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. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK
Wednesday, November 18, 1981
Reported by: LINDA L. CHAVEZ, CSR
Cert. #2108; and
THOMAS A. LIBATIQUE, CSR
Cert. #1550
2
I N D E X
PAGE
DEPOSITION OF DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK:
Examination by Mr. Lahiff 5; 53
AFTERNOON SESSION 53
- - -
E X H I B I T S
PLAINTIFFS':
No. 1 Copy, two-page document,
Pyrenco, Inc. 20
No. 2 Copy, single-page document,
"Application Form for the
Creation Research Society" 54
No. 3 Copy, twenty-page document,
"Repossess the Lane,"
August 12-15, 1979 70
No. 4 Photocopy of document entitled
"Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert
Gas Content and Uncertainties
in Age Dating" 96
No. 5 Photocopy of document entitled
"Argon-40: Excess in Submarine
Pillow Basalts from Kilauea
Volcano, Hawaii" 107
- - -
3
BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice, and on
Wednesday, the 18th day of November, 1981, commencing at
the hour of 9:00 o'clock a.m. thereof, at the law offices
of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market Plaza, San Fran-
cisco, before me, LINDA L. CHAVEZ, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Cali-
fornia, personally appeared
DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK,
called as a witness by the plaintiffs, 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 THOMAS M. LAHIFF,
JR., and STEPHEN G. WOLFE, Attorneys 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 CALLIS L. CHILDS, Deputy Attorney General, appeared as
counsel on behalf of the defendants.
- - -
MR. CHILDS: On the record, we agreed last night that
the original deposition will be sent to Dr. Chittick and he
will make any changes he wants to on the face of the
original deposition and forward the original deposition to
our office in Little Rock, Arkansas, and you all are au-
thorized to charge that to our federal expense account and
to send a forwarding label for his use.
4
MR. LAHIFF: I would appreciate that if that could
be signed within five days --
MR. CHILDS: This will be done immediately and when
we get it in Little Rock, we will make note if any
changes have been made and take it over to Bob Cearley's
office.
MR. LAHIFF: Now, as I understand it, we are not
providing copies to you and we have offered in the past
to waive signature and sealing and all objections, except
as to form, are being reserved?
MR. CHILDS: That's true.
I didn't understand what you said about the copies.
MR. LAHIFF: As I understand it, we are not providing
you with copies.
MR. CHILDS: That was the original understanding
that the party that was initiating the deposition would
provide copies, but that apparently has gone by the boards.
MR. LAHIFF: It has.
MR. CHILDS: We are responsible for paying for our
copies and you are responsible for paying for yours.
MR. LAHIFF: That's fine.
- - -
5
DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK,
being duly sworn, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. LAHIFF:
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Dr. Chittick, have you brought any
documents with you here today?
A. Yes
Q. Could I see them, please?
Could I see the documents?
Are these all the documents that you brought with
you today?
That, and these [indicating].
Q. I would like the record to indicate that Dr.
Chittick has provided us with a spiral-bound notebook --
A. Ringed.
Q. -- ringed notebook containing pages of slides.
Could you describe what these slides are of?
A. I teach a course on creation and find that it
helps to illustrate it visually and these are some of the
slides that I use for that course.
These are the ones I thought you would be interested
in.
Q. Is there any particular theme to the slides or
do they go across a wide spectrum?
A. Wide spectrum.
MR. LAHIFF: I would like to take a short recess.
[Recess taken]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Dr. Chittick, I would like to fill
out your curriculum vitae a little bit.
6
Could you please describe your educational background
starting with high school, please.
A. High school, Salem, Oregon; undergraduate,
Willamette University, Salem, Oregon, B.S. in chemistry;
Ph.D., Oregon State University, physical chemistry.
Q. When did you get your B.S.?
A. 1954.
Q. And when did you get your Ph.D. in physical
chemistry?
A. 1960
Q. Have you had any continuing education since
you received your Ph.D. in physical chemistry?
A. I attended a summer institute at the University
of Southern California on colloid science.
Q. Could you please describe what colloid science
is?
A. It is the science of surfaces, coatings,
paints, lubricants, et cetera.
Q. Have you obtained any other degrees?
A. No other degrees.
Q. What areas did you study when you received
your B.S. in chemistry?
A. Emphasis was in chemistry and that included
the requirements for the B.S. degree in the catalog
at that time and I don't recall all of those.
Q. Was there any particular emphasis on organic
chemistry?
A. No, we took general chemistry, organic
7
chemistry, analytical chemistry and physical chemistry
and special topics.
Q. Could you describe your course of studies to
obtain the Ph.D. in physical chemistry?
A. The course of studies included a major, a minor
and a second minor.
The major was in physical chemistry and a first
minor in physics and a second minor in mathematics.
Q. Could you please describe what physical chemis-
try is?
A. Physical chemistry is sometimes referred to
as theoretical chemistry.
It is the theory behind why the other chemistry
branches work.
Q. What do you mean by the theory behind that
explains how the other branches of chemistry work?
A. In organic chemistry, they will have an organic
physical reaction.
Physical chemistry would be an attempt to under-
stand why the reaction took place, the mechanism of the
reaction, the rate of the reaction, the kinetics, and
steps involved.
That would be it.
Q. In addition to the course in colloids, have
you had any other continuing education?
A. Well, as a teacher of science at the university
level for over twenty years, one tries to stay abreast
of the literature by attending professional meetings
8
and reading the literature and in that sense my educa-
tion has continued.
Q. Have you received any academic honors during
the course of your education?
A. Yes.
Pardon me, the last?
Q. During the course of your education.
A. Yes, in high school I got the Bausch & Lomb
Science Award.
In Oregon State I was elected to Phi Lambda Upsilon
Honorary and associate member of Sigma Xi.
Q. What is Sigma Xi?
A. Sigma Xi is the National Science Research
Honorary Association.
Q. And what has been your employment experience
since you graduated with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry
in 1960?
A. In 1958, before I had my Ph.D., while I was
writing my thesis, I received employment at the University
of Puget Sound in Tacoma in the chemistry department
and remained there until 1968 where I transferred to
George Fox College in Newberg, Oregon and remained there
until my present employment in 1979.
Q. And what is your present employment?
A. It is as a research and development person
with Pyrenco.
[Discussion off the record]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Could you please describe for me
9
exactly what Pyrenco is?
A. Pyrenco is the business of converting biomass
waste materials into usable fuel.
Q And what position do you hold with Pyrenco?
A. Research and development.
Q. Who else is associated with Pyrenco?
A. A number of other employees.
Q. Would you be considered the president of Pyren-
co?
A. No.
No, the president of Pyrenco is Fred Beirle.
Q. And who else are officers in Pyrenco?
A. Bob Poole, Al Garwood, Jim Harvey.
There may be one or two others.
I don't remember.
Q. Who else is associated with the firm in a re-
search and development capacity?
A. I am the director of research and development
and have two assistants.
Q. And who are you assistants?
A. Steve Allemann and Jack Smith.
Q. What courses did you teach at George Fox?
A. My primary responsibility was chemistry
courses and also taught a course in creation.
Q. Exactly what chemistry courses did you teach?
A. General chemistry, quantitative analysis,
advanced and literal chemistry --
[Mr. Klasfeld enters the deposition room]
10
MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.
[Discussion off the record]
[Mr. Klasfeld leaves the deposition room]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. I am sorry, before we were inter-
rupted, you were describing the courses at George Fox.
A. I listed general chemistry, advanced analytical
chemistry in organics and physical chemistry and selected
topics.
Q. What exactly is selected topics?
A. Selected topics is a course that is designed
for one term to meet a special instance need of a particu-
lar group of students going through at the time.
For example, it might be on the environment or on
forensic chemistry.
Q. Could you please describe your course in crea-
tion science?
A. Creation science, as taught at the college,
was a course that was taught on an every-other-year basis,
usually -- well, always in -- well, in the evening for
upper level students who had to have at least one year
in science, one of the natural sciences.
- - -
11
Q. And, what topics did you cover?
A. As listed on the syllabus that I brought for
the document.
Q. I think we will wait until we get those docu-
ments back, then we will go over the syllabus.
Do you have any other activities in addition to your
activities as director of research and development for
Pyrenco; do you act as a consultant for any other organiza-
tion?
A. No.
You mean consultant on a paid basis?
Q. On a paid basis?
A. No.
Q. Do you act as a consultant on an unpaid basis
to any organization?
A. When people telephone me and ask me questions,
I try to answer them.
Q. Do you have any kind of a permanent relation-
ship with any particular organization, whether on a
paid or unpaid basis?
A. Not on an active basis.
Q. What do you mean by not on an active basis,
do you have that relationship on an inactive basis?
A. Some people have listed my name on this
literature without my permission as a consultant.
Q. Which people have listed your name as a con-
sultant?
A. Norman Fox.
12
Q. And, who is Norman Fox?
A. He is a person who is developing a motion
picture on the creation-evolution discussion.
Q. And, what is the name of his organization?
A. I would have to go look.
I'm not sure.
I think Maranatha Productions, but I'm not certain
of that, Eugene, Oregon.
Q. And, he has listed your name without your per-
mission?
A. That's correct.
Q. What other organizations have listed your
name as a consultant?
A. Creation Science Research Center.
Q. Could you please identify that organization?
A. They are in San Diego.
Q. And, was that listing of your name as a con-
sultant without your authorization?
A. I wrote to them and asked to have my name
removed from their literature.
Q. Did you bring a copy of that letter with you?
A. No.
Q. Did you send any letters to Norman Fox asking
that your name be removed from his literature?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any relationship at all with
Creation Science Research Institute or Center, are
you a member?
13
A. No.
Q. Have you ever done any consulting work for them?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you engage in any research during your
period of employment at George Fox?
A. Yes, I was working with conversion of biomass
to fuel.
Q. Did you receive any grants for that work?
A. No grants.
Q. And, how was the research funded?
A. It was funded by my own funding.
Q. Was the research associated with the university
in any way?
A. No.
MR. LAHIFF: Excuse me, could I take a brief recess.
[Recess taken]
[Record read]
THE WITNESS: By association I mean they didn't fund
it.
MR. LAHIFF: Q. I am sorry, who didn't fund it?
A. The university.
I did it on their premises.
Q. Have you received any grants to do research?
A. I received a National Science Foundation
summer grant while I was at the University of Puget
Sound to do research with high school students in photo-
chemistry.
Q. Exactly what did that involve?
14
A. It involved teaching them what basic research
is all about, and actually doing a research project in-
volved with photochemistry.
Q. What precisely was the grant for?
A. For exposing high school students to an actual,
real live research situation.
Q. Have you received any other grants?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. What was your thesis on?
A. Kinetics of bleaching and colored KCL.
Q. What is colored KCL?
A. KCL is a potassium chloride, and we grew single
crystals, and caused a stoichiometric excess of potassium
to be present so the electron would go into the traps
in the crystal, and cause it to be colored, and then I
measured the rate of bleaching from that.
Q. Is there any practical application for that?
A. The practical application was that at that
time, and still today, solid-state electronic theory is
useful, so the normal materials are nontransparent,
whereas potassium chloride is transparent so one can look
inside and see what is going on to serve as a model for
the nontransparents.
Q. Was your thesis ever published?
A. A copy of it is in the library, if that
constitutes publication.
Q. But, it wasn't published in any scientific
journal?
15
A. That's correct.
Q. Have you ever made an application for a grant
that wasn't funded?
A. No.
Q. What do you believe to be your field of ex-
pertise?
A. My training is in physical chemistry.
Q. Have you ever published any articles dealing
with physical chemistry?
A. Yes, in connection with other authors, I
published an article in the Journal of Electrochemistry,
and I don't recall the reference right now, on oscillating
electrodes using titanium and zirconium.
Q. Is that your only publication, or do you have
others; these are publications dealing with your field
of expertise?
A. Other than patents, no.
Q. And, what are your patents?
A. In alternate fuels.
Q. Could you describe?
A. The conversion of biomass to usable fuel by
pyrolysis on which I have a patent with some claims
granted on the first device, and we have a second device
with patenting well along on it.
Q. And, what is pyrolysis?
A. Pyrolysis is a chemical reaction carried out
with the aid of heat.
Q. Could you elaborate on that a little bit for
16
me, please?
A. I am not sure of the semantic background of
the material, but some chemical reaction can be carried
out with electricity, so we call it electrolysis.
Some chemical reactions can be carried out with
the aid of heat, so we call it pyrolysis, because py
comes from heat, it means heat.
Q. Exactly what do you do as director of research
and development for Pyrenco?
A. My primary responsibility is to suggest solu-
tions to engineering problems, and to investigate further
areas of development that the company might wish to work
with related to alternate fuels.
Q. Are these research programs technical applica-
tions?
A. They are, let's see, how would we define those --
Q. Well, what do you understand by research?
A. I understand research has two thrusts:
One is applied to solve practical problems, try to
do something, say corrosion comes in, for example, so how
do you do it so you will get your process to go and avoid
the corrosion problems.
That would be a practical.
The other is fundamental research where you try to
look for new ways of doing something, you want to go from
Point A to Point B, how do you get from Point A to Point
B more efficiently, more economically with a higher yield.
Those are fundamental research, and I am involved
17
in both.
Q. Do you have any other areas of expertise in ad-
dition to physical chemistry, do you claim any expertise
in geology, paleontology, any other discipline?
A. I have studied as a physical chemist, I have
studied areas that physical chemistry relates to.
Q. And what areas does physical chemistry relate
to?
A. Chemicals reactions that would occur in, for
example, formation of fossils.
Q. Do you have any background or training in
geology?
A. I have no formal course work in geology.
Q. Do you have any background or training in
paleontology?
A. I have no formal course work in paleontology.
Q. Have you published any articles dealing with
your work at Pyrenco?
A. I have mentioned articles like the newspaper
article that you have as a document, that that research
was an offshoot of the creation model.
Q. Have you published any articles dealing with
your research at Pyrenco in publications objected to
pure review?
A. Other than patents, no.
Q. Could you explain to me why you left the
University of Puget Sound?
A. The George Fox College was wanting to institute
18
a chemistry major, and invited me down as a visiting
professor to set up a program for their evaluation, and
having done that, and having also been from Oregon, I
decided to stay.
Q. Does George Fox have any religious affiliation?
A. George Fox was Quaker, founded by the Quakers.
Q. Does it continue to have a religious affilia-
tion?
A. Yes.
Q. And does it continue to be affiliated with the
Quakers?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever been denied tenure?
A. No.
Q. What kinds of publications, or have you published
newspaper articles dealing with physical chemistry since
you graduated in 1960?
A. No.
Q. Did the colleges where you taught, the Univer-
sity of Puget Sound, and George Fox grant graduate degrees?
A. The University of Puget Sound granted a Master's
degree.
Q. Master's degree in what?
A. Several area, one of which was chemistry.
Q. And other areas?
A. Yes.
I don't recall what they were right now.
Q. Does George Fox grant graduate degrees?
19
A. No, George Fox is an undergraduate institution.
Q. Did you teach graduate level courses at the
University of Puget Sound?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What grade level courses did you teach?
A. I don't recall all of them.
One of them was solid-state physics.
Q. And, what background or training to you have to
teach solid-state physics?
A. My thesis area.
Q. Do you have any formal training in physics in
addition to -- I think you said a minor when you received
your B.S.?
A. When I received my Ph.D.
Q. Your Ph.D.?
A. No.
Q. Have you published any articles dealing with
physics?
A. No.
Q. While you were employed either by the University
of Puget Sound or George Fox, did you supervise the
research of graduate students?
A. While I was at the University of Puget Sound I
did supervise graduate students.
Q. What kind of research?
A. Photochemistry.
Q. Did you supervise the research of graduate
students -- oh, there were no graduate students at George
20
Fox.
What kind of professional affiliations do you have?
A. I have those listed on my vitae.
MR. LAHIFF: Perhaps we should mark your vitae
as Exhibit 1.
[Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1, two-page
document, Pyrenco, Inc., marked
for iden.]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. I would like to ask you if you
recognize Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for identification, and
is that a copy of your vitae?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you belong to any other organizations other
than what are listed on your vitae?
A. Let me see it again.
Your question was, again?
Q. Do you belong to any other professional organiza-
tions other than the ones listed on your vitae?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever held an office in the American
Chemical Society?
A. A minor office.
I was the program chairman for the Northwest regional
meeting division of analytical chemistry some years back
while I was at the University of Puget Sound.
Q. And, during what period of time was this?
A. This was between '68 and -- no, between '58
and '68.
21
Q. What were you responsibilities?
A. My responsibilities were to arrange all the
details of the professional meetings, edit and accept
papers from my colleagues around the Northwest whenever
they came in, and conduct, chair the meetings.
Q. Were you part of a peer review process for
articles that were eventually published in the journal?
A. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Q. Is there a journal associated with the American
Chemical Society?
A. There are numerous journals associated with
the American Chemical Society, each of their branches.
There are many publications in this particular
situation, then I was involved with reviewing the articles
that were associated with that, that meeting.
Q. Were you ever an officer of the American Associ-
ation For The Advancement of Science?
A. No.
Q. Were you ever an officer with the New York
Academy of Sciences?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hold an office with the Creation
Research Society?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever attended any meetings of the
Creation Research Society?
A. The Creation Research Society?
Let's see.
22
No, I have not.
Q. What do you do as a member of the Creation
Research Society?
A. I receive their publication.
Q. Do you have any activities, do you publish
in the creation --
A. I have not to date.
Q. Do you pay dues to the Creation Research Society?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever performed any tasks for the
Creation Research Society?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever received any academic awards?
A. Those listed.
Q. In addition to those listed on your vitae?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever presented any papers to any
meetings of any of these organizations?
A. Yes, I presented a number of papers.
Q. Of which you are a member?
A. To several professional organization, includ-
ing the American Chemical Society.
Q. Could you please indentify those papers for
me?
A. I don't recall now the dates on these.
One was to the Oregon Academy of Sciences on
oscillating electrodes, and likewise to the American
Chemical Society, and another paper to the American
23
Chemical Society on program instruction.
Q. Does the Creation Research Society have a
publication associated with it?
A. Yes, Creation Research Society Quarterly.
Q. Have you ever published in that?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had any adjunct teaching posi-
tions?
A. How would you --
Q. Have you ever been an adjunct member of a
faculty or university or college in addition to the ones
listed on your vitae?
A. Yes, I taught creation at two places.
One was a summer school course which you have the
syllabus for in the deposition at Western Evangelical,
Western Baptist Evangelical Seminary, and I have taught
a number times in the evening school at Multmoma School
of the Bible.
Q. What kinds of courses have you taught?
A. They asked me to teach the Bible and earth
history.
Q. Have you ever taught any seminars?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you please describe them for me?
A. I presented a number of seminars for universi-
ties in various locations on the topic of origins.
Q. In which universities have you presented
seminars?
24
A. I don't recall all the universities that I
have presented seminars.
They include Oregon College of Education, Oregon
State University, Evergreen State College, and there
were six universities in New Zealand, there was one
university in Peru, Lima, Peru, and some others, I don't
recall.
It has been over a period of years.
Q. And you have taught seminars on origins at
all these universities?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a member of the Creation Research
Society?
A. I am.
Q. Are you a member of the Institute for Creation
Research?
A. No.
Q. Are you a member of the Creation Science Re-
search Center?
A. No.
Q. Are you a member of the Bible Science Associa-
tion?
A. I am.
Q. Are you a member of Citizens for Fairness in
Education?
A. No.
Q. Are you a member of Citizens for Balanced Educa-
tin as to Origin?
25
A. No.
Q. Have you ever held any office in the Bible
Science Association?
A. No.
Q. Turning back to the seminars that you have
taught, which departments sponsored these seminars at
these respective universities?
A. Normally it was the chemistry departments,
but in some cases it was the science department in general
as for example at OCE, Oregon College of Education.
Q. Has the religion or theology department ever
sponsored any of these seminars which you have taught?
A. Last spring the Clackamas Department of Region
and Philosophy invited me to present seminars, and you
have that in the deposition
Q. Any other religion or theology departments?
A. Yes, I think there was another one at a school
in the Midwest, and I don't recall the details now.
Q. What is your religious affiliation?
A. I am a member of the Newberg Friends Church.
Q. And, what religious denomination is that?
A. Quaker.
Q. Do you hold any office in the church?
A. I am presently on the board of elders.
Q. And, do you attend church regularly?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you belong to any church groups?
A. What would be called a church group?
26
Q. Well, do you belong to any groups or organiza-
tions sponsored by the Newberg Friends Church, or any
other church?
A. No.
Q. Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?
A. What would be a fundamentalist?
Q. Do you consider yourself a biblical literalist?
A. Well, fundamentalist as it is used is a radical,
emotional, more than logical thinking individual.
I would not classify myself that way.
Q. Do you consider yourself a biblical literalist?
A. What would be a biblical literalist?
Q. Do you believe the Bible is a literal account
of the creation of the universe, and that it represents
historical truth rather than religious myth?
A. My personal opinion is that that would be
correct.
Q. What would be correct?
A. That the Genesis account is an accurate histori-
cal record.
Q. Do you have a personal religious counselor or
adviser?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever read the Bible?
A. Yes.
Q. How often do you read the Bible?
A. I read portions of it.
I don't know how often I go clear through.
27
I read portions of it daily.
Q. Do you as a physical chemist ever consult the
Bible?
A. For physical chemistry, no.
Q. Do you consider the Bible to be a source of
personal revelation?
A. Let me back up on this.
Do I consult as a physical chemist.
I feel that any source that bears on my discipline
is worth looking at academically.
There may be situations that would bear on my
discipline there, and I wouldn't want to rule them out.
Q. Have you ever consulted the Bible for your
discipline?
A. In the sense that it mentions, for example,
alloys, I have been curious about the early alloys.
- - -
28
Q. What do you mean about the early alloys?
A. For example, the Bronze Age.
Q. What do you mean by "For example, the Bronze
Age"?
A. Bronze is an alloy that is mentioned in Genesis.
Q. How have you used the Bible as a research tool
with respect to bronze alloys?
A. That gives an early date for the alloying of
metals to make bronze, so I was curious about the chemical
and physical qualities of early bronze.
Q. Is there any description of the chemical and
physical properties in the Bible?
A. Not that I am aware.
Q. Does the Bible predict future events?
A. My personal opinion is that it does.
Q. What events has it predicted?
A. What events has it predicted?
Q. Already.
A. Already predicted?
Q. Already predicted.
A. It has already predicted the downfall, I
suppose, of civilizations that have departed from some of
the precepts that are mentioned there.
Q. Could you be a little more specific, which
civilization has it preducted the downfall of?
A. Well, as I am aware, and, again, this is not an
area -- history is not an area of my specialty, but I have
been interested in the writings of those who have written
29
on the subject relating to the four empires mentioned in
Daniel, Book of Daniel, for example.
Q. And what are the four empires?
A. Let's see. Babylonian, the Medeal Persian, the
Grecian and the Roman.
Q. And the Bible specifically refers to the down-
fall of those four empires?
A. As I understand it.
Q. Has the Bible ever been an inspiration for any
research project that you have undertaken?
A. Indirectly, perhaps. The Creation model inter-
ested me and scientists who had written on the Creation
model talked about things that would get me started
thinking about formation of fossil fuels and lead to the
research that I am presently engaged with.
Q. But has the Bible itself ever provided you with
a specific project to investigate, for example?
A. We did some -- one of the students that was at
George Fox College needed a senior thesis and Genesis
mentioned a geological event known as the flood and it
occurred to me that if that water had been receding, then
there ought to be water recessional lines.
There are terraces located very broadly, notably up
in the Northwest. I suggested to the student that he do
a research project asking geologists and investigating
and doing research on those terrace line formations.
Q. Did a paper ever come out of that research?
A. Research paper made and went into the library at
30
George Fox College, is the requirement for that study.
Q. Was it ever published in any journal?
A. Not that I am aware.
Q. Does the Bible suggest methods of investigation?
A. How do you mean that?
Q. Well, what do you think I mean by methods of
investigation? Methods of scientific research.
A. Methods of scientific research come to creative
people, it seems to me, ideas come in and you want to go
from point A to point B and these ideas come and you
begin to think about a problem, and it is very possible
that some of those suggestions came from study of
Genesis.
Q. But has the Bible itself ever suggested a
methodology for your research?
A. Methodology to such and so on in a certain way?
Q. Yes.
A. Not that I am aware.
Q. Have you had any contact with the Attorney
General prior to today about your testimony?
A. The Arkansas office of the Attorney General
telephoned me some time back, a week or so or two weeks,
I am not sure how long ago, and inquired about my willing-
ness to be involved.
Q. Did they discuss any specific topics about what
you would be testifying?
A. I don't recall that they did.
Q. Do you remember the individual at the Attorney
31
General's Office that you had the contact with?
A. You told me his name last night. I should
remember.
MR. CHILDS: Mr. Campbell, I believe.
THE WITNESS: Rick Campbell, thank you. Rick
Campbell.
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Did you have any other discussions
with Mr. Campbell or with anyone else from the Attorney
General's Office regarding your testimony?
A. Prior to today?
Q. Prior to today.
A. Last evening we discussed what a deposition is,
what our time frame was when my plane would leave.
Q. But did you have any discussion of the substance
of your testimony?
A. What I would say?
Q. Those areas that you would testify about.
A. He suggested to me that I testify in my area.
Q. And what is your area?
A. Physical chemistry.
Q. Have you had any discussions with anyone from
the Attorney General's Office about your testimony during
the trial of McLean vs. Arkansas?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Have you had any contact with any Creation
Science groups regarding your testimony here today?
A. No.
Q. Have you had any contact with any Creation
32
Science groups regarding your testimony during the trial
of McLean vs. Arkansas?
A. No.
Q. Had anyone from any Creation Science group
sought to recruit you to testify?
A. Wendell Bird inquired whether I would be willing
and you have his letter to me.
Q. And when did Mr. Bird write to you?
A. I don't know. The date is on the letter.
Q. Did you respond to Mr. Bird?
A. Yes.
Q. What was you response?
A. Affirmative.
Q. And when was that?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Did Mr. Bird discuss with you your testimony?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Bird suggest any areas in which you
could testify?
A. No.
Q. Did you suggest any areas to Mr. Bird?
A. I may have. I don't recall. It seems like I
did suggest that I was a physical chemist.
Q. Have you had any contact with an individual by
the name of John Whitehead?
A. I may have seen him somewhere. It may have been
at one of the meetings that I was. I do not recall that.
I do not know the gentleman.
23
Q. Have you ever testified prior to today in any
court proceeding?
A. No.
Q. In any legislative proceeding?
A. Yes, the Washington House of Representatives
invited me to testify last spring.
Q. And what did they invite you to testify about?
A. The Creation model, scientific Creation model.
Q. Do you happen to know if there is a transcript
available of your testimony?
A. I don't, no.
Q. What was the substance of your testimony?
A. The substance of my testimony -- How detailed
do you need?
Q. Well, as detailed as you can give me.
A. I was there -- I was testifying for about 30
minutes, as I recall, and used some of the visual
materials that I have at the present, showing that there
are two models currently being talked about in the
scientific community and gave a little bit of scientific
background, why I had become interested in the topic of
origins, and some of my discussions with my colleagues
relating to that and then some of the evidences that
seemed appropriate.
Q. What was this legislative proceeding being held
in connection with?
A. As I recall, there was a legislator, a woman, I
believe -- I'm not sure -- from the Spokane area district
34
-- who had introduced a bill requiring balanced or asking
for balanced treatment, and I didn't have the bill. So I
am not sure of the content of it.
Q. You didn't have the bill before you testified?
A. That's correct. That morning, when I arrived,
I quickly went over the bill before the testimony, but
just five minutes.
Q. You were testifying in favor of the bill?
A. I was testifying in favor of the Creation model.
Q. Are you familiar with the Arkansas statute
that is the focus of this lawsuit?
A. This morning I was presented with a copy at
breakfast which I quickly went over. So I have glanced
over it. I would not say that I am familiar with it.
Q. Who presented you with a copy?
A. David Campbell, I think.
MR. CHILDS: Williams.
THE WITNESS: David Williams. I am sorry.
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Had you seen a copy of this statute
prior to today?
A. No.
Q. Were you aware of its existence prior to today?
A. Yes, the Arkansas Attorney General's Office,
on the telephone, said there was such a document.
Q. Prior to being informed by the Arkansas
Attorney General, were you aware of the existence of this
statute?
A. No -- yes, I heard a news comment about it. I
35
don't know when.
Q. Have you ever participated in any debates deal-
ing with Creation Science?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell me when those debates were?
A. It was not a formal debate. It was more of a
forum. One was this last spring at the Clackamas
Community College and you have a copy of that correspond-
ence.
Q. Any other debates?
A. Again, a forum type with the pro and con sides
represented, the National Science Teachers Association in
Portland, Oregon, and you have that letter and document.
Q. I am sorry, the National Science --
A. Teachers Association.
Q. Any other forum?
A. Yes, I was invited to Holland in '78 -- '77 or
'78 -- late '70s for a debate.
Q. And who sponsored that?
A. Evangelische Omroep.
Q. Were you paid for any of your appearances at
any of these forums?
A. My expenses were covered and it seems like I
may have received a small honorarium in addition.
Q. From which organization?
A. From Clackamas Community College and from the
Holland group.
Q. Do you recall what that honorarium was?
36
A. It is stated in the paper. I don't recall the
figure.
Q. Do you know if there are any transcripts availa-
ble from any of these forms?
A. The proceedings of the Holland debate were
published in booklet form in Dutch.
Q. Do you happen to have a copy of it?
A. At the house.
Q. Do you know if it is available in English
translation?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Who sponsored the forum at Clackamas Community
College?
A. The Philosophy-Religion Department.
Q. And what was the substance of your discussion
or your participation during the forum?
A. The forum lasted for three evenings with a
Creation model proponent and an Evolution model proponent
each evening. The final evening was a panel, sort of an
informal debate interacting between the members of the
panel and/or any question from the audience directed to
any panel member.
Q. Who were the members of the panel?
A. I believe -- I don't recall. That's in the
deposition -- the announcement. Mark Feldman is a man
from Portland State University who is in paleontology, I
believe, and a geologist and I don't recall his name
now. And there was a fellow from -- a geologist, also,
37
from Whitworth College in Spokane. There were four of
us.
Q. On which side did you argue?
A. The creation side. The others were for the
Evolution model.
Q. Who was in support of the creation side?
A. Just me.
Q. What was the structure of the forum at the
National Science Teachers Association?
A. The structure was that each of us, Dr. Stearns
-- and I forget his first name, now -- from Reed College,
whose specialty was evolution -- presented the Evolution
model and then I presented the Creation model and then
we both were present for questions from the audience.
It seems like it was Steven Stearns, but don't quote
me on that.
Q. Did anyone else participate in that forum?
A. As main people other than the audience?
Q. Other than the audience?
A. No.
Q. And what was the structure of the forum in
Holland? I won't attempt to pronounce it.
A. In Holland there were six people involved in
addition to the moderator. There was a pro and con
astronomer, a pro and con paleontologist or fossil record
discussion and a pro and con geology area.
Q. And who were the participants?
A. I do not recall the Dutch participants. The
38
Americans were Dr. Harold Slusher, Dr. Duane Gish and
myself. And they had asked me specifically to speak on
the age of the earth and to write a paper. We each had
to do that, make our presentation and send it to them a
month ahead of time, so that they could be prepared to
rebut or ask questions on it and that was then translated
into Dutch.
Q. Did you bring a copy of your paper with you
here today?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How did you first come to hear about this case?
A. In the news media.
Q. Are you being paid for your testimony?
A. No.
- - -
39
Q. Have you discussed the specifics of your
testimony to be given at the trial with the Attorney
General?
A. No.
Q. Have you discussed the specifics of your testi-
money to be given at trial with anyone?
A. Specifics, other that it is going to be on the
topic "Origins" and -- you mean details?
Q. Details of what you are going to be testifying
to.
A. No.
Q. Has anyone suggested a discipline or an area
as to what you should testify?
A. I suggested when asked what my area was,
physical chemistry.
Q. Do you what your testimony will be?
A. It will be similar to those seminars that I
have given elsewhere.
Q. Well, what will your testimony be?
A. I haven't worked it all out.
Q. Well, have you thought about what your testimony
would be?
A. Oh, ,yes, of course.
Q. What have you thought you might testify about
or what are you considering testifying about?
A. I thought about -- I don't know how much time
we will have, how much is proper.
But suppose I had an idea --
40
MR. CHILDS: You mean at the trial?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CHILDS: I am sorry.
Go ahead.
I am sorry.
THE WITNESS: If I had an idea of the amount of time
which would be like I present -- obviously it is a very
broad subject.
You could spend a lot of time on it but I suspected
that time is going to be critical and important. It is to
me. I presume to others.
So if I were to condense it down to, say, a forty-
five-minute period or less, a condensed version, I would
like to present a little bit of my own background and
how I got interested in the topic; what I have learned by
talking with my colleagues who are in both camps and some
of the evidence that I looked at that convinced me the
creation model had a lot going for it.
Q. Well, what will you be testifying about with
respect to physical chemistry which is your field of
expertise?
A. Physical chemistry is kind of king of sciences,
in my judgment, my personal opinion.
It relates to the chemistry behind fossil formation,
for example.
Q. In addition to fossil formation, what does it
relate to?
A. Isotope ratios, chemical processes involved with
41
earth history.
Q. Such as?
A. Fossil fuel formation.
Q. Anything else?
A. Not that immediately comes to mind.
Q. Do you consider yourself to be a creation
scientist?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. I haven't always been a creation scientist
and --
Q. At what point did you become a creation sci-
entist?
A. After I finished my Ph.D. training.
Q. What happened at that point to lead you to be-
come a creation scientist?
A. I began to become a ware of the discussion
creation science/evolution science as models for origins
and I found it fascinated me and very fascinating to study
and to discuss and being in the educational field, being
people would ask me questions, I found that they were in-
terested as well.
And as a result of being asked questions, many of
which I found interesting, also, I began to study what
scientific evidence was available, not only in my own
discipline but from writings of others and from that
study became a creation scientist.
Q. Could you define creation science for me as you
42
practice it?
A. Creation science, as I practice it, is looking
at the scientific data from the point of view that
origin was by creation.
Q. Any specific scientific data?
A. I mentioned fossil fuel formation.
Q. Well, is there any specific scientific data
that led you to become a creation scientist?
A. Among the data that I considered were the order-
liness of the universe.
It appeared to be one of law and order.
The geophysical, geochemical processes seemed to go
against the idea that they were requiring or had occurred
over long period of time and just geochemical processes.
Q. Any other scientific data?
A. As I practiced it or that I was reading in con-
nection with other--
Q. That led to your belief or to your acceptance
of creation science.
A. While I am not a paleontologist, the fossil
record did not seem to support slow, gradual change over
vast periods of time by the writings of other people who
were interested in the topic.
Q. Is there any other scientific data that you
could point to?
A. The fossil record, geophysical processes,
geophysical-geochemical processes, orderliness in the
universe and the writings of biochemists who looked at
43
life processes.
Q. Was the Bible a piece of scientific evidence
that led to your adoption or acceptance of creation
science?
A. I don't recall any particular point there that
convinced me.
It was primarily the fields that I have mentioned
for you.
Q. Did you consult the Bible at all during this
process of researching?
A. I would consult it to see if statements people
would make that were contained therein were true.
If it mentioned there was bronze mentioned early, I
would check to see if that was true.
Q. In other words, you used the Bible as a source
of scientific information?
A. Where Genesis talked about those points that
science could investigate, where it talked about places
and times, locations, yes.
Q. Did any particular event precipitate or act
as a significant cause in your becoming a creation sci-
entist?
A. Many discussions.
Q. But was there a particular event?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did any particular person precipitate or act
as a significant cause in your becoming a creation
scientist?
44
A. A single individual?
Q. A single individual or several individuals.
Are there any individuals to whom you would point as
saying they were a significant cause in my becoming a
creation scientist?
A. Well, there were many people who were patient
with me as I was asking questions.
My colleagues in my departments.
Q. But did any of these people lead to your ques-
tioning?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Do you consider your becoming a creation sci-
entist a religious experience?
A. No.
Q. Turning back to the data that formed the basis
for your acceptance of creation science, what do you mean
by the orderliness of the universe?
A. Orderliness, particularly from a physical-chemi-
cal chemistry point of view, because physical chemistry
attempts to describe in terms of mathematical equations,
insofar as possible, the events that occur. These are
predictable and do not seem to be random or haphazard.
Q. And how did that lead you to accept creation
science?
A. It led me to ask the question, which origin
model would tend to predict an orderly world study.
Q. And how doesn't the evolution model predict an
45
orderly world?
A. As I heard my colleagues discuss the evolution
model, at no time did they, as I heard them discuss, at
least, and in writings of other literature -- and they
were my friends so we had a lot of discussions -- did they
ever mention intelligence being involved with origins.
They talked about stochastic processes which left
a philosophical hole as far as where the orderliness came
from.
Q. Is there any factual basis for this orderliness,
this intelligence?
A. In the sense that the starting point of a model,
as we call creation model and evolution model begin a
priori, that's your starting point predisposition.
Q. What are your a prioris or assumptions?
A. In the creation model?
Q. In the creation model.
A. In the creation model the a priori is that there
was a creative force involved in origins.
Q. Are there any other assumptions?
A. That would be what we call the capital as-
sumption and there are subassumptions and subassumptions
and subcatagories of assumptions and assumptions and
assumptions, depending how narrow you get off in the
field, ad infinitum.
Q. Could you describe the major assumptions in
the creation model and we will start with those first.
A. The major assumptions, and this may not be
46
an exhaustive list because I am trying to do this by re-
call, would be that there was a creative force involving
origins. That's the top one.
In the creation model is not -- it seemed to me not
trapped into a particular time frame as the evolution
model seemed to require.
Q. What do you mean by trapped in a specific time
frame?
A. As I read the literature, some of which you have
in deposition and as I talked with colleagues, they all
seemed to tell me that they required that the evolution
model required vast amounts of time and that the model
wouldn't be viable if they were not there. That seemed
to put blinders on me as a scientist.
I did not like that restriction.
I like to say if it is there, fine.
If it isn't, that's fine too.
So one of the assumptions in the creation model was,
we were freer to look at the time question.
Q. Doesn't the Bible act as a restriction on your
research or your investigation?
A. Not in my personal opinion.
Q. But you do consult the Bible?
A. For professional -- I consult the Genesis record
-- I consider the Genesis record and any other area that
touches my discipline to be fair game for my investigation.
Q. But you do consider that to be a literal account
of the origin of the universe?
47
A. If by literal we mean that the points that can
be checked in time and place as in, say, bronze chemical
composition of tin and copper, I find that checked for
accuracy and I find it to be accurate.
Q. What other assumptions are there in the creation
model?
A. I think those are the main ones.
Q. Are there any other minor assumptions, then?
A. Well, when a scientist makes a model he, you
know -- you have the other model then you have your little
subareas that you are going to investigate.
For example, my areas of alternate fuels, I assume
a process and then go check the process out.
And that assumption would be consistent with the over-
all creation model.
Q. What process do you assume?
A. In the alternate fuels area, I made the assump-
tion, suppose the conversion of biomass to fossil fuels
were a much more rapid process than the evolution model
had considered. What kind of chemistry -- what assump-
tions would I need to make about the chemistry involved,
mid those assumptions and then began to check it out from
that point of view.
So, what I am saying is the overmodel, then, you
make assumptions for the area that you are going to apply.
Q. Is there any scientific evidence of a creative
force?
A. We have all the data that can be looked at,
48
all the known data can be looked at from a creative --
from the creation model assumptions.
Q. But is there scientific data that demonstrates
the existence of a creative force?
A. In my judgment.
Q. And what is that scientific data?
A. Orderliness.
Q. Is there any experimental basis for your belief
that there is a creative force?
A. The experimental basis would mean that you can
go into the laboratory and repeat. The creation was a
past event. It was history. We cannot put history into
a test tube, at least as far as I know.
Q. What in your understanding are the assumptions
of the evolution model?
A. In my understanding, the assumptions of the
evolution model is that no intelligence was involved, no
creative force, but that the present state of the universe
must be accounted for using only natural processes.
Q. Are there any other assumptions?
A. That's the primary assumption and subassumptions
that apply to each of the areas of investigation.
Q. Do you believe there is any scientific evidence
to support any of these assumptions?
A. The evidence -- the data are what we have.
Then the assumptions are used to interpret the data.
So it would be the same case for the evolution model
that I just stated for the creation model.
49
Q. Could you define science for me, please.
A. Science probably has as many definitions as
there are scientists, but the definition that I prefer is
a search for truth in the realm of nature.
Q. What do you believe to be the attributes of
science?
A. I believe science is -- has involved with it a
philosophical base. That's why they grant Ph.D.'s.
You begin with a set of assumptions, look at the
data and draw corresponding conclusions which we call
making models.
In the microscopic area, we make some assumptions
and look at the data and come up with what we call an
atomic model.
Q. What would distinguish religious faith from
science?
A. Well, it seems to me that religious faith in-
volves theology as a study and some religious exercise.
Q. Well, what would distinguish science from faith?
A. In the sense that religious faith begins with
assumptions also and then looks at religious data, draws
conclusions.
They have a formal analogy.
Q. Well, you have testified that assumptions are
the basis of science as well.
What would distinguish science from religion?
A. Well, religion, of course, would have some --
perhaps some formalized liturgy or worship or sociologic
50
associations with it.
It might and does speculate or discuss or talk about
the nature of the creative force.
Q. Do you believe science to involve falsifia-
bility?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe observability to be an attribute
of science?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe testability to be an attribute
of science?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe predictability to be an attribute
of science?
A. Yes.
Q. How does creation science measure up to the
attributes of falsifiability, for example?
A. Well, it seems to be very attractive at that
point.
For example, mentioning one of the things that con-
vinced me, if there was intelligent design, if we start
with the assumption of intelligent design, then the uni-
verse might well be expected to be consistent and pre-
dictable first off.
So I would not be inconsistent p. chem. equation
to describe some process.
It will predict, if possible, creation as an event
as opposed to a process; that the fossil record ought
Transcript continued on next page
51
to indicate that, et cetera.
Q. Do you believe that it is possible to falsify
or is the existence of a creative force falsifiable?
A. Goedel, in the famous Goedel thorium that
came out in the early '30's -- and I am not sure the
exact date -- went through the proof and I am not smart
enough to know if all that proof is correct.
I tend to personally believe that he is apparently
right, the thrust of which was -- it is not possible to
establish in the absolute sense the truth or falsity
of a model without stepping outside of the system.
Q. What facts or set of facts would lead you to
believe that creation science is inaccurate?
A. Is inaccurate?
Q. Is inaccurate.
A. Is inaccurate.
If the universe were chaotic, that would be pretty
convincing and not repeatable.
That would be pretty convincing evidence to me.
Q. What do you mean by chaotic?
A. If, just to use a mundane down-to-earth example
in physical chemistry, we talk about molecules and
emulsions.
If those -- and the mathematical laws -- if that
was not so, there is no predictability, it went every
which way, one way today and one way tomorrow, that would
be pretty convincing evidence.
MR. CHILDS: A revolution?
52
THE WITNESS: A revolution, yes.
[Luncheon recess was taken at 11:35]
- - -
53
AFTERNOON SESSION
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1981 12:20 O'CLOCK P.M.
- - -
EXAMINATION BY MR. LAHIFF [RESUMED]:
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Have you ever taken any Creation
Science Research Center oath?
A. Creation Science Research Center oath?
Q. Research Center oath?
A. What is that?
Q. I gather by that, then, you have not taken the
oath?
A. Creation Science Research Center oath? I don't
know what that is.
Q. Well, have you taken any oath connected with
any Creation Science organization?
A. The Creation Research Society, I believe, has
a statement in their membership asking if the individual
is in agreement with their purposes, which is modeled
after most other organizations, and I don't recall now
what I wrote on that when I became a member.
Q. Do you have a copy of that with you?
A. No, I certainly don't.
Q. Do you intend to use the slides that you
brought with you today during your testimony at the
trial?
A. We were just talking about that. There are
some there that would save a lot of words if I could use
like, for example --
54
MR. LAHIFF: Let's go off the record.
[Discussion off the record]
MR. CHILDS: We have agreed that any diagrams,
pictures, exhibits contained in the visuals, the slides,
will be made available as soon as we can get them availa-
ble to Bob Cearley's office in Omaha.
MR. LAHIFF: All right, that is acceptable.
I would like to have this marked as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2 for identification. It is an application form
for the Creation Research Society.
[Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2,, single-
page document, "Application Form
for the Creation Research Society,"
marked for identification]
[Discussion off the record]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a member of that organization?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you subscribe to the principles that are
expressed there?
A. As to my personal life, yes, and this is what
we would call Biblical creation as opposed to scientific
creation.
Q. What is the difference between Biblical
creation and scientific creation?
A. Scientific creation makes the assumption that
we talked about earlier. Biblical creation makes the
55
additional assumptions that are stated here, basically,
that Genesis is an accurate, historical account.
Q. And do you believe that Genesis is an accurate,
historical account?
A. That is my personal opinion, yes.
Q. Do you believe that the Bible is historically
and scientifically true in all of its original autographs?
A. That is my personal judgment.
Q. Have you ever read the original autographs?
A. No, that is why I have only an opinion about it.
Q. But you are a member of the Creation Research
Society, but you acquired that, you subscribed to those
principles?
A. That's correct.
Q. You testified that one of the assumptions of
the creation model is -- I'm sorry, a piece of the
scientific data which is proof of the creation model is
the existence of orderliness?
A. Yes.
Q. Does orderliness disprove evolution?
A. It hasn't seemed to disprove it to colleagues
that I have talked with.
Q. But do you believe that orderliness disproves
evolution?
A. Orderliness is an observed data, and is the
assumption that you try to interpret the data from, and
I would think that it is important for the evolution
model to accommodate that observation within its model.
56
Q. It is possible for the evolution model to
accommodate the existence of orderliness?
A. I would assume so.
Q. Well, then, how can orderliness be proof of
both the creation model and the evolution?
A. You asked what convinced me, and this is what
convinced me, that the creation model was, in my judgment
-- it seems they would have trouble with that, but I am
not going to put words in their mouths, that is their cup
of tea.
I don't want to tell them how they have to interpret
the data, just like I don't want them to tell me that.
Q. Could you define evolution for me, please?
A. Evolution is the process of origins, natural
historical origins, of the universe to the present stage
as we see it today.
Q. And what are the processes through which
evolution occurs?
A. the evolution model assumes only natural
processes, chemically and physically, in a nutshell.
Q. Does the Creation Science model assume the
existence of supernatural processes?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what are these supernatural processes?
A. The creative force.
Q. Is that the only supernatural force that
operates in the creation model?
A. For origins.
57
Q. For origins and the development of thinks such
as coal?
A. I will try to answer your question. If it
isn't okay, will you ask another one?
Q. All right.
A. If I heard your question. I'm not sure. I
will tell you what I think I heard, then try to give you
an answer. If it isn't okay, you ask me another
question.
The creation model starts with a creative force that
acted. The creation model doesn't rule out the possibi-
lity that that force could act again.
Q. If that force were to act again, would that
require the suspension of natural laws?
A. Natural processes, if I understand your question
right, is by definition the absence of supernatural, and
in that same sense today, if you look at a piece of rock,
let's say, that might be fish shaped and chipped around
the edges, and you and I were to travel out through the
desert and look at this rock, and I say, "Look at the
chemistry and physics that developed that rock," and you
said, "No, that is an Indian arrowhead," you would look
at that as intelligence being involved with the shape of
that rock; you would not say that it might not be that,
an intelligence could come along later and put a scratch
on that rock and put "Tom" on it, identifying it as yours,
that would not be in violation of anything in chemistry
and physics.
58
Q. Does the creation model require the suspension
of natural processes in the intervention of this creative
force?
A. Does it require that? The answer is no.
Q. Has that in fact happened, according to the
creation model?
A. Since the beginning, since origins.
Q. Since origins, as you understand it?
A. Have supernatural events happened since
origins?
Q. Has the creative force suspended natural laws
or natural processes and intervened?
A. This again is a historical perspective and to
give a complete answer on that, I would have had to have
been at every point in every spot in space and time ever
since the beginning for me to answer that question.
So all I could say is, I don't know.
Q. Well, do you consider --
A. I have no way of answering that.
Q. Do you consider the flood described in Genesis
to be the operation of natural processes, or the inter-
vention of creative forces?
A. As a scientist in a scientific sense, Genesis
mentions the flood, so as a scientist speaking strictly
with the scientific data, I could go along and see if
such an event took place in space and time, and I might
work out models on that, whatever might have happened
with it.
59
Now, my personal opinion would be that the divine
being did something. That is a personal statement.
Q. Do you believe that there is any scientific
evidence for your personal statement?
A. Something that I could put into a textbook?
What do we mean by scientific evidence?
Q. Well, what do you understand the term,
"scientific evidence," to mean?
A. Scientific evidence would be something that I
could put into a test tube, I could go weigh, could go
measure, could look at, could experiment with.
Q. Using that definition, is there anything that
you are aware of that evidences the existence of the
flood described in Genesis?
A. Is there anything that I could go look at,
measure, weigh, that would add evidence to the flood
described in Genesis, yes.
Q. What is that scientific evidence that that
event took place historically?
Well, there is a number of -- I have read quite a
number of readings on that by people who have written on
the topic, some that we have done involve this research
project that I mentioned earlier from the student there
at the college, looking at these terraced lines that we
see in various places as one piece of evidence, ancient
shorelines around the Bonneville Basin, an ancient Lake
LaHonda that occupied much of Nevada and the southern
area here, and the shorelines you see along the coast of
60
California.
Q. What do you understand by the Genesis flood,
could you describe exactly what happened as you under-
stand it?
A. In a nutshell?
Q. In a nutshell.
A. Capsulized version?
Well, the Genesis record mentioned that there was an
event which we call the flood, and by looking at evidence
around like what we talked about here, some of the
geochemical processes that form in the minerals, by look-
ing at fossils, by looking at these terraced lines and
so on, it seems like just from the account that is
written there, and it is not unique, there are other
ancient records, there are ancient anthropological
reports, there are many of them, many, many of them, into
the hundreds of similar accounts, but it seems like the
constant series of events were, and this is in very brief
form, very condensed, I realize, the earth before that
had a warm tropical climate all over and was very rich
with lush vegetation, the biomass was very think, there
wasn't the cold at the North Pole and the South Pole and
for whatever reason, I wondered whether or not the
earth's albedo was such that it began to lose more heat
than it was receiving, so that it began to cool.
Well, the earth has a crust, a rock crust, and as
nearly as we can discern, it has got a liquid interior.
Well, if this had cooled, you know, losing heat, it would
61
coil and shrink, which puts tremendous pressure on rock.
I would picture in my mind like taking an orange
and squeezing it extremely tightly. If you squeeze an
orange extremely tightly, the orange being like the rock
crust, and the liquid in the orange being like the
liquid --
Q. What is the liquid interior of the earth?
A. Rock. It comes out in the form of lava and
so on when pressure is released on it, and so this would
put tremendous pressure on that, and rocks are hard, but
they can only take so much, and when that disequilibrium
became great enough, it exceeded the elastic limit of the
rocks, as Genesis words it so eloquently, and all the
fountains of the deep broke up, like taking an orange
and punching a hole in it, out she comes, so then the
earth following that event had to establish a new
equilibrium, and that kind of evidence is what I looked
for.
Q. Well, is there any scientific evidence for the
fountains of the deep?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the evidence?
A. Worldwide volcanism. You look at a map. If
one looks at a map, geological map of the globe, we have
these dark likes that are drawn in rough outline around
the globe, referred to as the fault zones, of which the
San Andreas Fault happens to be one, off the coast of
California. This is where much of the crustal activity
62
takes place, and has in the past, still does today.
Q. How is that evidence of the fountains of the
deep?
A. Well, the deep, you know, way down in the
earth. If you have a fountain of that material, we would
call it a volcano.
Q. Well, where was the water stored?
A. Where was the water stored?
Q. Where did the water come from?
A. These are speculations, but if we were assuming
that the cooling part, you know -- two conditions are
necessary for precipitation.
One, you have to have supersaturation, but that is
not sufficient. You also have to have nuclei, so as soon
as the nuclei hit, and this is a model now that is con-
sistent with what I read there, I am not saying the
record there says that, then there was precipitation.
Q. Precipitation from where? From within the
earth?
A. No, from the atmosphere.
Q. But I'm talking about the fountains of the
deep.
A. That's right, and that included water fountains,
and so the ocean basins were lifted up and the water
washed over the continents and the plates buckled and so
on, moved, buckled. The earth's surface was trying to be
smaller now that it had cracked and it wrinkled, as it
were, like a giant wrinkle.
63
Q. I understand what you are testifying about
that, but I don't think you have answered my question
about the fountains of the deep.
A. The fountains of the deep included subterranean
waters as well as volcanic such as the situation that was
under Mount Scott which is up in Oregon, Crater Lake.
When the lava hit, there was underground water all over,
even today. When lava hit that, then, of course, it
creates steam, and Crater Lake, and the Sahara today,
has got vast amounts of fresh water, one of the biggest
fresh water supplies is under the Sahara Desert. It's a
resource.
That whole crustal equilibrium was upset at the
time, and exactly all the fine details of it, I don't
have all those worked out, but it's this kind of
evidence for that kind of event, is what I heard you, or
what I thought you asked me about, and in my particular
case, what got me started thinking about it, if we had
that large amount of biomass, what kind of chemistry
would be involved or what was happening to that biomass
in such a geophysical phenomena which let me to research
in fossil fuels.
Q. What observable phenomenon leads you to believe
in the fountains of the deep?
A. Evidence of past geological happenings like
volcanos, and events like Krakatoa and Mount Scott.
Q. Does the evidence allow you to choose between
the alternative models, creation science and evolution?
64
A. I believe that it does.
Evolution, as I have heard, the evolution model
tends, as nearly as I have been able to discern it,
tends to deny that there was such a geophysical phenomena
on a global scale as I have described it.
Q. Is faith an element of the creation science
model, religious faith?
A. No, this is entirely geophysical, simply a
model based on observed data, and trying to account for
the data that we observe.
Q. Why do you believe that the evolution model is
trapped in a specific time frame?
A. In part of the deposition there, I left with
you a paper by George Wald, who happens to be an evolu-
tionist, but I enjoy reading his writings because he is
a very excellent scientist; he is a very good writer, a
very clear writer, although we don't agree on our models,
and in this article that he wrote, he wrote on the origin
of life. It was very well written, I thought.
He explains why, considering the impossibility of
natural processes, development of life by natural
processes. He uses the term, he says, "Time is the
escape hatch," and he uses -- I can't recall his exact
phrase -- "Time itself performs the miracles," and I
have asked my colleagues about that as I have these
debates.
They have been friendly debates, most of them. I
don't enjoy hassles. They all agree that if they didn't
65
have the time, they tell me that if they didn't have the
time, that that's an inherent part of this model. If
they didn't have it, that their model wouldn't be valid.
Q. Isn't it true that their understanding of long
periods of time comes from observations of data rather
than an assumption of the model itself?
A. Not according to Wald.
Q. Is that the only evolutionist that you are
aware of who describes the necessity for vast periods of
time as an assumption of the evolution model?
A. Some don't call it an assumption.
- - -
66
A. Some don't call it an assumption.
Ernst Mayer, for example, in his article which
you have in the deposition, the nature of the Darwin
evolution embraced the ideas that were involved there,
and he lists on the last page of the article, the last
page, I forget, six major ideas that had to be replaced
or brought in for the evolution model to begin, and No. 1
was the age of the earth.
Q. But, didn't that come from an observation of
physical data rather than an assumption?
A. Not as I have been able to discern it.
No one was there to observe those observations.
Q. Why does Wald, as you say, postulate the
necessity for long periods of time?
A. Well, in reading through the article, you can
read it, but basically he says when one considers the
impossibility of chance or natural process of generating
life from a nonliving, to use his phrase, it is impossible
on the basis of human experience, and then I was very
curious when he made that statement, but he said this,
I believe it anyway.
When a man says something is impossible, but he
believes it anyway, he had better dig himself out, so I
was very curious to see how he was going to do that,
and on Page 12 of the article, I think it is, he said
that time is how they got around it, and I have wondered
about that, and I don't want to put words into his mouth,
but it seems to me what they are saying is that it took
67
a lot of changes to go from nonlife to life, and each
change takes a little bit of time, so if you add up all
these changes, you would come up with vast amounts of
time.
That is what it seems like to me.
Q. Isn't that an observation rather than an as-
sumption?
A. They have not observed changes, they have not
been there to record the time, so it is an assumption
of their model.
They were not there to watch the slow, gradual
changes.
Q. Do you have any evidence that physical chemistry
needs an understanding of the age of the earth?
A. Physical chemistry happens to be, as I
mentioned, a rather central science and one of the areas
that it deals with is isotope ratios and geochemical
processes associated with those as we observed them in
the earth, and one of the areas that could convince me
that the vast amounts of time were not there was the
study in this area.
Q. What evidence convinced you?
A. There were many pieces of evidence, some of
which are listed in my paper that you have there in the
deposition, creation model and age of the earth, but in
summary the decay processes have elements heavier than
lead which decay down to give lead, leave decay products,
and by a study of these decay products such as, for
68
example, helium, helium just simply was not present in
the amounts that would support those vast amounts of
time, and in that same connection, the isotope ratios
observed, those you can go measure, displace that data.
The evolution assumption was that isotope ratios
are a time index, a fact.
Isotope ratios conclusion, time index.
That is only an assumption a scientist might make.
Obviously not.
Isotope ratios could be a geophysical process in-
dicator. Fact, isotope ratios. Conclusion, geophysical
process. You tell me the ratio, and I will tell you the
heat and pressure and rate of cooling, and so, yes,
physical chemistry is involved with that.
Q. Isn't the rate of decay from one isotope to
another important?
A. There are two things that are important.
One, the rate of decay must be known, and it must
have been constant forever past as long as we are willing
to use the clock.
Too, that rate must have been constant and known.
No. 2, one needs to know also the initial conditions
and the present conditions so that one can calculate
at that rate, now long it takes to go from the initial
conditions to the present conditions, so there are two
requirements. A good clock, one, is the rate, and the
second is your calibration, or in this case initial con-
ditions.
69
MR. CHILDS: Tom, shall we take a short break?
MR. LAHIFF: Why not.
Perhaps we should take a short break.
[Short recess taken]
[Record read]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Isn't that the process by which
scientists date the age of the earth, the process that
you have just described?
A. Scientists look at the data, and use an assump-
tion to interpret the data.
The evolution model assumes that isotope ratios are
a time index, and looks at the data, and interprets
accordingly.
That is not necessarily the only assumption
scientists could use.
Isotope ratios might also be interpreted as in-
dicators of geophysical processes. Granted, some of
them involves time dependent processes.
Q. Do you believe that scientists refuse to con-
sider geological processes?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Could you explain for me the difference between
organic geochemistry and physical chemistry?
A. Organic geochemistry?
Q. Are you aware of the existence of a discipline
known as organic geochemistry?
A. No, I am not.
MR. LAHIFF: I would like to have this marked.
70
Off the record.
[Discussion off the record]
[Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3, copy,
twenty-page document, "Re-
possess the Land," August 12-15,
1979, marked for iden.]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. What I have just had marked as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 is a portion of the fifteenth
anniversary convention, Bible Science Association, "Re-
possess the Land, Essays and Technical Papers," and it
contains an article by Dr. Donald Chittick, Ph.D.,
entitled, "Creation Model on Fuel Resources."
From your personal knowledge, do you know if coal
formation includes organic geochemistry, or the processes
of organic geochemistry, or organic geochemistry as a
term that is used as opposed to a discipline you mentioned
earlier?
A. Organic geochemistry would be geochemistry
involving organic processes such as coal formation and
physical chemistry.
I am interested in those processes.
Q. Do you know any authority in the field of
organic geochemistry?
A. I am not personally acquainted with any.
Q. Could you name them, could you identify
experts in the field of organic geochemistry?
A. Individuals who have done considerable study
in that area would include Melvin Cook.
71
Q. Anyone else?
A. I have read writings of individuals in that area,
but I don't recall their names at the moment.
Q. Have you had any training in organic geo-
chemistry?
A. Physical chemistry prepared me to study reac-
tions of chemistry in any setting.
Q. But, have you had training, specific training
in organic geochemistry?
A. I took no formal course work in that area.
Q. Are you aware of any of the key textbooks or
treatises on organic chemistry?
A. One of the books that interested me was Pre-
History and Earth Model by Melvin Cook.
Q. Could you identify Melvin Cook for me, please?
A. He is the physical chemist whose specialty is
geochemistry, and particularly the application of explo-
sives for mining and so on.
In fact, he has won the Nobel award for that area.
I think he is president of Irco, I-r-c-o Chemicals,
I am not sure of the spelling of that, and he is a pro-
fessor, or was at one of the Utah schools.
Q. I would like to discuss your article, "Crea-
tion Model and Fuel Resources."
Could you describe for me the process by which coal
is formed?
A. In a nutshell, there are several types of coal,
and several types of processes involved.
72
One of the principle ones, it seems to me that the
evolution model formation of fossils fuels did not seem
to agree with the chemistry of that situation as I looked
at it, so this paper was an attempt to investigate, or
give some fresh thought, or fresh look at that process,
coal and oil are fossils from a number of organic sources,
but one of the principal sources was lignocellulose, plant
material.
When plant material, or when green plant material
were to be buried suddenly, then it would heat up, like
green hay does when they put it into a barn, and at a
temperature of around 220, 230 degrees, in that neighbor-
hood, it begins to lose water, dehydrates as we call it,
a dehydration reaction.
That reaction is exothermal. It gives out heat, so
once it has reached this initiation temperature, losing
water, it generates more heat which makes it lose more
water, regenerate more heat, and it becomes a self-ampli-
fying process so that the temperature eventually reaches
in the neighborhood of between 400 and 450 C in that
region, and one of two processes can happen at that point.
- - -
73
If the water dehydration is allowed to escape in
greater or lesser degree, then the carbon is left behind,
and one forms coal of various grades and range.
On the other hand, if the water dehydration is not
allowed to escape because of the imperiousness of the
geological formation, and because of the chemistry of
the environment, alkaline or whatever, then one can form
hydrocarbons for oil.
Q. Are you aware of any scientists who subscribe
to this view as to the formation of coal?
A. I am aware of some scientists who do. I don't
know that I could recall for you their names.
There is a group in Germany who have done work in
that; in fact, they may have printed a paper at that
symposium, I'm not sure.
I have seen the German paper on it. I have read it
with some interest. I don't recall now the reference,
and Melvin Cook in his book, "Prehistory and Earth
Models," discusses the topic, and there may be others.
The Pittsburgh Energy Research Center in the early
'79s did some work on that line, and that work was later
transferred to the Bureau of Mines in Albany, Oregon,
down south of my home there a few miles in the Bureau
of Mines at that time, and later transferred to the
Department of Energy -- no, I can't think of the name
now -- and then it was contracted out to Botel and other
subcontractors, so the process of turning biomass into
fuels has been studied.
74
Q. Well, my question was not about biomass itself,
but could you describe the process of coal formation,
what would happen, what do you start with?
A. You start with plant matter.
Q. What happens to the plant matter?
A. It undergoes a pyrolysis dehydration reaction
with water loss.
Q. Does it require the presence of water?
A. No. Cellulose is a carbohydrate. For example,
starch or cellulose C5H, 1005, taken in time, if one
were to look at that chemically in principle and write a
chemical reaction, to do this would give you five
carbons and five water and this process is very easily
done. When you spill sugar, for example, in a baking pie
onto a hot element into the oven, the water leaves the
carbon behind.
Q. Is there any operation of fungi or bacteria on
the plant matter and coal formation?
A. Most of the fungi and bacteria tend to oxidize
it instead of form it, and to use the energy as in
metabolism by oxidation of coal.
If coal is taken out of the mine and set aside, it
downgrades itself in some cases quite rapidly.
Q. But in the formation of coal itself, it is
your testimony that there is no bacterial of fungi
action?
A. In the bulk of the coal formations, as we
observe them, they appear to be formed by mechanisms such
75
as I have described. I would not say that it is not
possible for bacteria to do that.
Q. In your article you identify a product that you
have developed that looks like coal. This is a quote "looks
like coal, smells like coal, and burns like various
grades of coal obtained in the natural process."
A. That's right.
If one simply heats it in a closed system and allows
pyrolysis to occur, one obtains, and that is a quote
from the Pittsburgh Energy Research Center where they
call it and they put it in quotes, "artifical coal."
Q. Well, the quote that I read is a quote from
your article which is not a quote from something else.
A. That was my comment about the material.
Q. Well, what is the chemical formula of the
product that you have developed in the laboratory?
A. My goal in the laboratory was not to make coal
or crude oil, because they had to subsequently be
processed and I thought wouldn't it be better if we could
improve on that, to go directly where we want to go,
and the original research was converting carbohydrate
material into synthesis gas, which is a 50-50 mixture of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which is what comes out of
the stoichiometry of celullose, but in the natural
process, because we want to make synthesis gas within
what to make methanol within, which is a specific liquid
fuel, and therefore economically more attractive, more
useful, but in the process of pyrolysis, both if you do
76
it in the laboratory and if it happened that way in the
ground, you get a whole spectrum of tars, as we say, and
coke as it is referred to left behind afterwards and my
research was directed toward avoiding that step, avoiding
the tar formation, going directly to the synthesis gas,
which could be used as a fuel or could be used to
synthesize methyl or could be used in the Fisch-trops
process to make hydrocarbons.
Q. So you have not produced a product that looks
like coal or smells like coal or burns like coal?
A. As side reactions when I was learning how to do
the tar-free gas, I have made those products.
Q. What is the chemical formula of those side
products?
A. Those side products are oxygenate with a broad
range of molecular weights consisting of pyrol ligneous
acids, creosotes, hydrocarbons and aldehydes and we go on
from there.
Q. What are the ratios of the carbon compounds in
each one of those?
A. What?
Q. By-products.
A. How many of them would be creosotes, how many
of them would be naphthylamines, so on, we found that
that varied with conditions, under certain conditions of
our catalytic study; or when large amounts of iron were
present we could end almost with very large amounts of
naphthylamines.
77
If we use certain other conditions, we would get
phenols, so these we could vary if you just simply
pyrolize.
We didn't analyze the produce because that was not
what we wanted other than to note its physical proper-
ties.
Q. Do you know what the petrographic structure of
any of these products were?
A. We did not analyze them.
Q. What their thermal properties are?
A. Yes. We knew the Btu's per pound. We knew
their chemical content and so on.
Q. What are their Btu's per pound?
A. They were of the order of thirteen to 14,000
Btu's per pound.
Q. Did these by-products resemble coal?
A. Yes.
Q. Which grades of coal did they resemble?
A. Soft coal.
Q. What do you mean by soft coal?
A. Bituminous coal.
Q. Do you know what the chemical formula of
bituminous coal is?
A. There isn't a chemical formula for bituminous
coal. It is a mixture of a number of things with
varying amounts of carbon.
Q. Could you describe the ratio of the carbons?
A. Coal varies all over and no, I couldn't give
78
you a number.
Q. Do you know the petrographic structure of
bituminous coal?
A. As mentioned in my article?
Q. It is mentioned in your article?
A. I mentioned there are different types of coal
that are found, head coal and so forth.
Q. What is the petrographic structure of bituminous
coal?
A. If by structure you mean what are the molecular
sizes and shapes and distributions, I just don't know.
Q. Do you know what the thermal products of
bituminous coal are?
A. I know that they had a heat of combustion, I
know what temperatures you have to heat it to thermally
degrade it, drive off the volatiles and end with coke.
MR. LAHIFF: Could we take a recess for a few
minutes.
MR. CHILDS: Sure.
[Short recess]
- - -
78A
MR. LAHIFF: Q. This is not the first time that
fuel has been synthesized, has it?
A. "This" being?
Q. The product that you have created is not the
first time that fuel has been synthesized?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe that you have synthesized a
fuel identical to fossil fuels?
A. Knowing the wide variety of fossil fuels and
their formulations, they are just -- from the same mine,
two loads may not be the same.
I would just say I don't know.
Q. Can you identify a fossil fuel most like the
product that you have developed?
A. Let me emphasize that our whole research was
avoiding the formation of tar and coal-like substances.
Our research was directed toward avoiding that be-
cause we wanted to end up with a specific product. So
we did not make very much of that stuff, hopefully none,
and it was only when our -- in our initial stages that
we did some of that.
Q. What then is the basis for your conclusions
in this article about the formation of coal?
A. The formation of coal must have been formed
in a short enough time that the heat could not leak away
because if there had been a slow gradual process in never
would have reached the heat necessary to give that de-
hydration reaction.
79
Q. Is that factor from the research that you have
done?
A. That was done from a study of thinking about
the chemistry that must have been involved in the tran-
sition of plants material into fossil fuels and our re-
search, that was an offshoot of our research and think-
ing. And our research came directly out of the thinking
of that process and could we improve it, using, say,
catalysts in our case, to do it.
Q. What is the chemical process that leads to the
formation of fossil fuels?
A. There are two.
One is -- both involve a dehydration action and
pyrolytic reactions.
MR. LAHIFF: I am sorry, could you read his answer.
[Record read]
THE WITNESS: And one, if the water escapes or,
two, if it doesn't.
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Well --
A. Excuse me.
Q. I am sorry, did you want to elaborate on your
answer?
A. I emphasize that that is the model that I
propose.
I was not there when the fossil fuels were formed.
I proposed this model because it is consistent with
what I see from the data.
Q. What observations have you made that led to the
80
formulation of this model?
A. Studies of pyrolysis processes with biomass.
Q. What is the basis for your assertion in the
article that pressure may affect the type of coal formed?
A. Pressure affects the thermodynamic equations
involved, their function of temperature, pressure, volume,
chemical composition standards, p. chem. variables and
pressure being a variable of the function involved affects
the product distribution, the molecular weight, so on.
Q. Are there any scientists who adhere to your
understanding or your belief that pressure may effect
the type of coal formed?
A. Oh, yes, of course.
In fact, the Albany group, under the Bureau of Mines,
uses about three thousand pounds per square inch pressure
mainly to keep water in the liquid state.
Q. What is the product that comes from the process
that the Albany group performs?
A. It is a mixture of organic liquids which then
are subsequently refined to various -- like a traditional
refinery.
Q. But it is not coal?
A. They are designed to make oil, liquid fuel.
That's what their research goal is.
The Pittsburgh energy group is the one that men-
tioned the coal, the Pittsburgh energy research center
which is a U.S. Government document.
The chemistry of coal is very complex.
81
MR. CHILDS: Would you mind telling us what that
book is that you are looking at?
MR. LAHIFF: Not at all.
The book is entitled Organic Geochemistry by G.
Eglinton and M.T.J. Murphy.
Are you aware of the existence of this book entitled
Organic Geochemistry?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever read any scientific treatise on
organic geochemistry?
A. I have not read a book with that title that I
am aware of.
The topic, of course, is one that we have have been
discussing and I have read in that area.
Q. What authors have you read in that area?
A. I don't recall all the authors.
Q. Do you recall some of the authors?
A. Melvin Cook is one.
Q. Do you recall any others?
A. I don't recall any.
I read so many resources in looking at the topic,
trying to go through the literature and I don't recall
all those.
Q. Well, can you identify for me any organic
geochemists whose work you have read?
A. Organic geochemists, no, I cannot.
Q. What was the product that eventually resulted
from the process that the Pittsburgh energy group was
82
involved in?
A. They were studying a number of processes.
They only mentioned that coal was, in passing,
they mentioned that that was one of the things that they
form.
Their goal was the pilot study that led to the Albany
one to make liquid materials.
Q. Do you know if in fact they produced coal?
A. They did not produce a natural product which is
the definition of coal.
Coal is a natural product that occurs in the earth.
They, of course, did not do this in natural conditions
and the material that they had resembled coal.
Q. How did it resemble coal?
A. In its physical properties.
Q. What physical properties were those?
A. The way it burned, the way it looked.
Q. Do you know if the chemicals formula of the
product that they produced is identical to any grade of
coal?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know the chemical formula of the product
that the Pittsburgh group produced?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Are you aware of the petrographic structure of
the product that the Pittsburgh energy group produced?
A. No.
Q. Could you describe to me the chemical formula
83
of the product that you produced?
A. Our product is a mixture of carbon monoxide
and hydrogen gases intermixed with various forms of hydro-
carbons and hydrogen gas.
Q. Is it a gas or solid?
A. We are making gas intermixed with various por-
tions of hydrocarbons.
Q. Is there any natural product equivalent in
chemical composition to the product which you have
produced?
A. We have aimed at producing synthesis gas which
then can be converted into, and has been converted into
various pure substances such as methane, which is a
natural, which is the principal component of the natural
gas ethane -- methane, ethane, propane and lower molecular
weight hydrocarbons and methanol and lower molecular
weight oxygenates.
Q. Have you synthesized a product that is chemical-
ly equivalent in composition to any fossil fuel?
A. One of the fossil fuels, methane -- natural
gas contains a mixture -- methane has a form of CH4.
The methane that we produce is identical.
It has a formula CH4.
Q. Do you consider methane to be a fossil fuel?
A. Methane is a fossil fuel.
Q. Do you consider methane to be a fossil fuel?
A. It is one of the mixtures of the fossil fuels.
In fossil fuels, you have all the way from almost
84
pure methane all the way up to anthracite coal with
various mixtures of proportions of carbon. Fossil fuel
is not a pure substance.
Q. What are the fossil fuels to your understanding?
A. Natural hydrocabons and coal.
Q. What are the natural hydrocarbons?
A. Methane on up the alkane series, alkene, al-
kyne series, hydrocarbons and mixtures thereof.
Methane -- for example, coal is a fossil fuel.
Methane is associated with coal seams.
Q. Can you describe for me the role of the Genesis
flood in the formation of coal.
A. Coal is buried in massive amounts, and I noticed
that some of the coal seams like up at Centralia,
Washington, not too far from where we live, are massive
and if they had been formed slowly, one would expect to
find in those seams alternate layers, like in alternate
wet and dry seasons, alternate layers of clay. I don't
notice that. Some of the seams there are very, very
thick seams which require a burial of a large amount of
biomass.
The geological catastrophy associated with the
Genesis flood and the large amount of biomass that was
present prior seemed like a fruitful avenue for investi-
gation to me as a model to look at.
Q. Is there any organic process in the formation
of coal?
A. Organic process in the formation of coal.
85
It is a chemical process.
Q. Is there any operation of bacteria or fungi
on the plant matter?
A. There may be.
Q. Well, do you know if in fact there is in the
formation of coal?
A. I was not -- no, I did not know.
I was not there when coal was formed.
All I can do at this present day is look at coal,
make a model to make some assumptions by which it may
have been formed.
I was not there.
Q. Are you aware of whether or not coal is present-
ly being formed today?
A. Cook, in his book, mentions a number of
interesting situations at the present time.
Q. And what are those interesting situations?
A. Coalification of lignocellulose material.
Q. In what areas of the world?
A. I think one was in Germany.
I don't recall the others.
Q. Do you know the process by which that material
is becoming coal?
A. It was associated with the chemical processes
such as I have outlined for you.
Q. Do you know if these are peat bogs?
A. They were not peat bogs as I recall.
It has been a while since I studied that.
86
Q. Could you describe for me the link you draw
between the synthesis of methanol and the age of the
earth?
A. The link seemed to me in the rate at which
the process was carried out.
If, in fact, the model is correct that this was
primarily a dehydration reaction with the exothermic
nature of the dehydration reaction that seemed to be a
fruitful model, that meant that if that process took
place, it had to happen before that heat could be frittered
away or it would never reach the spontaneous rise to around
430, 450 degrees C.
Q. What does the short rate of the process that
you have just described have to do with the age of the
earth?
A. Well, the traditional, as I had read the litera-
ture and I don't recall now all the books and I didn't
read that one and so on, but in talking with my colleagues
who were associated -- and with my geological friends
and books that I read about formation of fossil fuels,
it was suggested that that was a slow gradual process
by bacterial action or whatever, peat bogs, going into
coal, maybe. And the chemistry of that, with a slow
gradual process would be all right with the evolutionary
model.
If, however, the creation model scientists that I
talked with were correct in their shorter time scale,
that meant that there had to be a faster chemistry in-
87
volved. And I got to thinking what kind of chemistry
would be involved. And the model that came to mind, then,
would be this, which is in line with the chemistry of
behavior of pyrolysis reaction, would be this process that
we have discussed.
Q. How does a pyrolysis reaction compare to the
natural formation of coal?
A. I am suggesting that that may have been the
mechanism by which coal was formed.
Q. Do you have any scientific evidence to support
that?
A. The scientific evidence is that one can take
cellulose material and study the pyrolysis reaction and
obtain products which are similar in composition and
physical characteristics to the products that we observe
in fossil fuels.
We have studied the avoidance of tar formation,
particularly in our reaction.
Q. What are the products that are formed in these
reactions?
A. In pyrolysis reactions?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't know that they have been totally
analyzed.
Q. Well, could you identify for me a few of them,
at least?
A. Hydrocarbons, aldehydes, higher molecular
weight aldehydes and what is generally classed as char.
88
Q. Any others?
A. No, it is just potpouri.
Q. What fossil fuels are these products like?
A. The gases that come off are -- in certain
pyrolysis reactions, such as some being studied by Mudge
and his colleagues at Battell, are similar to synthetic
natural gas.
Q. What fossil fuels are aldehydes similar to,
equivalent to?
A. Some of our liquid petroleum fossil fuels.
Q. What is the chemical composition of an aldehyde?
A. It is an oxygenate compound, compounded in
oxygen.
Q. And what else?
A. Carbon and hydrogen.
Q. Could you describe for me precisely the chemical
formula of an aldehyde?
A. Well, there is a whole series of those.
They have a carbon and a -- double bonded to an
oxygen and some other material tacked on down the line.
Q. What other materials are tacked on?
A. Hydrocarbon chain.
Q. What is a hydrocarbon chain?
A. It is a compound made of carbon atoms linking
to carbon atoms linking to carbon atoms which we loosely
refer to as a chain with a varying amount of hydrogen
also attached to the carbons.
Q. Could you describe for me the chemical formula
89
for liquid petroleum?
A. Liquid petroleum comes in varying ways all the
way from pure enough to fill your car up to very black
viscose asphalty-type liquid. So it has mixtures of
varying substances in it: sulphur compounds, nitrogen
compounds, heterocyclic compounds, hydrocarbons, oxygenates
and so on.
Q. What fossil fuel is char equivalent to?
A. Char varies all the way from graphitic amor-
phous carbon to real shiny, almost bituminous material
like -- well, like gilsonite almost, the mineral gilsonite.
So the char varies -- the char that we produce varies
in properties almost the complete range from being liquid
to almost being solid.
Some is very dull in appearance.
Some is hard and compact and shiny, brittle.
It varies.
Q. You have described that you have geological
friends who work on the age of the earth.
Could you identify those for me?
A. Friends who work on the age of the earth?
- - -
90
Q. You said you have consulted with friends --
A. Oh, I meant that I had consulted with my
colleagues.
Well, for example, I talked with my friends at
Oregon State when I was there. I talked with University
of Puget Sound scientists, and when we would go to ACS
meetings --
Q. Who are the colleagues at Oregon State?
A. That we had discussions with?
Q. Yes.
A. Oh, let's see, that was during my graduate
school days.
Q. Well, have you had any discussions recently
with any of your colleagues dealing with the age of
earth?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you identify those colleagues for me?
A. Yes.
When we went to Holland we discussed on the way
back some of those points that we covered there. I have
discussed it with my colleagues at George Fox College. I
have been invited to speak on dating the earth.
Q. Well, could you give me some names, please?
A. Dr. Scott Chambers.
Q. With what institution?
A. He is with the George Fox College.
Dr. Hector Munn, also at George Fox College.
Harold Slusher and I rode together on the airplane
91
back from Holland and we talked about it.
Q. What is Dr. Chambers' specialty?
A. Physical chemistry.
Q. What is Dr. Munn's specialty?
A. It is chemistry. I am not sure if it is
biochemistry or organic chemistry.
Q. And what is Dr. Slusher's specialty?
A. I'm really not sure. I think it is physics.
Primarily he teaches physics and astronomy.
Q. Do any of these men have any background in
geology?
A. Dr. Munn has studied geology.
Q. Where has he studied geology?
A. Oregon State.
Q. Do you happen to know who the specialists are
on the age of the earth?
A. Specialists are people who work in the field
regularly. Henry Paul is one of those that I consulted.
Q. And with what institution is he associated?
A. I am not sure. When I started to study the
area, I read his book, "Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars,"
and subsequent papers that he has written.
Q. You don't know what institution he is associ-
ated with?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know his specialty?
A. Geochronology.
Q. Any others?
92
A. Patrick Hurley.
Q. With what institution is he associated?
A. I'm again not sure.
Q. Any others?
A. Tilton and Steiger.
Q. Those are two individuals?
A. Yes.
Q. And with what institution are they?
A. I don't know.
Q. Has Patrick Hurley ever written any scientific
work on geochronology?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the title of his work?
A. He has a number. One that I read was, "How Old
Is the Earth?"
Q. What about Tilton and Steiger, have they pub-
lished any works?
A. Yes.
Q. What titles?
A. I believe you have some in your deposition.
Q. Could you tell us the names?
A. I don't recall the titles.
MR. CHILDS: You are talking about the documents
that were copied?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
[Discussion off the record]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Do you know if any of these
gentlemen have published in any scientific journals?
93
A. Yes, they have.
Q. Have you read any of their publications?
A. Yes.
Q. In which scientific journals have they been
published?
A. Many. Science Magazine, Nature, so on.
Q. Do these people that you have described agree
with your beliefs?
A. As far as I can tell. I haven't asked them
personally, but as far as I can tell, they do not.
There is no indication that they do not accept the old
earth model.
MR. LAHIFF: I am sorry, could you read my question
and his answer.
[Record read]
THE WITNESS: I interpreted your question to be about
the age of the earth. They do accept the old earth model.
They do not agree with the model, but I accept.
MR. LAHIFF: Q. If they do not agree with the model
that you have accepted, how do you use their work in
support of your model?
A. The data -- I don't think they are misquoting
the data -- but they make assumptions to interpret that
data.
Q. What assumptions do they make?
A. Their primary assumption is that isotope ratios
are a time index.
Q. Do you recognize the name, Dr. Dalrymple?
94
A. Yes.
Q. Could you identify him for me, please.
A. He is at one of the California schools. He is
a geochronologist, a specialist.
Q. Do you recognize the name, Dr. Curtis?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Garniss Curtis?
A. No, I don't recognize that name.
Q. Why aren't isotope ratios valid?
A. It has been shown in the literature that
physical processes affect the ratios.
Q. Which literature?
A. Scientific literature.
Q. Which scientific literature?
A. I have some in the deposition there [indicat-
ing]. There are a number of examples, both for nonradio-
active systems as well as radioactive systems.
Q. Well, can you identify specifically a couple of
those?
A. Well, two immediately which come to mind are
the oxygen ratios are indicators of paleoclimatology,
because we measure the oxygen isotope ratio 16/18, for
example, which gives us a handle on the paleoclimatology
temperature of ancient water.
Another case that comes to mind is the potassium
argon ratios in the Kilauea lavas in Hawaii.
Q. Could you describe the titles of any of these
works?
95
A. I forget the exact title. I would have to
look them up.
MR. CHILDS: Are they in the documents that have
been copied?
THE WITNESS: Yes, they are in the documents that
have been copied.
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Could you identify any of the
authors?
A. I forget which author is which document at the
moment.
MR. CHILDS: If you want to take the time, he can
go through them. I just wanted the record to reflect
they were there. If you want him to look for them, he
can look for them now.
MR. LAHIFF: Let's take a break for a few minutes.
[Brief recess]
THE WITNESS: What was the question now?
[Record read]
MR. CHILDS: Let's just identify these for the
record.
Why don't you identify these two articles?
Are these the two?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you. I would appreciate
that.
MR. LAHIFF: Dr. Chittick has identified two
articles, one entitled "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas
Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating," and it was
written by C. S. Noble and J. J. Haughton and it appeared
96
in Science, the October 11, 1968 issue.
THE WITNESS: I thought there were three authors on
that one.
MR. LAHIFF: No, just two.
[Discussion off the record]
[Photocopy of document entitled
"Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas
Content and Uncertainties in Age
Dating" marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 5 for identification]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. The second article is entitled
"Argon-40: Excess in Submarine Pillow Basalts from
Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii," and that was authored by G.
Brent Dalrymple and James G. Moore and appeared in
Volume 161 of Science Magazine, September 13, 1968.
Q. Have you ever studied fossil fuels in the
laboratory?
A. We have experimented with various grade of
coal, including lignite, in our gassification process.
To that extent I have studied them.
Q. What kind of studies have you performed?
A. We have studied the sulphur content and the
feasibility of gassification to synthesis gas.
Q. Have you ever analyzed petroleum or any fossil
fuels as they appear in nature?
A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever done any petrographic work with
coal or any other fossil fuel?
97
A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever analyzed the fuel that you have
produced to see how well it corresponds to any natural
products?
A. We have only checked the gas composition by
gas chromatograph of the affluent stream from our gas
fires. It does not match any natural products, to my
knowledge.
Q. Is it possible to produce an anthracite coal
through your process?
A. Anthracite coal is a natural mineral.
Q. Is it possible, then, to produce a product
chemically identical to anthracite coal?
A. It is possible to produce a product that has
the same carbon, hydrogen -- roughly the same, now,
depending on how many decimal places we wish to go out --
approximately the same, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
mineral content as an anthracite coal.
Q. Do you know if human beings produce methane
gas as a by-product of living?
A. They claim that the human gut under certain
conditions can synthesize methane gas.
There was one proposal several years to the
NSF by one of the students in the State of Washington, I
believe, to put a canopy over a large area and collect
the burps of cows.
Q. Do I understand your testimony properly, that
it is the speed of the reaction that you have performed
98
in the laboratory that leads you to believe that the
earth is 10,000 years old or less?
A. What I intended to say was, that in thinking
about the age of the earth and in thinking about the
chemistry that would be involved, in my mind what would
be the chemical reactions involved in changing biomass
to materials similar to what we find in fossil fuels,
that thinking let me to try experiments to see if I
could in fact change biomass into a material that was
specific, so that we could use it in synthesis of needed
hydrocarbons or whatever product desired.
Q. Have you ever read "The Origin of Species"?
A. By Charles Darwin?
Q. By Darwin.
A. Excerpts of it, only.
[Discussion off the record]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. Is there any discussion in either
of these two exhibits, Plaintiffs' 4 and 5, that support
your position on the age of the earth.
A. The discussion that was carried on in those
articles was that the isotope ratios obtained from these
lavas do not reflect accurately the time scale that these
authors would attach normally to those lavas. The lavas
in question had an age, historical age, of less than, as
I recall, it has been a while since I read them, but less
than of the order of 200 years, historical year, and the
test was to see whether the -- what were the potassium/
Argon-40 ratios in those rocks. And if you would use
99
Those ratios as a date, then one would get varying dates
on the same rock, depending on where the sample was
taken. And the conclusion was that the ratio seems to
reflect a physical process -- chemical process -- the
rate of cooling affects the ratio, the pressure under
which the rock was cooled was the conclusion that was
suggested.
Q. But do individual examples of contamination
necessarily disprove the validity of the process?
A. They seem to cast question on the assumption
that isotope ratios are a time index only. They may well
be in some cases. But if that assumption is correct,
then -- if that assumption is incorrect, then the conclu-
sions that are drawn from the data are not likely to be
correct.
So this suggests to me, what would happen if we --
Suppose we examine the same data from a different set of
assumptions. Suppose we take isotope ratios as being an
indicator of geophysical processes and examine the data.
What kind of conclusions would it lead to? What kind of
problems would it avoid to a time index assessment?
What problems this model might resolve. It resolves
some of the problems; then it seems like it would be a
better model.
Q. Do you believe that in the laboratory you have
copied the natural processes by which fossil fuels have
developed?
A. To what degree does our laboratory work -- I
100
am rephrasing your question -- to what degree does our
laboratory work duplicate what I believe to place
naturally in the formation of fossil fuels?
Q. Yes.
A. The thinking about fossil fuels got me started
in thinking about the laboratory processes and, as I
mentioned, these chars and tars that we formed were not
our -- were not in the main line of our research. I
don't know what degree they would be identical to what
happened in the past.
Q. Why can't you make any statement about that?
- - -
101
A. Lack of more sufficient exact analytical
data of natural products.
We don't have the exact analysis of natural products
to compare any closer than superficial comparisons that
they are similar with the available data.
It looks like it is a good model.
Q. Do you know what the traditional scientific
explanation for the formation of coal is?
A. There are a number of explanations and I've
forgotten all the ones that have been suggested other
than I got the general consensus that it was a slow
process.
Q. And how did this slow process operate?
A. Biomass was collected perhaps by leaves or limbs
dropping down and piling up and collecting to form
sufficient carbonaceous material which could then later
on be slowly changed into coal or oil.
Q. Do you know whether or not scientists have
identified the activity of fungi or bacteria as important
in the formation of coal?
A. In my reading on the subject some have suggested
that it was very important.
And in my reading letters to the editor, others
would challenge that.
So it is apparently being discussed with varying
viewpoints.
Q. Who are the individuals who are challenging
that viewpoint?
102
A. I do not recall that.
That was not the main thrust of my research.
I simply came across it in passing and wasn't
particularly interested in it.
What I was interested in was a process that we wanted
to work at.
Q. Does a challenge constitute a dismissal?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. Could you describe how wood decomposes?
A. How wood decomposes?
Q. Wood decomposes.
A. Normally wood decomposes by bacteria decay and
eventually returns to mineral matter that was in it and
carbon dioxide and water and reenters the cycle.
Q. And that does not operate during the formation
of coal?
A. That's correct.
Q. When did you last read a published book or
article on the subject of the age of the earth?
A. This fall I read -- it seems to me that I read
two articles:
One was by -- a little book called "Age of the Cosmos"
by Harold Slusher and there were several articles in the
literature relating to that in, I believe it was Science
Digest.
And in relation to Age of the Cosmos and the
Red Shift by Arp, was one of the authors, and there were
several others I don't recall.
103
I believe I have a couple of those in the deposi-
tion.
Q. When did you last read a published article
or book on geology?
A. A published article or book on geology.
I tried to read -- I try to stay abreast of some of
the -- I subscribe to a number of professional magazines
including Science Magazine and The Scientist put out by
the New York Academy of Sciences, Sigma Xi publication.
Q. Have there been any article or books published
recently which agree with your position?
A. On a young earth?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, there was another one I read this fall
sometime.
It seems to me there were two issues or two articles
that appeared, as I recall, in, I think, the Bible Science
Newsletter on isochron dating.
Q. Do you know if the Bible Science Newsletter
is in general circulation and usage?
A. It is.
Q. Do you know if that is subject to peer review?
A. I think it isn't.
Q. Have you read any other articles or treatises
recently on geology?
A. I tried to read the journals and that there
have been articles that have been in there and I come
across them but I just at this point don't recall.
104
Q. Do you believe that faith is a necessary element
in the application of understanding of evolution?
A. Yes, you have to have faith in your primary
assumptions.
Q. Do you believe faith is a necessary element in
the creation model?
A. Yes, you have to have faith in your primary
assumptions.
Q. What is the nature of that faith?
A. It is your a priori, it is where you start to
look at the data to draw conclusions.
Q. Is it a religious faith?
A. It depends on how one might define religious
faith, I suppose.
Q. How do you define religious faith?
A. Generally, I would define religious faith as
the starting point or assumptions for one's theology.
MR. LAHIFF: I am sorry, could you read that answer
for me, please.
[Record read]
MR. LAHIFF: Q. But does your religious faith act
as any assumptions in the field of creation science?
A. Would you say that again, please.
Q. Does your religious faith set forth any of
the assumptions upon which you believe in creation
science.
A. My religious faith is consistent with the
assumptions of creation science.
105
Q. Are you aware of any tests to which the model
of creation science has been subjected?
A. The data are there.
Involved in creation science are one of the things
we talked about this morning, where the terraced lines are
and they are there.
Q. But is it possible to test your theory?
A. Those terraced lines were formed -- you can test
to see how they were formed and the tests that we per-
formed indicate they were formed by waste.
Q. Do you know what sedimentary facies is?
A. I know what sedimentary is.
I am not familiar with the term facies.
Q. Have you ever read any books or treatises on
stratigraphy?
A. Yes.
Q. What books or treatises have you read?
A. One that interests me and several come to mind.
There are several.
But one that interests me because it was not my
field and I wanted to see the data was Geology Illustrated
by Shelton and I don't remember the first name.
Q. Could you describe for me a little bit about
the book, what the book covers.
A. He discovers a number of -- he's an amateur
photographer and he is an airplane pilot and has an
interest in geology. And it covers photographic pictures
of interesting geological areas along with a discussion.
106
And in the book, the one that interested me very,
very much was his discussion of geologic time.
Q. What was his discussion of geologic time?
A. Well, the gist of his discussion on geologic
time was that stratigraphy doesn't tell us absolute
dates.
He says -- paraphrasing -- that it is not possible
to know how long it takes to lay down a layer or if we
knew that, how much time there was between layers.
And he makes a comment, as a number of others did
when I first began to study this area, that radioisotopes
were the only way that geologists had of measuring
dates and years.
Q. How does stratigraphy relate to geologic time?
A. Well, we have layers in the earth and we see
those layers.
Those layers presumably were formed at rates which
involves time and since there were rates time is involved.
The evolutionists use stratigraphy as a time index
or has in the past.
Q. Which scientists are you aware that have
used stratigraphy to indicate geologic time?
A. In the broad sense -- now, we are talking
about stratigraphy in the broad sense, not a study of
that as a field or discipline.
Which scientists use the layers as a time index?
Q. Yes.
A. As a time index?
107
Q. As a time index.
A. Most of the evolutionary writers that I have
consulted.
Q. Could you identify specifically any of them
for me?
A. G. G. Simpson, Ldyard Stebbins.
I don't recall right now some of the others.
MR. CHILDS: It is quarter till.
THE WITNESS: Is your voice as hoarse as mine.
MR. LAHIFF: It is now 2:45 and Dr. Chittick is
leaving to catch his plane.
I think there are a lot of things that we still
could have covered.
Unfortunately he is not available.
As I understand it, you will provide us with copies
of the slides that you intend to use during your testimony?
MR. CHILDS: Just as soon as we can, right.
MR. LAHIFF: And you will provide those to Bob
Cearley.
MR. CHILDS: Yes, no problem.
MR. LAHIFF: Thank you very much.
[Photocopy of document entitled
"Argon-40: Excess in Submarine
Pillow Basalts from Kilauea
Volcano, Hawaii" marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 5 for identification]
_______________________________
DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK
108
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named
DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK
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
LINDA L. CHAVEZ and THOMAS A. LIBATIQUE,
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.
_______________________________