore,
in that I would not use the term, "religious," I do not
agree with him.
MR. CHILDS: Steve, could I say something on the
record?
MR. WOLFE: Certainly.
MR. CHILDS: I'm not going to tell you how to run
your lawsuit, and I do want to compliment you and David on
your thoroughness. I think that, in all practicality,
today is going to be the only opportunity that you will
get to depose Dr. Helder, because we are going to strenu-
ously oppose any further deposition; and I am not going
to tell you what your issues are, but if you want to get
to the substance of her scientific testimony at all, I
would strongly urge you to do it soon, because I just
don't believe that Judge Overton is going to make us
make this witness available to you other than today.
MR. WOLFE: Well, all right. I will try not to
waste a great deal of time.
MR. CHILDS: You are not wasting time. I really
60
sincerely believe that today is it, however.
MR. WOLFE: I would have to say, as a practical
matter, I am inclined to agree with you.
The difficulty is that the witness list we were
given states that Dr. Helder will testify as to certain
matters which, by their most expansive interpretation,
could only apply to two out of the three that she has
told us this morning she is going to testify on, and I am
confronted with either confining myself to the two in order
to get through them as fully as I can in the time that
is available before she must leave at 3:00 o'clock, or
trying to delve into the third, which is a complete
surprise.
I agree that delving into the third, which is a
complete surprise to us, as I say, will make it less
likely that I can be thorough as to the other two, but,
on the other hand, I don't like being completely sur-
prised.
I appreciate your contribution in making me aware of
how little time I have left and I will accept full
responsibility for making the choices as to what areas I
inquire into.
I do appreciate your concern.
MR. CHILDS: Okay. I understand.
I am not trying to be critical at all.
MR. WOLFE: I understand that, too.
MR. KAPLAN: Okay. Let's go.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, do you know of Dr. Henry
61
Morris?
A. I have heard of him.
Q. Would you regard Dr. Morris as an accepted
authority in Creation Science?
A. My remarks on Dr. Gish would go for Dr.
Morris.
- - -
62
Q. Doctor, could you tell me who you, yourself,
regard as the leading authorities on Creation Science?
A. I do not read the writings of Creation
Scientists and take their remarks for what I believe
about science.
I read scientific articles almost exclusively or
things exclusively by evolutionists and I make my own
conclusions, so that I do not read Dr. Gish's work; I do
not read the other people's work and say, "Oh, they say
such and such. How interesting."
I read original articles.
Q. Doctor, I don't wish to be rude --
A. So I don't have any authorities.
Q. I would appreciate if you would confine your
responses somewhat more closely to my questions.
A. Okay.
Q. If it's true you do not recognize any authori-
ties in Creation Science, it would be enough if you
simply said, "There aren't any," or "I don't recognize
any."
Is that your response, that you do not recognize
any authorities in Creation Science?
A. It is true that, from my understanding of
science, I read science and make my own conclusions.
Whether there are authorities or not, I do not know.
Q. And that is true as to both, let's say,
botany and Creation Science?
A. Yes.
63
Q. Doctor, would you recognize any authorities
on aquatic fungi?
A. Again, I can tell you that there are people
who have published widely. There aren't many. It's a
very narrow field. But there are some who have published
widely, but I would not say there is any one authority.
Q. Well, can you give me the names of some of
those you have referred to who have published widely on
aquatic fungi?
A. There is a big book put out by Dr. F. K.
Sparrow that is widely read by the aquatic fungus
specialists.
There's another gentleman named E. C. Cantino, who
has published widely in the physiology of some aquatic
fungi.
Those are the two --
Oh, there is a lady in England, Dr. Hilda Canter-
Lund, who has published widely in the field.
But I do not think anybody would say any one of
those is the leading authority. They are widely
published. That is all I would say.
Q. Are there any other standard or accepted
texts on aquatic fungi in addition to the one by Dr.
Sparrow that you have mentioned?
A. There is a big book called "Recent Advances
in Aquatic Biology," edited by Gareth Hardin,
H-a-r-d-i-n. Well, I am sorry, it's not Gareth Hardin.
Could I see my vitae? Is this my vitae
64
[indicating]?
MR. CHILDS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: It's Gareth Jones, G-a-r-e-t-h, Jones.
And I wrote a chapter in that book, Chapter 19, to
be specific.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, could you tell me who might
be some of the authorities or some of those who have
published widely on green algae?
A. Green algae? Yes. You have a large number of
those papers in the file that I gave you.
The green algae are such a broad topic that it
depends on -- you could be an expert on green algae and
never have heard of an awful lot of people writing on
green algae. It depends on what field you are in.
But if you are talking the field I am talking about
--
Q. Yes, please.
A. Okay.
Dr. Jeremy Heaps wrote a book on the green algae.
I can't recall any other books that refer only to the
green algae.
Q. Doctor, could you describe for me your
specialization within green algae?
A. My research interest, is that what you are
saying?
Q. Well, yes.
The area in which you have studied and read and
done your work.
65
A. Well, specific research interest is, of
course, narrower than what I have read and taught in the
green algae.
As to my research interest, for example, you have a
paper there that deals with aquatic fungus parasitizing
a green alga oocystys, o-o-c-y-s-t-y-s, various oocystys
species.
Now, that fungus is new to science and I named it,
so I was studying the ecology of the alga and the
fungus.
I studied the ecology of all of the algae that I saw
in the specific bodies of water that I was sampling, so
it wasn't just green algae, it was all of the algae I
saw.
When it comes to lecturing, I lectured in the
ecology of green algae and of all algae. I also lectured
in the taxonomy of green algae and all algae.
Q. Doctor, can you tell me the specifics of the
testimony that you expect to give on the nucleus of green
algae?
A. Yes.
If evolution is a correct model, then there are
certain predictions that have to follow from that model.
Now, one prediction is that the nucleus is going to have
a conservative character.
That is, the nucleus controls genetic characteris-
tics of the cell, the inheritance and also the function-
ing of the cell. Now, that involves a wide array of
66
genes, so that, because it involves a wide array of
genes, any one mutation is going to have a small effect.
Also, because it's so important to the cell, the
chances that any one mutation will have a bad effect is
very great.
Because of these reasons, then, one would make the
prediction that the nucleus would not change greatly
over time, that it would be -- that of all characteris-
tics, I would expect that one to show the least change,
so if you look at the nucleus, you should be able to
trace or get an estimate of what the common ancestors
were.
Now, as one looks at the algae as a whole, within
the past few years it has been discovered that the
nucleus has -- there are amazing differences in the
character of the nucleus in algae as a whole.
Now, of course, you can explain that by saying there
were long periods of descent after they diverged from a
common ancestor; but when you get to the green algae,
which is one specific group, the finding has been that
there is an amazing amount of variation within the green
algae itself.
Now, even more interesting is the fact, the finding,
that the nuclear division process in the green algae is
not that typical of the higher plants. Now, the theory
is that higher plants come from the green algae. There
has been only one alga found that has cell division the
same as the higher plants, and there are some green algae
67
which have been found to have a process that remotely
resembles what is found in the higher plants.
Now, on the basis of this finding, on the assumption
that the nucleus is a conservative characteristic, the
taxonomy of the green algae has been drastically changed
and those two algae with the nuclear process remotely
similar to the higher process have been now said to be
on a different line of descent from the majority of the
green algae.
Now, another prediction of evolutionary theory is
that you can't look for relationships just of one
characteristic, that there should be several characteris-
tics. You should be able to trace ancestry with several.
Descendants of a common ancestor you would expect to be
similar in more than one characteristic, presuming there
are conservative characteristics other than one. And
biochemical products is another characteristic that is
assumed to be conservative.
Well, it was stated that there were other criteria
which did not support this drastic separation of the two
groups of algae, but upon looking at the papers, recent
papers, I have found that not one of those criteria is
found only in the one so-called "line of descent," so
they have separated green algae on the basis of one
characteristic alone, and this is a very small group of
algae, it's drastically, it drastically goes against
patterns that would be assumed to be correct on the
basis of other characteristics.
68
So that the only conclusion one can come to is that
the nucleus is not a conservative characteristic, so the
predictions of the theory of evolution don't hold up.
Q. Doctor, could you please describe for me the
specifics of your expected testimony about the system-
atics of algae?
- - -
69
A. Well, again, experts look at the experts of
a group of organisms like the algae, and they try to
pick out patterns of common, similar characteristics
which could suggest a common ancestor.
Now, when one looks at the algae as a whole and
looks at the characteristics that would be thought to be
conservative or involve a wide array of genes, things
like pigments, storage products, wall materials, this
sort of thing, no pattern can be detected.
There was a paper that came out in 1967, a fat
paper, like this [indicating]. It's in the file. It
was by Klein and Cronquist.
And they tried to look for patterns of relationships,
and they say in that paper that one reviewer of their
paper stated that to look for relationships was a
sterile and futile intellectual process because no
relationships could be found.
Two algae might be similar in one characteristic
and drastically different in other characteristics,
and in these other characteristics they might be similar
to totally different algae.
There is another paper by a chap called Taylor,
and he looked at motile organisms in general, not only
algae but protozoan, and he entitled his paper, "A Study
in Conflicts," because, again, he could not detect any
patterns of relationship.
So my conclusion is that, seeing it is not
possible to detect patterns of relationship, it is a
70
valid conclusion on the basis of present evidence to
say there is no relationship as far as we can see.
Q. Doctor, have you ever written any papers
embodying the material you have just given me about
your likely testimony on either the nucleus of green
algae or the systematics of algae?
A. No, but I taught it.
Q. I see.
Are your views, as you have just stated them, on
the nucleus of green algae or the systematics of algae
accepted by any other workers in your field?
A. What I have stated is what is in the
scientific papers. The authorities on the topic, and
this can't be denied, of course, differ.
Q. Are you aware of any workers in your field
who agree with your conclusions?
A. No. I have not discussed it.
Q. Have you ever seen any publications or heard
seminar or symposia presentations which indicate any
workers in your field who agree with your conclusions?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, do you know of any workers in your
field who disagree with your conclusions?
A. Well, in that the workers that I quote
support the evolution model, of course, they disagree
with me in my conclusions.
Q. Are you aware -- I will withdraw that.
Doctor, I will give you now a copy of Act 590,
71
the Arkansas statute which is at issue in this action.
I will ask you to refer to Section 4 of the act,
which is headed "Definitions."
A. Yes.
Q. It includes in Section 4(a) a general
definition of Creation Science, and it goes on to list
six items which it states are included among Creation
Science.
Could you read those six numbered items and tell
me whether you agree with the accuracy of those
statements.
A. I would agree.
Q. Can you tell me which of the "originally
created kinds of plants and animals" green algae are in?
A. Well, I haven't thought on that topic. I
just haven't speculated on that.
Q. I see.
Do you agree that there has been no change or
evolution or transition between kinds in nature?
A. Are you saying "has been no change"?
Q. No change between kinds; that is, change in
which a plant or animal representative of one originally-
created kind has become a plant or animal or another
kind.
A. I would agree.
Q. Are you able to define "kind" for me?
A. Well, I will say that change within kinds
would deal with change in complexity. There is change
72
in detail, big or little, black or white, variations
in color, but when it comes to change in the degree of
complicatedness of an organism, I would say that has
not occurred.
Q. Is that the only definition you are able to
give of your understanding of "kind"?
A. Yes.
Q. Given that definition, would you say that
green algae belong to one kind only or to more than one?
A. I do not know.
Q. Doctor, are you aware of any transitional
forms between kinds?
A. No.
Q. Would it be your view that there are no
such transitional forms between kinds?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, would you regard procaryotic cells
and eucaryotic cells as being in different kinds?
A. Definitely.
Q. Are you aware of the existence of any
intermediate forms between procaryotic and eucaryotic
cells?
A. No.
Q. Are you able to describe to me what a
transitional form between a procaryotic and a eucaryotic
cell, if one were to exist, might look like?
A. I can't speculate. The sky is the limit.
Q. Well, given your understanding of the
73
essential nature of procaryotic cells and of eucaryotic
cells, are you able to say what the intermediate
characteristics might look like?
I mean, I appreciate your imagination may well be
infinite, but we are, after all, talking about two
kinds as to which there must be some knowledge.
Are you able to describe what an intermediate form
between them, what character such an intermediate form
might have?
A. No.
There are two drastically different theories as to
how there might have been that transition; that is,
among Evolution Scientists.
They wouldn't agree on what transitional forms
would look like.
And I might mention that the difference between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells is said to be the
greatest discontinuity in living organisms.
Q. Are you able to describe for me the
characteristics of an organism which, if it were
discovered, would cause you to believe that procaryotic
and eucaryotic cells are not different kinds?
A. You mean that the one descended from the
other' is that what you are saying?
Q. Well, I would accept that modification,
sure.
A. In that one cannot see one organism changing
into another, it is hard to say, given any scientific
74
organism, whether it descended from another one.
If there were characteristics in common, an
assumption that the one came from the other would be one
possible interpretation.
Q. I am not certain that I altogether understood
your answer.
You are saying that you cannot imagine any newly
discovered evidence which would cause you to believe that
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells were not different
kinds?
A. There is none.
Let's start with that.
What a transitional form is is a matter of
definition.
Are you saying that if I saw a transitional form,
would I change my mind?
Q. I am asking you if there is any transitional
form or any form, any organism which you can imagine,
the discovery of which would be enough to cause you to
change your conclusion?
A. What a transitional form is is a matter of
definition in that we cannot go back and watch it
changing, so if someone said something is transitional,
that is their assumption about it, so it cannot be known
if it is transitional.
Q. Perhaps my questions are poorly constructed
by virtue of having the phrase "transitional form" in
them.
75
Can you imagine any organism or any datum at all,
the discovery of which would cause you to change your
conclusion?
A. I don't think that is a fair question in
that if you said that to an Evolutionist, I am sure they
can't imagine anything that would cause them to change
their mind, so why should you ask me?
Q. Well, Dr. Helder, at the cost of being
wearisome, you are the only witness available for
deposition today, so I cannot ask these questions of an
Evolution Scientists because none are being deposed
today.
A. But do you do it when they are here?
Q. Ma'am, none have been deposed in the case.
I would appreciate it, however, if you would be
willing to answer the question that I put.
A. I do not know of a transitional form that
would cause me to change my mind.
There could be some, but I don't know of any.
Q. That is, you do not know of any presently
known to science?
A. That is correct.
- - -
76
Q. Are you able to describe the characteristics
of an organism that, if it were conclusively shown to
have been discovered tomorrow, would cause you to change
your conclusion?
A. No.
Q. Is there any discovery you can imagine that,
if it were demonstrated to you, would cause you to
change your conclusion?
A. I think there are, but I can't tell you of
any.
Q. Doctor, would you describe for me, please,
what you regard as the essential characteristics of
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells.
A. A procaryotic cell is one that does not have
a defined nucleus. The structures within the cell are
not membrane-bound. There are membranes within the
cell, some cells, but they are not bound within
membranes. The genetic material is in a long strand.
It's defined as a circle or a loop. There are not
discrete chromosomes and there are no histone proteins
on the genetic material.
Now, do you want the definition of a eucaryotic
cell?
Q. Please.
A. A eucaryotic cell has membrane-bound struc-
tures. The genetic material is in discrete chromosomes.
In most cases there are histone proteins on the genetic
material.
77
That is a very sketchy outline of the difference.
Q. Did you omit from the definition of eucaryotic
cells that they have a defined nucleus?
A. Did I omit that?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay. It does have a defined nucleus, you
are correct.
MR. CHILDS: Which does?
THE WITNESS: Eucaryotic cells.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, do all procaryotic cells
have the -- I made them out to be four characteristics.
Do all procaryotic cells have the four characteris-
tics that you mentioned, and do all eucaryotic cells
have the corresponding state of the four characteristics
that you mentioned?
A. In the case of the procaryotic, to the best
of my recollection, yes.
As far as the eucaryotic, no. There was one group
or some groups that do not.
Q. Are you able to tell me which groups among
the eucaryotic cells do not have all of the four charac-
teristics that you mentioned?
A. The dinoflagellates, among the algae, do not.
That is d-i-n-o-f-l-a-f-e-l-l-a-t-e-s.
Q. Doctor, which of the four characteristics of
the eucaryotic cells do dinoflagellates not have?
A. The nucleus is very different. They lack
histone proteins. That is one of the major differences.
78
Q. Doctor, in what respect is the nucleus of
dinoflagellates very different from that of eucaryotic
cells?
A. Well, in cell division -- the appearance is
different, for a start, in that the chromosome, the
nuclear material is not granular in appearance when the
cell is in a resting state. The chromosomes are con-
densed. So there is a difference in appearance there.
And the process of cell division is quite different.
Q. Can you tell me in what respect -- I'm
sorry, Doctor.
I didn't hear clearly whether you said that the
process of chromosome division or the process of nuclear
division is quite different.
A. Nuclear division.
Q. Could you tell me in what respect the process
of nuclear division is quite different?
A. The process does not involve a spindle, as
such, a spindle being a structure of little tubes that
sort of looks like a diamond.
Now, in the dinoflagellates, also the nuclear
membrane does not disappear, and -- well, it's quite
complicated, but the chromosomes are thought possibly to
attach to the nuclear membrane and to be pulled apart as
the nuclear membrane grows.
Q. Doctor, is it correct that the description
you just have been giving me of the dinoflagellates and
the respects in which they differ from other eucaryotic
79
cells is accepted by most workers in the field?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it correct that you accept the descrip-
tion that you have been giving me as well?
A. That is correct.
Q. Doctor, are you aware of whether there are
forms presently known to science that other workers in
your field regard as intermediate between procaryotic
and eucaryotic cells?
A. I didn't say these were intermediate.
Q. Yes, Ma'am. I haven't suggested you have.
A. You said, "Are there any other forms that are
intermediate?"
Q. I am sorry. Let me --
My question is: Are you aware of forms presently
known to science that other workers in the field regard
as intermediate between procaryotic and eucaryotic cells?
A. I would say that other workers in the field
do not regard those as intermediate.
Q. I am sorry. Either I am not making my ques-
tions clear or perhaps you are not --
A. You are suggesting these are intermediate.
Q. Doctor, I am not suggesting anything.
A. Okay.
Q. I am asking you, are there forms presently
known to science which other workers than yourself in
your field regard as intermediate between procaryotic
and eucaryotic cells?
80
Let me be explicit. I am not assuming that these
forms are so regarded.
A. Okay.
Q. Are there any forms?
A. Not that I can recall like that. I would be
interested to hear you name some.
Q. Are you aware of whether or not other workers
in the field regard -- I will withdraw that.
Is it your understanding that other workers in the
field do recognize some forms as intermediate between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells, whatever those forms
might be.
A. I can show you quote after quote from estab-
lished authorities in the field that say there is a
tremendous leap between the two. To my knowledge, they
do not have any idea as to what, amongst present-day
organisms could represent an intermediate form.
Q. Then it's your testimony that your understand-
ing is that no workers in the field recognize any
presently known organism as intermediate between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells?
A. I would not say that. I would say that I do
not know of any. I would not say that no workers
recognize some. I do not know that because I haven't
read every paper in the scientific literature, but I
can't recall any just like that.
Q. Doctor, are you aware of any dinoflagellates
which do possess nuclei that divide in what might be
81
called the "typical fashion"?
A. Some dinoflagellates have two nuclei. I have
seen only one paper discussing the characteristics of
that second nucleus, but in that paper the one nucleus
that I saw referred to did not divide in a typical way.
So if you showed me a paper that said there was
one, I would go along with it, but I don't know of any.
Q. Would you regard a dinoflagellate that had
two nuclei, one of which divided atypically by the
process you described a few moments ago and one of which
divided in typical fashion, as intermediate between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells?
A. No, it can't be. It doesn't fit any of the
criteria.
Q. Any of which criteria?
A. Well, dinoflagellates, the nucleus has been
said by some to be primitive and the term,
"mesocaryotic," has been applied to it,
m-e-s-o-c-a-r-y-o-t-i-c.
Now, the same workers who talk about a mesocaryotic
nucleus in the dinoflagellates also say that, in all
other characteristics, the dinoflagellates are not at all
what they would say is primitive, they are very compli-
cated. The term, "advanced in the other characteris-
tics," could be used, so that the dinoflagellate, as it
stands, cannot be said to be transitional.
The other nucleus does not resemble the typical
eucaryotic nucleus. Therefore, if someone says it's
82
transitional, they are reading that into it and in no
way does it resemble it.
Q. Would you regard it as unreasonable, that is,
scientifically unreasonable, to regard a form which was,
let's say, primitive in certain respects and advanced in
others, as a transitional form or an intermediate form
between primitive and advanced groups?
A. Not only I, but other people in the field,
would also regard it not as a reasonable transitional
form.
Q. Are you aware of any in your field who might,
in fact, regard it as a transitional form based on the
fact that it has both primitive and advanced character-
istics?
A. I'm not aware of any.
MR. WOLFE: Could you read back the next to the
last question and answer?
[Record read]
MR. WOLFE: I am sorry.
Give me the question and answer before that.
[Record further read]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, would it be your view
that someone looking at the dinoflagellates, who says
that they are not intermediate or transitional forms, is
also -- I think your language was, "reading that into
it"?
A. Could you repeat that?
[Question read]
83
THE WITNESS: I'm not certain what you want to
know.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Well, I believe you stated in the
answer that was read back that dinoflagellates cannot be
said to be transitional.
A. That is right.
Q. And I think you went on to say that someone
who was looking at them and says that is simply reading
that into it.
A. Right.
Q. Now --
A. That was with reference to the second nucleus.
Q. I am asking whether you hold the opinion that
someone who looks at the evidence and has the other
view, namely, that they are not transitional, is also
reading that into the evidence.
A. I can tell you that the opinion of some
people in the field is that that second nucleus repre-
sents a golden alga which has invaded a dinoflagellate
more recently. That is the opinion of people in the
field.
For example, Dr. Taylor, in his paper, A Study in
Conflicts, mentions that. And Dr. Dodge. Both of these
gentlemen study dinoflagellates and Dr. Dodge also
mentions that the second nucleus could be a golden alga
that had invaded it.
Now, the character of the nucleus does not support
their supposition, but I have not seen them suggest that
84
it's transitional between eucaryotic and procaryotic
because golden algae are just ordinary eucaryotic algae.
Q. Doctor, once again, I'm afraid I have asked a
poor question or you haven't responded to the question.
What I wondered is this. I take it that you regard
the view that dinoflagellates are transitional as a con-
clusion or interpretation.
A. The conclusion or interpretation that dino-
flagellates are transitional is not even supported by
the majority of algae experts, so why should I support
it?
Q. Well, my question was only this. I take it
that you regard that view.
A. I do not think them transitional?
Q. No.
Do you regard that view, if held by anyone, as an
interpretation?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you regard your own view as an interpreta-
tion?
A. Yes.
- - -
85
Q. Is it then true that the basis for your
statement earlier that dinoflagellates cannot be said to
be transitional is that your interpretation and
conclusion is they are not?
A. That is my conclusion based on people's
who are working with dinoflagellates.
Q. Doctor, would you regard a cell which had a
defined nucleus --
A. A what?
Q. Would you regard a cell which had a defined
nucleus but which did not contain mitochondria as a
eucaryotic or procaryotic cell?
A. There are such cells, and they are regarded
by the experts as eucaryotic cells which have lost
their mytochondria, so why should I quibble?
Q. So that is your own view, as well?
A. That is my own view, as well.
Q. Do you know whether any workers in the area
regard such forms as perhaps transitional between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells?
A. I have never read that suggestion.
Q. What would be your view of that view if it
were held by someone?
A. My view would be they would have to look at
more than mitochondria.
MR. KLAPLAN: Could we have a quick five-minute
break?
MR. CHILDS: Sure. We need one about now.
86
[Short recess taken.]
MR. WOLFE: Back on the record.
Q. Doctor, again referring to Act 590, the
statute that is at issue in the case, and looking at
Section 4 once more, is it your view, as stated in
Section 4(a)-6, that the inception of the earth and
living kinds was relatively recent?
A. That is my personal view.
Q. Is that your personal view as a scientist?
A. As a scientist I don't have any evidence
from my own work on that, so that from my scientific
work I cannot make any judgment.
Q. What is the basis then for your belief that
the inception of the earth and living kinds is
relatively recent?
A. That is outside my field of expertise.
There are other people who have looked at the topic
and talk about evidence for a relatively young earth.
From my own work I can't give you any.
Q. Doctor, do you accept that the inception of
the earth and living kinds was relatively recent as a
matter of faith?
A. It is a prior assumption.
The age of the earth, it doesn't really matter.
You could pick any age, and if you had evidence for
defending that age, I would go along with it.
Q. Well, do you have a view or an opinion as
to what in fact the age of the earth is?
87
A. I have an opinion.
Q. What is that opinion.
A. My opinion is that anywhere between 100,000
and 10,000 years would be a reasonable assumption.
Q. And why is it that you would be willing to
accept some other suggested age, as I believe you
stated you would in your last answer?
A. Whether there is a supernatural agent who
has created the universe is one issue. How long ago it
was is another.
My opinion is that long ages are not needed if
creation occurred, so therefore, seeing as they are not
a necessary condition of creation by a supernatural
being, I do not need to believe in long ages; whereas
Evolutionists do.
But I am agnostic. I don't know.
Q. Do you believe that a Creation Scientist
has need to disbelieve the age of the earth?
A. No.
Q. I believe you stated earlier that -- I will
withdraw that.
I will ask the reporter to mark as Helder
deposition Exhibit 3 the pages containing drawings of
certain algae.
[Two pages of drawings of algae
were marked Plaintiffs' Exhibits
3A and 3B for identification.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, I will ask you to look at
88
The originals here.
A. Okay.
Q. Could you tell me with reference to Exhibits
3A and 3B how many kinds of algae you would regard as
represented here, that is, the kinds which were
especially created by God?
A. I must plead ignorance. I do not recognize
all of these algae.
The top one is a diatom, d-i-a-t-o-m.
Q. Doctor, I don't like to interrupt, but in
referring to the exhibit, each of the examples has a
number and a letter assigned to it. Perhaps you could
refer to them that way so it will be clear on the
record what you are referring to.
A. No. 468 is a diatom.
269, these are green algae from the group
chloroccales, c-h-l-o-r-o-c-c-a-l-e-s.
The next is 330, which is a green algae, a desmid,
probably two desmid species. I am not sure.
326 is also a desmid. That is micrasterias,
m-i-c-r-a-s-t-e-r-i-a-s.
The next one is also a desmid, causmerium. That
is 323.
The next one is a desmid, No. 328.
I don't know if they are all the same genus.
Certainly some of them are staurastrum, s-t-a-u-r-a-s-t-
r-u-m.
Exhibit 270 on page 3B -- or Exhibit 3B -- is also
89
a member of the chloroccales.
No, 329 is another desmid. I'm not sure of the
genus name.
357 is also a member of the chloroccales. I'm not
sure of the genus name.
272 is a member of the chloroccales, and it's
scenedesmus, s-c-e-n-e-d-e-s-m-u-s.
No. 258 is, I suspect, also a member of the
chloraccales. There are two parts to No. 258.
Now, you asked me a question earlier about the
green algae. Most of these are green algae with the
exception of the top one, which is a diatom, which is
not a green algae.
Q. That is No. 468.
A. Yes.
I declined to define kinds with reference to the
green algae previously. I don't see why I should
change now.
Q. I see.
Doctor, is it your opinion that algae were
created?
A. It is my opinion.
- - -
90
Q. And is it your view they were created within
one or more kinds originally and that there has never
been evolution of algae from one or more of the created
kinds into any other since that time?
A. There has never been any change in complexity.
Q. Is it correct, then, that, while you believe
that algae were created within specially-created kinds,
you have no view as to what kinds or how many they were
created in?
A. I do not speculate.
Q. Well, have you made any scientific study
about what kinds of green algae were created or how many?
A. I have not made a scientific study of that
topic.
Q. Do you believe that it's possible to study
scientifically which kinds green algae were created in?
A. I believe it is possible to look for degree
of variation within organisms.
Q. Doctor, do you believe it's possible to study
scientifically what kinds green algae were created in?
A. One must look for patterns of similarity.
Q. Are you able to answer yes or no as to whether
you believe it's possible to study scientifically what
kinds green algae were created within?
A. It's possible to look to see if organisms are
similar or not.
Q. That is, it's possible to look and study
whether or not green algae were created within one or
91
more special kinds?
A. It is possible to make assumptions based on
data that one gets now; but as one was not around, one
cannot make definite conclusions.
One can, on the basis of degrees of similarity,
make hypotheses, but one cannot know for sure whether
they are correct or not.
Q. Then are you saying it's impossible to deter-
mine what kinds green algae were created within?
A. I would say that.
Q. Do you regard it as necessary to accept on
faith that they were created within kinds?
A. That has nothing to do with scientific
evidence.
Q. I see.
That is, you are saying that the question of kinds
and whether or not green algae were created within them
or within one or more is not subject to scientific
study?
A. One cannot establish it scientifically. One
can make hypotheses, but you cannot know whether your
hypotheses are right or not.
Q. Have you made any hypotheses about the kinds
in which green algae were created?
A. No.
Q. Have you made any study at all in your study
of the systematics of algae about the kinds in which
they were created.
92
A. No.
Q. Have you made any study about whether or not
the algae may have evolved from the kinds, one or more,
however many, whichever ones they were assumed to be
created in, into some other kind other than those in
which they were originally created?
A. All I can do is what other people do: Look
at the characteristics of the green algae and I see a
lot of variation.
No.
As we discussed earlier this morning, there are
different theories as to how the green algae could have
descended from common ancestors, but there is no agree-
ment on those patterns of relationship between special-
ists.
So if there isn't agreement by the specialists as
to what the patterns of relationship are, then there
can't be obvious evidence.
Q. I see.
Then is it correct that you regard it as impossible
to determine within what kinds green algae were created?
A. I am not saying that. I am saying that, on
the basis of the evidence we have now, we cannot see
obvious patterns.
Q. What evidence would you seek in order to
determine what kinds green algae were created within?
A. I would say on the basis of the evidence we
have now, the evidence --
93
Q. No.
I asked what evidence you would seek. You have
already said it's impossible to put them within kinds
based on the evidence we have right now.
A. Right.
Q. What evidence would you seek in order to make
that determination?
A. Well, the evidence at present is so contra-
dictory that it would be difficult to imagine what
criterion one could look for that would override the
previous evidence, because you need several characteris-
tics the same in a pattern, you need conservative char-
acteristics.
Now, they have already looked at those.
Q. Are you saying, then, that the present evidence
makes it impossible to determine what kinds were
specially created and that you cannot imagine any
discoverable evidence which would make it possible?
A. I cannot imagine any discoverable evidence
that would show the green algae to be descended from a
common ancestor.
Q. Doctor, that wasn't my question.
My question is: What evidence would you look for in
order to determine scientifically what kinds green algae
were specially created in?
A. Well, the evidence they are looking at now.
Q. But did you not just tell me that it was
impossible to make the determination of kinds from the
94
presently-known evidence?
A. Right.
Q. Are you then saying that it's impossible to
make the determination at all?
A. On the basis of known characteristics of the
green algae, it would appear that way.
Q. Can you imagine any evidence discoverable in
the future by scientific means which would render it
possible scientifically to place green algae in the
kinds within which they were specially created?
A. I can't imagine any. It's possible somebody
could suggest some to me, but I can't imagine it.
Q. But is it your view it's not possible to
determine scientifically what kinds green algae were
created in?
A. I would suspect it.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I would suspect that to be the case. I would
not state categorically.
Q. Then what is the source of your belief that
green algae were in fact created within kinds if it's
impossible to determine what kinds or in fact if they
were within kinds?
A. Well, I look at the evidence and there is no
evidence they were created within kinds, so therefore
I don't see any need to make a conclusion that they
were descended from a common ancestor. There is no
evidence to suggest that they were.
95
Q. Doctor, I'm afraid I don't altogether under-
stand your last answer.
Would you read back the last answer, please, Mr.
Reporter?
[Question read]
THE WITNESS: I am sorry. That first part was a
slip of the tongue.
There is no evidence they were descended from a
common ancestor.
The first part he read was a slip of the tongue.
MR. WOLFE: Are you aware of other workers in your
field who believe there is some evidence they were
descended from a common ancestor?
A. There are, of course, Pickett, Heaps and
Stewart. These workers I referred to earlier, who indeed
do believe that the green algae are descended from a
common ancestor, so I am aware.
Q. Would it be fair to say that the general
belief of people working in your area is, they were
descended from a common ancestor?
A. There is that general belief.
Q. And I understand you to have said earlier
it's your belief they were not descended from a common
ancestor, but rather were created within special kinds.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me the basis for your belief?
A. My basis is that they are not following the
conclusions that come from their evidence. They are
96
making conclusions in spite of their evidence.
Q. I also understood you to have said in the
last short while we have been talking that you do not
know of any presently-known evidence which could show
the kinds within which algae were specially created.
A. Right.
Q. Nor could you imagine any future discoverable
evidence.
A. Kinds within which --
Q. Within which algae were created.
A. I thought we were talking about green algae.
Q. You are right.
Nor would you know or imagine any future discover-
able evidence which could show the kinds within which
they had been created.
Therefore, I am asking: On what evidence do you
base your view they were created within special kinds?
Have you any scientific evidence as a basis for that
belief?
A. There is no scientific evidence to the
contrary.
- - -
97
Q. That is your view, but didn't you say just
a moment ago there are other workers in your field who
believe there is scientific evidence to the contrary?
A. I said they have that belief in spite of
the evidence, not derived from it.
Q. Did the persons you mentioned, Pickett,
Heaps and the others, hold that belief, the belief they
hold, despite the scientific evidence?
A. No.
Q. Then it's your view that while they believe
there is scientific evidence for it, you do not believe
it, and you believe they hold their belief in descent
from a common ancestor despite the evidence?
A. That is a perfectly valid position in
science.
Q. Are you able to tell me on what scientific
evidence you base your belief?
A. The lack of evidence for a common ancestor.
They can't defend their belief in a common ancestor.
Q. If you won't mind answering my question, I
understood you to have testified there are scientists
who believe in descent from a common ancestor and they
have a basis satisfactory to themselves in scientific
evidence for that belief; and I also understand you to
have said that you have a belief that algae, green
algae, were created within special kinds but that you
do not know of any scientific evidence which is the
basis for your belief.
98
Is that right?
A. Well, there are within the green algae or
have been up to the last few years an idea on what the
relationships in the green algae have been.
Now, based on studies of the nucleus, some workers
are questioning those relationships which are typically
assumed to be correct.
Now, Picket-Heaps made one suggestion based on
one aspect of nuclear division. Stewart and his
workers made an alternative suggestion based on the
same evidence.
Now, Stewart and his workers have since decided
that Pickett-Heaps' arguments were more valid, but they
have been looking at the same evidence and drew
different conclusions, so there is no evidence.
Q. Doctor, I understand that there is some
evidence more or less for the belief that it descends
from a common ancestor which is accepted more or less
by the persons who have that belief but it's not
accepted as scientific evidence by you; but I am asking
again and again if you could tell me what scientific
evidence there is as a basis for your belief in kinds?
Is there any evidence, aside from the fact that
you don't accept the evidence for the other belief; is
there any evidence which supports the belief that you
do hold?
A. As there is no evidence for the alternative,
as authorities in the green algae differ as to what
99
the pattern of descent is, I can say there is no
evidence for descent from a common ancestor.
Therefore, it is as valid for me to reject the idea
of a common ancestor as it is to accept it.
Q. What is the basis for your belief in
creation in special kinds?
A. Negative evidence.
Q. That is, you are not compelled by the
scientific evidence to believe in descent from a common
ancestor?
A. That is correct.
Q. So you are free to believe in creation
within special kinds for some other reason.
Can you tell me what the other reason is?
A. Well, it's a valid alternative hypothesis.
Q. But we have already agreed there is no
scientific evidence for supporting it. You have told
me that there is no scientific evidence supporting
the evolutionary alternative.
A. Right.
Q. And you have told me there is no scientific
evidence, or you have been unable to point to any that
support the special creation alternative.
A. Right.
Q. What is the source of your belief in the
special creation alternative if it's not from science?
A. I am as free to pick one alternative as
another.
100
Q. Yes. I am simply asking if you can tell
me what the basis for your choice is.
We seem to have established that it doesn't have
to do with scientific evidence, and I wonder then what
it does have to do with.
A. Well, we already defined at the beginning
that topics about origins are metaphysical. That is,
they are not open to test. And there are two possible
presuppositions.
One is that a supernatural agency could have been
involved, and another is that everything has to be
explained on mechanistic grounds.
Now, it is my contention that the characteristics
found in the algae are such that no possible pattern can
be detected. Therefore, there could have been no
common ancestor.
Q. I understand you have told me several
times that you see no convincing scientific evidence
for descent of green algae from a common ancestor, and
I understand that you believe algae were created within
one or more special kinds, although you cannot identify
the kinds.
Is it correct to assume then or -- is it correct
that you believe that green algae were created within
the special kinds on some basis other than naturalistic
phenomena?
A. I just told you that the pattern of
characteristics is such that it is not possible to trace
101
a common ancestor because you can't have a similarity
to one algae over here and a similarity to a drastically
different algae over there and trace a nice path of
descent.
Therefore, that negates the idea of a common
ancestor.
Q. I understand that you do not believe the --
A. I am saying the present evidence negates the
idea of a common ancestor.
Q. Is the present evidence for Creation Science
only metaphysical evidence or extranaturalistic evidence?
A. I just told you: It is natural; it is in
the algae themselves.
Q. No. You have told me that the present
evidence, based on naturalistic phenomena, does not
convince you they could have been descended from a common
ancestor; but you told me earlier you did not know of
any naturalistic evidence or scientific evidence that
is not counter to that theory but rather supportive of
your own.
If there is no scientific evidence, is there some
nonscientific evidence or metaphysical evidence that
supports this belief of yours in special kinds?
A. I told you that the patterns of
characteristics within the algae make it impossible to
hypothesize a common ancestor.
Q. Doctor, I understand you do not believe
the doctrine of descent of green algae from a common
102
ancestor. I understand you will not accept that
alternative as being based on scientific evidence. We
are trying to talk about what you do believe.
You have told me you do believe they were created
within special kinds.
A. Right.
Q. But you haven't been able to tell me, no
matter how many times I have asked, what scientific
evidence there is for that.
If there isn't a scientific basis for the belief,
what is the basis?
A. I just told you that within the scientific
evidence, as you look at the algae, the characteristics
are such that is it not possible to hypothesize a
common ancestor from a logical point of view. Therefore,
it is based on science.
Q. Is it true then that you are convinced by
virtue of the fact that you don't see any scientific
evidence for alternative A, descent from a common
ancestor, that you regard yourself as free to choose
any other alternative?
A. Yes.
Q. Why have you chosen to choose alternative B,
if I may, that is, the portion of it that supports
creation within special kinds?
A. Well, there are two logical alternatives.
One is descent from a common ancestor and the other is
separate creation. Those are the two logical
103
alternatives. If you don't accept one, you accept the
other.
Q. I see.
So all of your scientific bases for creation
within special kinds is simply negative inference from
the arguments of Evolution Science?
A. I would say basically.
Q. Doctor, do you believe in the six-day
creation week?
A. Yes.
- - -
104
Q. Do you believe that fungi were created during
that week?
A. On a personal basis, I do.
Q. Do you believe as a scientific matter that
fungi were created during the six-day creation week?
A. I don't have any scientific evidence to the
contrary.
Q. Do you have any scientific evidence that
supports it other than the absence of evidence to the
contrary?
A. I have not studied the systematics of fungi
very closely. I know what the basic outline is, but I
do not have evidence to negate my personal belief.
Q. Doctor, do you believe that the fall of Adam
and Eve from grace or from perfection and their departure
from the Garden of Eden is literal truth?
A. On a personal level.
Q. Do you believe that death or decay existed
prior to the time of the fall?
A. On a personal level, I would suspect not.
Q. Do you know of any scientific evidence on the
question?
A. I do not know of any.
Q. Is it true that fungi require death or decay
of some fashion in order to exist?
A. Fungi grow on organic matter. You can grow
fungi in a Petri dish with glucose and amino acids which
you have synthesized artificially, if you like.
105
Q. Excepting vitro or laboratory conditions, is
it true that fungi require death and decay or the
products thereof for life nature?
A. Fungi grow on living organisms. They do not
require death and decay.
Q. Are there any fungi which live only on prod-
ucts of death or decay?
A. To my knowledge, fungi that grown on dead
organisms can usually, to my knowledge, be grown in
vitro. So to my knowledge, I don't know of any.
Q. My notes say that you testified earlier that
you studied fungi which either parasitized live algae or
lived on dead algal material, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
But you are asking, do they need to grow on dead
algal material?
Q. Yes.
I take it your view is that it's not the case.
A. No, they don't need to grow on dead algal
material.
Q. Would you say that is the generally accepted
view of people working in your field?
A. The generally accepted view of people in the
field is that saprophytes can grow in vitro. Not all of
them are grown in vitro, but technically they should be
able to do it.
Q. Doctor, if you don't mind my interrupting, I
suggested earlier we might except in vitro conditions
106
and try to talk about conditions existing in nature.
Is it your view that saprophytes are able to live
on live hosts in nature?
A. No. Saprophytes don't live on live hosts.
They live on organic material. But whether that material
has to come from a previously living organism or not,
that is your question, and I am saying no.
Q. What do you imagine might have been the
source or organic material on which saprophytes created
during the six-day creation week might have lived if
they did not parasitize live hosts or if there had not
been death or decay prior to the fall?
A. That is a very speculative question. There
is no scientific evidence for that.
If I were speculating, I would say that there were
organic materials present.
Q. What organic materials were there that were
not created?
A. I'm not saying they weren't created. I'm
saying they didn't necessarily have to be the products
of living organisms.
Q. I see.
Are you aware of any organic material created during
the six-day creation week which was not living at the
time and alive until at least the fall?
A. That is all speculation. I mean, you can
speculate anything.
What does it matter if there were sugars around or
107
not?
Q. Well, then is it your view there may very
well have been things created during creation week that
aren't mentioned in the Bible?
A. Obviously.
Q. Then you wouldn't regard such an omission in
the Bible as an error?
A. What Genesis has in it has no relevance to a
discussion of scientific evidence.
Now, on a personal level, from an opinion, of
course, Genesis does not list all of the kinds or organ-
isms or all of the things that were made. It's a very
sketchy list.
Q. Doctor, is it your view that parasites were
specially created during the six-day creation week?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do you have any opinion at all?
A. I do not even have an opinion on that.
Q. How would you account for the presence of
parasites today if they were not created during the six-
day creation week?
A. They are here. They were --
Q. Is it your belief they were evolved from other
forms or that they evolved to parasitic behavior from
some other type of behavior?
A. They were here. Therefore, if they have not
evolved, they must have been created. That is the
extent of my opinion on the matter.
108
Q. Then are you aware of any scientific facts
on which you can base a determination of whether or not
they were evolved or created?
A. As I said, I haven't studied the fungi that
closely so that the fungi aren't my area of expertise
when it comes to systematics.
Q. Doctor, have you an opinion on whether or not
the green algae can live without sunlight?
A. Green algae that are around today, some of
them can live in the dark with organic compounds
present.
Q. Are there any green algae which cannot live
without sunlight?
A. Most green algae cannot live without sunlight,
without light.
Q. Doctor, have you any view on how the green
algae which cannot live without light did in fact live
during the creation week prior to the creation of the
sun?
A. I have no opinion on the matter.
Q. Is it your opinion that they did, in fact,
live prior to the creation of the sun during creation
week, during the time when organisms were created until
the sun was created?
A. It is my personal opinion that they did live.
Q. I see.
Do you have a scientific opinion on that question?
A. No.
109
Q. Do you believe that a scientific opinion on
that question is possible?
A. As we can't go back there, that comes in the
area of metaphysics.
Q. Doctor, if I may return for a moment to some
testimony that you gave earlier about the definition of
science, I believe you spoke of two groups within
science, one group which assumed that there was no
phenomenon explainable by naturalistic processes --
A. Right.
Q. -- and that there was a second group which
assumed there are phenomena which are not explainable
by naturalistic processes, is that correct?
A. I said, "which I assumed that there could be
phenomena which are not explainable by naturalistic
processes."
Q. And it's your view that the second group, the
group recognizing that there may be phenomena not
explainable by naturalistic processes, is nonetheless
science?
A. Well, if you go back and look at somebody
like Newton, he had some theories on evolution of bodies
in astronomy. Now, Newton is highly thought of in
astronomy even today; but Newton was also a believer in
a supernatural creator.
According to today's definition of "scientist,"
such as is in Nature, that editorial I mentioned earlier,
anybody who believes in a supernatural agency in nature
110
would not be a scientist, but Newton is revered as a
scientist.
Q. Let's except historical instances and discuss
current practicing scientists.
Would you regard scientists practicing today who
assume there are possible phenomena which are unexplaina-
ble by naturalistic means as scientists nonetheless?
A. People who believe that supernatural processes
can explain what we see today, would I regard them as
scientists, is that the questions?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I would.
Q. Are you able to enumerate any phenomena which
cannot be explained, in your view, by naturalistic
processes?
A. Well, of course, the topics we have been
talking about, in my view, cannot be explained by
naturalistic processes.
Q. Doctor, I don't mean to interrupt, but could
you tell me which processes or what you mean by
"processes," as we have been talking about them.
A. Well, the characteristics of the green algae
as we see them today is one example; the characteristics
of algae as we see them today is another example. Out-
side of my field of expertise, just as a matter of
opinion, I would say that things like where matter came
from can't be explained by naturalistic processes.
MR. WOLFE: All right. I make the time to be 3:00
111
o'clock and I understood we were to cease at 3:00
o'clock.
MR. CHILDS: Yes. We will note your objection to
concluding at this time and all that.
One thing I would like to put on the record,
though, is this: I just want to say that the counsel
for the defendants will cooperate in every way possible
to make sure that the witnesses are promptly given an
opportunity to read their testimony and make any correc-
tions or changes they think are necessary, and that we
will go so far as to provide Air Express service of the
original copies or exchange correction sheets or what-
ever to make sure that is done.
And I want an agreement on the record as to the
mechanics of how this is going to be accomplished,
because I get the impression I'm a lot more concerned
about it than you are, and I don't know if that is
because you all haven't given it any thought or what.
The alternative seems to be that the court reporter
can keep the originals and copies can be sent to the
witnesses and they can send change sheets back and the
originals can be sent to the witnesses, and the change
sheets executed at that point and notarized where they
are.
But we will do whatever you all want to do to
assure that is done.
MR. WOLFE: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record]
112
MR. KAPLAN: On the record.
Pursuant to an off-the-record discussion, the
parties have agreed on the following mechanism for the
exchange rapidly of the depositions:
With regard to the original, the deponent will be
sent the original by the court reporter by Federal
Express or some other convenient air courier. Enclosed
will be a return air courier envelope, and the deponent,
after having made the corrections on the original, and
after having signed it and secured a notarization, will
thereafter mail the original, if it is the Attorney
General's witness, to the Attorney General; the Attorney
General will make whatever corrections are necessary on
their copy and immediately, the same day, will forward
the original to Mr. Cearley, who will make the correc-
tions and the same day will forward those depositions to
the Attorney General's Office in Little Rock.
Is that a fair and correct understanding of the way
we will do it?
MR. CHILDS: That is fair.
I would also like that the witness initial any
changes that are made by line through the deposition.
MR. KAPLAN: That is fine, and each of us will
instruct our own witnesses as to the procedure to follow.
MR. CHILDS: The fact that that is not done would
not be a reason to keep it from being used, but that will
be what we will request our witnesses to do.
MR. KAPLAN: We will do it, also.
113
MR. WOLFE: Thank you.
_________________________________
DR. MARGARET HELDER
114
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named
DR. MARGARET HELDER
was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said witness
was reported by
CAROLINE ANDERSON and DEAN MC DONALD,
certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and
that the pertinent provisions of the applicable code or
rules of civil procedure relating to the original
transcript of deposition for reading, correcting and
signing have been complied with.
And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome
of the cause in said caption.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office the ____ day of
November 1981
_________________________________