Deposition of Norman Geisler - Page 2
Q. So basically what you're saying is, fundamentalists had a core of these five or six values, and they defined themselves by exclusion of anyone who did not subscribe to those?
A. Anybody who didn't hold the truth held error. You know if you're opposed to the truth, you're for error. Just as it is true of any group, you know. Say for example, there's very little defining characteristic of Unitarianism, but there is some broad statement to Unitarianism. Well, if you — if you went in the Unitarian Church and said, "Now, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. You can't get there any other way. Can I join your church?" They'd exclude you. They'd be anti-you.
Q. That seems to be very dualist in its approach to religion?
A. It is. It is basically dualist, because it's built on the fundamental rule of all reason. That if you're for X, you have to be against non-X. See, the fundamental law of logic is that if you're for something, you have to be against its opposite. You can't be both for and against the same thing at the same time in the same sense.
Q. Do all religious denominations — are they all marked by this dualist?
A. Yes. Every single one. Because if you're — whatever you're committed to — you are ultimately committed to, you're opposed to its opposite.
Q. The question then becomes, what the fundamentals are?
A. That's exactly right. I think another defining characteristic of much of contemporary fundamentalism outside of the political — uh — that we talked about and some of the doctrinal things, and its so called separation, is that up until recently, most modern fundamentalists were kind of anti-academic. They were kind of — uh — against higher education type of mentality. That has been, you know, a defining characteristic of the — of a lot of the contemporary sociological fundamentalism.
Q. Anti-science, is that another phrase?
A. Many of them were ant — were anti-scientists, too. Yeah. There is no question about that.
Q. Directing your attention to Geisler Exhibit 4, does this bill reflect the dualist tension that we've just described about fundamentalism and its views towards evolution and towards the concept of special creation?
A. Not at all.
Q. Not at all?
A. Not at all.
Q. Dr. Geisler, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about your background as set forth in the resume, that we've been provided.
A. Would you like to look at mine?
Q. I have a copy of it. I think I have a copy of it, except for the — the additions you noted at the beginning of the deposition, but I'll have this one marked so that we'll know what you're talking about.
A. Okay.
Q. Geisler Exhibit 6, please.
(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 6 was marked for the record.)
Q. Now, it says on your — on your resume, Dr. Geisler, that you went to William-Tyndale College from 1950 to '55?
A. That's correct.
Q. Where is that school, sir?
A. It's — at that time it was in Detroit. Now it's west of Detroit, in Farmington, I believe.
Q. And at that time, sir, when you attended that school, what did you study there?
A. I studied what would broadly be called religion, specifically courses on the Bible, Bible backgrounds, related courses in the — how to interpret the Bible, some courses in science, some courses in philosophy, English, history. It was a kind of a liberal arts education from a private religious school point of view.
Q. Was it — that institution accredited by any organization at that time?
A. At that time that institution was accredited by the State of Michigan, but not by the North-central Accrediting Association.
Q. So it had a state license?
A. It had a state license.
Q. And it then says academically, you went to the University of Detroit for a year?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. The resume doesn't indicate what you studied that year.
A. I studied philosophy. I had a lot of religious studies; and I needed to broaden out, and so I studied — majored in philosophy.
Q. And then you — was that a transfer to Wheaton College?
A. Then I transferred to Wheaton College and finished my degree in philosophy. I majored in philosophy.
Q. You got your Bachelors there?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You then returned to TyndaleCollege in 1964, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I'm not familiar with what those initials are, Th.B?
A. Bachelor of Theology Degree.
Q. So you obtained another degree —
A. My first degree. I only had diplomas, because they didn't have any right to give degrees back in '50, '55. They only had the right to give diplomas, from the state, and then, in the intervening time they gained the right to give a Bachelor of Theology Degree, so I took the remaining courses needed and picked up the degree.
Q. I see. And you then went to the University of Detroit Graduate School —
A. Wayne State.
Q. Wayne State. It should be Wayne State Graduate School in 1964?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were there for how long?
A. I think I took courses there part-time for two years, studying again, philosophy. I was working toward, at that time, toward a doctorate in — well, actually I was still on the Master's level in philosophy.
Q. And you were part-time at the University — I mean at Wayne State?
A. Yes. Uh-huh.
Q. And you were — were you part-time at William-TyndaleCollege then?
A. I was teaching full-time, at that time, at William-Tyndale, and then I was studying part-time at Wayne State.
Q. Is Tyndalerelated to Detroit Bible College?
A. Okay. That discrepancy is, at that time it was called Detroit Bible College. It has subsequently changed its name to William-TyndaleCollege. So that is one and the same institution. The name was changed about a year or so ago.
Q. So when — when your resume reflects Detroit Bible College in the professional experience sections, that's' really the same institution?
A. That's one and the same, with a new name.
Q. All right. And do you know when Detroit Bible College, now William-TyndaleCollege became accredited by anybody other than the State of Michigan?
A. It is not yet accredited by the North Central. It is accredited by two organizations, one is the State of Michigan and the other is the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, which is a recognized, a nationally recognized, also recognized by the Regional Accrediting Associations like North Central, in that area for accrediting that kind of school, a religious school. So it's accredited by those two groups, Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, and the State of Michigan But not by the North Central.
Q. In fact, you are an officer of the Alumni Association of the Detroit Bible College?
A. That's correct.
Q. I see further down the resume.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You then went to the University of Detroit Graduate School after Wayne State. You worked on your M.A. there for a year, is that about right?
A. In the reverse order. I went from William-Tyndaleto the University of Detroit and then to Wayne State.
Q. Then to Wayne State. You obtained your Masters in Philosophy from —
A. I never obtained a Masters of Philosophy, because I bypassed it and went right to the doctorate. I had finished all the work except one course at the University of Detroit, at which time I transferred to Loyola, bypassed getting it and went into the doctoral work.
Q. And you obtained your Doctoral Degree in Philosophy in 1970; is that right?
A. Uh-huh. That's correct.
(Off the Record Discussion.)
Q. Dr. Geisler, you — in the area of professional experience you had part-time positions, first at Wheaton and then at Detroit Bible; is that right?
A. That's — I never taught part-time at Wheaton first. I taught later part-time at Wheaton, actually only one course, but my first teaching position was back at William-Tyndale, which is the new name for Detroit Bible, and I taught part-time there beginning in 1959.
Q. That's uh 1959-1962?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And what did you teach?
A. I taught some religious courses and some philosophical courses, because I was doing the work in philosophy at that time. So I taught some of these. I taught logic, for example, a philosophy course called Logic, and I taught a course in Introduction of Philosophy, and then some religious courses.
Q. At the time you went to William-Tyndale, which is then Detroit Bible College, how many students were there at that school?
A. It had both a day, and an evening school, and the evening school, as I recall at that time, had probably about 4 or 500, and the day school had probably somewhere around 300. I'm sure the sum-total wasn't more than 7 or 800.
Q. When you were teaching there, in 1959, and 1962, how many — what was the student population like?
A. I would say about the same.
Q. How big was the faculty?
A. Boy, I don't know. I really don't know. I could guess that the faculty was about, let me see, I'm trying to picture a faculty meeting with everybody sitting in there, 20, 25, people.
Q. How many of them full-time and how many of them part-time, if you recall?
A. Almost all of them were full-time. A few were part-time.
Q. This is the period '59 to '62.
A. Uh-huh. Yeah. They were — they were already accredited by those two organizations which pretty well took care of that type of thing, you know, if you had too many part-time teachers, they said, "Hey, you got too many part-time; get more full-time." So they wouldn't have been accredited if they had had too many
part-time people.
Q. All right. You then took a full-time position at Detroit Bible in '62?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you worked there through 1966?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And was the school about the same size?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And what — you taught the Bible and apologetics?
A. And philosophy.
Q. And philosophy. Philosophy. You then had occasion to move, I see, in 1967, to Trinity College?
A. That's right.
Q. What was the occasion for that transfer?
A. Twofold. Advancement in teaching opportunity and then desire to finish the doctorate; which I hadn't yet finished at Loyola University.
Q. Where is Trinity College?
A. Trinity College is about 35 miles, mostly north of Chicago, near Deerfield, Illinois.
Q. And you taught there in a full-time manner for two years?
A. No.
Q. No. I stand corrected. How long did-you teach there?
A. Well, all total, at that time, the two institutions the college and the seminary were one when I came there. And I taught at the college and seminary together for 13 years. Now the first, roughly six or seven years I taught only at the college, a few years in the middle I taught both, and then the last five or six years taught only at the seminary, so I was kind of at a transition in the middle there.
Q. All right. And was this the bulk of your — what I'll call gainful employment, if you'll pardon that expression?
A. Yeah. Yeah. That was my full-time job, other than a little moonlighting by lecturing on the weekends or elsewhere, that's how I made my living.
Q. This Trinity College, I then take it, is really the same institution of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School?
A. At the beginning they were under one administration, but they were two separate schools, and then they later they divided the administrations too. And when I came there they were just seeking their Regional Accreditation, and about a year after I got there, they received North Central Accreditation. And the seminary also was accredited, and I taught there for the remainder of the 13 years.
Q. So you came there — at the time you started there the school was unaccredited by North Central and then ancient processing —
A. Right. They had candidate status, as it's called, because it was a young school, just a few years old, and they had candidate status.
Q. Does Tyndalehave candidate status with North Central, do you know?
A. No. North Central has never accredited a religious school, a Bible college of any kind. They've always turned them down on the grounds that they're religious schools, or — well there are two grounds. One has been eliminated and the other one still remains. The first one was that there is an accrediting association for Bible colleges, called the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, go to them and get your accreditation. We recognized them for transfer of credit purposes. The other grounds was we don't want to accredit any school that has a religious major in it, and you still have a religious major, even though you teach your education and everything, therefore, we are not going to accredit you. That is not true, incidentally, of the other regional accrediting associations in the United States. North Central is more strict on that than the others are.
Q. At the time you were teaching at Trinity College, and then Trinity Evangelic Divinity, what was the student population? How large a school was it?
A. Oh, I would say at the college it was roughly in the 7, 800 range, and at the seminary — uh — it at that time was going through tremendous growth. It was going from the 6 to 800 range at that time. It now has a thousand. It's one of the largest seminaries in the United States.
Q. Are the ordinations in any particular denomination?
A. My ord — first ordination was undenominational. It was a just a community church, nondenominational. And, the second ordination was by the Evangelical Free Church of America, which is a denomination. And they happen to be the denomination that sponsors Trinity College, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Q. And I take it then, that the ordinations in Trinity Evangelical are in this same church?
A. That's right. That's right.
Q. Okay. How long is the course of study for somebody at Trinity Evangelical?
A. It's the same as all seminaries in the country are for a Master of Divinity program, three years.
Q. So this — this divinity school gives a three year Master's program?
A. All divinity schools give a three year Master's program,
Q. What is that?
A. We sometimes wonder too. Seriously, systematic theology is teaching the basic doctrines and truths of the Christian religion in a systematic rational way, trying to put together all the facts both inside and outside of the Bible in a systematic coherent way, so that one can see the whole picture.
Q. How many students are in Dallas Theological Seminary?
A. We have a thousand students. We are the 4th largest seminary in the world.
Q. And the faculty, how many people on the faculty?
A. There are 60 some members — uh — recently — I couldn't remember if it was 64 or something. I heard it recently, but —
Q. Into what denominations do your students place their ordinations?
A. Almost all — the school is a nondenominational school. Trinity was a denominational school to which many other denominations came, but Dallas is a nondenominational school, and roughly the breakdown would be something like this. About a third of the students — or a little more than a third go into community nondenominational type churches. A little less than a third go into Baptistic type churches, that would either be Baptist in name or doctrine or both. And the other third from Heinz variety. I have all kinds: Presbyterians, Methodists, what have you.
Q. The Baptistic Churches, do they generally tend to be aligned with Southern Baptists, or independent Baptists?
A. Uh, both. Both. Although you must remember that you can go to — if you're a Southern Baptist you can go to a Southern Baptist Seminary free, so if you come to Dallas Seminary, and you're a Southern Baptist, you came because either you were rich, or you thought it was much better than the Southern Baptist Seminary or both.
Q. So you had sort of something special they wanted?
A. That's right.
Q. Let me ask you, Dr. Geisler, about the books that are recited here, can you tell me a little about — uh — the General Introduction to the Bible, put out by Moody Press —
A. Uh-huh.
Q. — in 1968. Tell me —
A. Yes. That was the first book that I wrote, actually coauthored with a friend of mine, Hyme Nix, (sic.) and we were teaching that course, at that time, at Detroit Bible College, now William-Tyndale College, and there was a very poor textbook, and we decided to write a better textbook, so that's a textbook written to teach a specific course that's taught in most Bible colleges around the country, to give the full history and background of the Bible, from its origins to the present. So we go into the earliest manuscripts and to ancient history, medieval history, the earliest manuscripts, trace it right down to the modern translations. It's kind of a history and nature of the Bible.
Q. What languages do you speak, sir?
A. Well, speak or read?
Q. Well, why don't we start with speak?
A. Speak? English.
Q. And read?
A. I read English, a little bit of Hebrew, a little bit of Greek, a little more of Greek. I've had three years of Greek, one year of Hebrew, and enough of the German and French to pass the doctoral exams to read the stuff in scholarly journals in German and French.
Q. Where is Moody Press located?
A. It's located in Chicago.
Q. The next book there is Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, could you tell me a little bit about that book?
A. Uh, that book is a textbook written on college level to teach a course in ethics. And the first half of the book discusses the various alternative positions that are taken in ethics by everyone. In other words, I make a typology of ethical systems there. You can believe that there are no absolutes. You can believe there is one absolute. You can believe there are many absolutes. You can believe that they never conflict, that they sometimes do conflict. I come up with six different kinds of ethical views, expound the proponent, whether it's Sartre (sic.) or Nietzsche or whoever. It's not particularly Christian, or religious, and then after explaining these six different views, then I explain my own view and apply it to issues in the last half of the book — is now from my ethical perspective, what do I think of war, what do I think of abortion, birth control, euthanasia, issues like that.
Q. Would you describe or summarize the ethical position you take in that book?
A. Yes. I defend the view that there are ethical absolutes. That some things are binding on all men at all times in all places.
Q. Zondervan Publishing, whereabouts are they?
A. Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Q. Are they affiliated with any creation-science organization?
A. No. Not to my knowledge.
Q. The next book is the Christian Ethic of Love.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Could you describe that — the topic of that book for me?
A. Uh, that's the way to get two books out of one. Uh, it's a spin-off from the original book on a more popular level for laymen.
Q. Do you take the position in that book as well?
A. Same title — same position. Uh-huh. I take the position that love is a universal absolute, and that all men should love at all times and all places, under all conditions.
Q. Uh, the next book is the Philosophy of Religion.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Would you describe the topic of that book for me?
A. Uh, that book is really a redoing of my dissertation. Instead of publishing the dissertation in its exact form which wasn't as publishable, I just redid it and that book is the results of my research in what is religion and some tangential topics, like how — what is religious language? And what — how does reason and philosophy relate to religion? Can you be reasonable about your religion? Can you prove the existence of God, or not prove the existence of God? If God exists what about evil in the world? So basically it's God and evil, God and language, God and religious experience, and God and reason. Four sections.
Q. Do you take a position or can you summarize briefly?
A. I take the position that, yes, we can talk about God, religious language is meaningful. Yes, it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God. There are evidences — philosophical evidences that bear on it. Yes, evil does exist, but it is not incompatible with the existence of God. Uh, and yes, there is such a thing as religion and it can be defined, and it's defined in the way I defined it earlier.
Q. The next book is From God to Us, again by Moody Press.
A. That's a spin-off, a more popular writing of General Introduction to the Bible on a lay level again, rather than the more scholarly textbook type.
Q. That's a spin-off of Philosophy of Religion?
A. General Introduction to the Bible.
Q. Oh, from General Introduction to the Bible.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. All right. The —
A. Now, when I say spin-off, that doesn't mean there's nothing new in those books. There are some new things that we added as we went along, but it's basically the same area, and similar conclusions.
Q. The next book is Christ: The Key to Interpreting the Bible, by Moody Press.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Can you tell me a little bit about that topic of that book?
A. Uh-huh. The topic of that book is really hermeneutics or how do we interpret? And it suggests that the way to understand the Bible from a Christian perspective, is to look at it as it relates to the person, nature, ministry of Jesus Christ. Look at the Old Testament as looking forward to Christ, look at the New Testament as looking on Christ. Christ is the unifying theme of the Bible.
Q. And is that the position you take, that Christ is the unifying theme of the Bible?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. The next book is Christian Apologetics. Where is Baker Book House?
A. Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Q. Are they affiliated with any organization that you know?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Could you describe the topic of Christian Apologetics?
A. Apologetics means defense, comes from the Greek word apologea (sic.) It's the same thing a lawyer would do in the courtroom, defend. And if somebody made some complaint against, he would defend, and uh, these examine all of the major objections leveled against Christianity that I am aware of, and defends
Christianity against these objections.
Q. Could you describe the position you take in that book?
A. That Christianity is true, and the objections fail.
Q. And the next book is A Popular Study of the Old Testament. Could you describe the subject matter of that book?
A. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament is the title, and that is —
Q. Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt. It says here study. Is it supposed to be study?
A. Well, then, there must be a mistake.
Q. Okay.
A. You caught a mistake. I read ideas and you read words. Let's see, where is it here?
Q. It's on the resume. It says a popular study.
A. Yep. That's a mistake. That should be A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. That's the problem. You can't proofread your own material. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. That's the book I brought with me today, and that is a — it goes book by book through the Old Testament, from Genesis to Malachi, and it gives a basic outline and background of each of the books, discussing who wrote the book, when was it written, to whom did he write, what is the content of the book, what was his purpose, or why did he write? So it's a guide to studying the old Testament.- It gives some archaeological historical background material. Touches on — in the Book of Genesis it touches on the topic of creation and who wrote Genesis? Is Genesis literally true? Et cetera.
Q. Do you take a position with regard to who wrote Genesis in this book?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that position?
A. Moses wrote Genesis.
Q. Do you take a position as to when Moses wrote Genesis?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is that position?
A. Roughly around 1,500 B.C., 1,450's.
Q. Do you take a position as to why Genesis was written?
A. Yes. At the end of each of the books I give, usually three whys. I divide it into the theological purpose, and the Christological purpose, and the historical purpose, and I suggest that Moses had — the book can be understood in terms of these three.
Q. Do you take a position as to whether Genesis is a historical book?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What position do you take?
A. I take the position that it's historical.
Q. Do you take a position as to whether it's inerrant?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What does the word inerrant mean to you?
A. It means without error.
Q. Do you take a position as to factual inerrancy?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What position do you take?
A. I take the position that the Bible is factually inerrant.
Q. That includes Genesis?
A. That includes Genesis. Yes.
Q. The next book you have here is The Roots of Evil, by Zondervan?
A. Zondervan.
Q. Yeah.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Could you tell me what the topic of that book is?
A. Technically speaking, the topic is called theodicy, T-H-E-O-D-I-C-Y, and theodicy is the philosophical category that deals with the books on the problem of evil. And the topic of that book is to discuss the problem of evil, as it relates to various religious positions, and particularly the Christian position. If God, why evil?
Q. Do you take a position in that book as to that topic?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is that position?
A. My position is that evil is not incompatible with the existence of God, and that we do know some possible and/or plausible reasons for the existence of evil in the universe.
Q. Do you articulate those?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What — could you articulate them for me?
A. Surely.
Q. Would you please?
A. Uh-huh. The purpose for permitting evil, we divide into several categories. The metaphysical problem people, the physical problem people, and the moral problem people. The metaphysical problem people is if God is the author of everything and evil is something, then it would seem like God is the author of evil. My response to that is, that the minor premise of the syllogism is wrong, namely that evil is not a thing. I hold that evil is not a thing or a substance, the same view that Augustine (sic.) held, and that evil is just a lack or a privation in things, that evil is like a hole in the garment, that, there is a good garment there, and evil is a privation in it, but that evil doesn't exist in and of itself. It only exists in other things.
And then on the moral problem of evil, the question is why did God create a world where there were free creatures who would commit evil? And the answer I give to that is, that freedom is the cause of evil, man's free choice. And that it's good to be free. That we don't carry signs back to bondage away with freedom. Even Humanists believe that freedom is good. And if freedom is good, freedom makes evil possible. And then with respect to why God permits evil to continue, I say that he would have to destroy freedom, in order to destroy evil. That he could destroy all evil, but he would have to destroy all freedom too, and that would be destroying the good of freedom, and it's not good to destroy the good of freedom.
Q. Dr. Geisler, you have a book here called The Inerrancy.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Could you describe for me what the topic of that book is?
A. It's exactly what we said before. It's on the factual inerrancy of the Bible. I edited that book and wrote one chapter in it, and the book is a compilation of scholars defending the inerrancy of the Bible.
Q. I take it you subscribe, then, to the positions taken in there?
A. I subscribe to the general position taken by the council that sponsored it, which is called the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, out of Oakland, California. In fact, I'm a member of that council, and they have a 19 point statement, which was the result of a conference of 300 scholars from the United States and various places in the world, about three years ago in Chicago, and that 19 point statement defines exactly what we mean by inerrancy.
Q. Could you — not to test your memory beyond the realm of reason, but could you identify for me as many of those points as you recall?
A. Well, I'll simplify the matter. I'll identify the points that relate directly to this. We believe that the Bible is inerrant, that it is without error in everything that it teaches on every topic that it teaches anything on, including science and creation, in the Book of Genesis.
Q. That's a fairly clear position.
A. Fairly clear.
Q. That — you described that as you believe the Bible is inerrant. The basis for those 19 points — could you describe the basis for those 19 points for me?
A. If you mean the justification for my belief, the justification for my belief is spelled out in detail in my Apologetics book, and the heart of the argument goes like this. It is reasonable to believe in God on the following grounds, which I'd be glad to go into. If God exists, miracles are possible. We examine history to see if there are any miraculous confirmations of any truth claims. Jesus Christ made certain truth claims to be the Son of God, and there was miraculous confirmation of those truth claims, therefore Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus taught that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, with respect to the Old Testament that existed, and he promised the same for the new, therefore it is true that Jes — that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. That's the essence of the argument.
Q. The concept of faith is extent there in which points of that?
A. The concept of faith is not extent in any point thereof. It's all based on historical or philosophical argumentation.
Q. Is there a concept of revelation present in any there?
A. Revelation is the conclusion of the argument, not any premise in the argument.
Q. You have a book here called Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Can you describe for me the topic about that book?
A. That is a textbook for colleges on philosophy with an honest subtitle. Most textbooks on philosophy could be called an introduction of philosophy, a Humanist perspective, but don't put it in their subtitle. We just honestly wanted the readers to know that we were two Christians that were writing the same field, both having expertise in Philosophy on the same topics. It could be used as a textbook, but reminding them that our point of view was a Christian point of view.
Q. And I take it you've just described to me a position you take in the book, too?
A. The position we take is that you can be a philosopher and be a Christian. And that a philosopher — a Christian philosopher can adequately engage and handle honestly and openly all the philosophical problems that any other contemporary philosopher faces.
Q. And the last book that I have noted on this list in the resume, is Options on Contemporary Christian Ethics.
A. Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics, is really an updating of the first half of Ethics: Alternatives and Issues. It has additional chanters. About a third of the book, or 2/5's is new. And the rest is an updating and sharpening of the arguments and additional arguments for and against the various positions.
Q. What — when you say updating, what position do you take in this book?
A. That there are ethical absolutes, same position. No major change in my ethical position on that topic. I've had minor changes on some minor topics.
Q. Looking at Geisler Exhibit 6, and the books you've given us asterisks on, you have a book called How History Views the Bible: Decide for Yourself. That book is in manuscript form?
A. That is in galley proof form ready to come out imminently.
Q. The — what is the topic of that book?
A. It is a compilation — a systematic compilation of quotations from the early centuries up to the present on major theologians' views with regard to the Bible.
Q. Do you take a position in that book?
A. No.
Q. That's merely narrative?
A. I don't take a position, you know, to be perfectly honest. When you put a book together on any topic and put headings on and organize it, you are indirectly taking a position. But there is no overt position taken. Obviously I can't abstract myself from my own convictions, but I try — but the book is really nothing but quotations and my headings. And the heading is there and then the quotation and the source from the quotation, so if somebody looks up the quote and says it doesn't agree with the heading they can look it up for themselves. But it's an attempt to be a purely objective summary of what almost every major father from the early fathers of the church right on through the middle age up to modern time have said with regard to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible..
Q. So it's basically directed towards Biblical inerrancy?
A. It's directed toward a topic a little broader, inspiration and inerrancy, whereas inerrancy is a specific kind of view of inspiration. Inspiration is a broader topic than inerrancy. Many people believe in inspiration that don't believe in inerrancy.
Q. All right. What is your definition of inspiration?
A. The word inspiration comes from the Greek word, Theopnustas, (sic.) which means "God breathed." And it comes from II Timothy, Chapter 3, verse 16, in the New Testament, which says, that all scripture is breathed out by God, that God was the one who is the ultimate source of giving these truths, and that the authors of scripture ultimately got their truths from God.
Q. You agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. So what I might be describing as divine revelation, you describe as inspiration?
A. Divine revelation is related to inspiration in the following way. Revelation is the actual conveying of divine truth. Inspiration is the way it was conveyed.
Q. So revelation is the what and inspiration is the how?
A. The how.
Q. The book you have recited here, Miracles in a Modern Mind, what is the topic of that book?
A. That was a working title at that time, and it's exact title is going to be Miracles and Modern Thought. And the manuscript is finished and it's in the process of being edited by Zondervan now, and the topic of the book is an examination of the objections against miracles from the time of Spinoza (sic.) to the present. And I take every major philosopher to my knowledge from the time of Spinoza to the present, examine his arguments against miracles, and find them all to be inadequate. So it could be thought of as a defense of super — a rational defense of supernaturalism.
Q. In what stage is this book?
A. The stage — as I said, the manuscript is completed, and the editor has it and he's editing it.
Q. The book you have here, World Views: They Make a World of Difference.
A. That is just in the process of being written. We have a tentative commitment by a publisher, and we have a couple chapters written, and the whole book outlined.
Q. What is the general thrust of the book?
A. The general thrust of that view is to enable someone to understand the various perspectives from which people speak. Pantheistic perspective, a theistic perspective, a deistic perspective, an atheistic perspective, and the point of the book — there are really two points. One point is that the same statement made from a different world view perspective has a different meaning. For example, when Jesus said, "I am God." From a theistic perspective that would prove the deity of Christ, because God is the transcendent being beyond the world, and no man can be identical to God, unless he is indeed God.
But from a pantheistic perspective the statement I am God, means something entirely different. We're all gods; we're all part of God; God is all, and all is God. So what we want to show is that you have to know somebody's world view perspective to really understand what they're saying.
Q. Does your analysis of world views focus on the concept of a deity?
A. Uh, Yes. All world views have something to do with a deity, either affirming or denying one kind or another. See, it will be again, a typology of world views. And we'll try to give an exhaustive typology of all of the possible ways you can relate to the question of the existence of God. God doesn't exist at all, atheism. God exists and he's out there, but he doesn't involve himself here, deism. God exists out there, but he also involves himself here, theism. God is all, and all is God, pantheism. And then a view less popularly known, panentheism, E-N, in the middle. That all is in God. God is in the world, but there's more to God than the world. And polytheism there are many gods. And then we'll take — have a chapter explaining each of these views and helping the reader to understand the differences.
Q. Take a position on a world view of atheism, non — denying the existence of God —
A. Uh-huh.
Q. — is that described in there too?
A. That will — there will be a chapter on atheism. Right.
Q. You then have a book called Humanism: A Christian Evaluation.
A. That one is already written. The manuscript form is into the editor, and it's being edited right now.
Q. Did — what is the general topic of this?
A. It's divided in two halves. The first half is a survey of various kinds of Humanism. We survey what we call Egocentric Humanism of Ian Rand, (sic.) Pragmatic Humanism with John Dewey, (sic.) Behavioral Humanism, of V. F. Skinner, (sic.) Evolutionary Humanism of a Huxley variety, Existential Humanism of John Paul Sartre, (sic.) what we call Coalitional Humanism such as the manifestoes, people who get together and say, "Hey let's pool our resources and make a statement for our purposes." And Cultural Humanism of Coralis LaMant, (sic.) type. I may have forgotten one, but that's just mainly exposition with a few evaluatory comments at the end of the chapters. And the last half of the book is my critique of what I call Coalitional Humanism, or Secular Humanism from a Christian point of view.
Q. What — could you give me the sum or substance of that evaluation?
A. That it is a religion, but it is religiously inadequate; that it is scientifically inadequate; that it is culturally inadequate, and that it is philosophically inadequate.
Q. So in laymen's terms, that's a religion, but it's not very good religion.
A. That's right. It's not — it's not a rationally justi — it's not rationally, scientifically justifiable, nor is it spiritually and socially helpful.
Q. You're scientific analysis of Humanism is drawn from what source?
A. Let me cross one word out I just said. I don't mean not helpful, because we have a whole chapter there pointing out that it does have many helpful things to say. That Humanism has many positive contributions, but that it is insufficient — is a better word — as a total system. Pardon me, I missed your question.
Q. Could you read my question back?
(Thereupon the reporter read back the immediate previous question.)
A. Scientific analysis of Humanism is drawn from taking basic principles of Humanism with regard to its commitment to scientific issues like creation. And incidentally, the main thrust of my argument on that, is the material I gave you, that one chapter entitled — let's see, what is it entitled here? I don't have it in front of me. You have it. Well, here it is. Christianity vs. Humanism, this exhibit that you might want to give a title to, now, is the essence of my argument, and what I do is I take basic principles, such as the second law of thermodynamics, basic principles articulated by scientists like Michael Polanyi, who was not a creationist, and take these basic fundamental principles and apply them to the Humanistic and the creationist conclusions, and see that the first is inadequate, and the second is adequate.
Q. Do you examine any other scientific element, other than creation?
A. Uh, any other scientific element of Humanism?
Q. Yes.
A. In one of — in the chapter on Cultural Humanism, we go into great detail by way of a recent book entitled, The Arrogance of Humanism, in showing that Humanism is scientifically arrogant.
Q. Again, Doctor, I'll restate my question. When I asked you what — what scientific issues you addressed, do you address any other scientific issues other than creation?
A. Oh, yeah. Sure. Because they — the scientific issues about control of the — genetic control, scientific issues that relate to the — the use of science by Humanists as its — as its Messiah. The messianic use of science by Humanists, and that covers a whole broad gamut of things, you know, like cloning — and we do that also in the Ethics book too, you know, cloning, genetic control, and I — my general conclusion, then, in agreement with the Arrogance of Humanism book, is that science is — is not capable of doing what the Humanist wants it to do.
Q. What is your understanding of what the Humanist wants science to do?
A. They want it to save the world, in a broad general way. The means of salvation according to a Humanist, for the human race are: (a) Humanist values, which means we've got to propagate them and teach them the education and humanist values. (2) the scientific method which can help us solve our problems. So there are mainly two sources of salvation by Humanists for mankind. Proper use of Humanist values, and scientific process, combined with — some of them will add combined with common sense, which is also part of science too.
Q. So when you're telling me that you addressed the inadequacy of Humanist values on scientific issues, what you're addressing is a scientific method?
A. Uh, no. No. They're — They are conclusions built on faulty scientific reasoning. In other words, I'm saying they are not scientific in their conclusions.
Q. What — what is the scientific method that you just referred to?
A. It's the method of proper inference of conclusion from substantial evidence.
Q. Can you define in a generalized way, what the faulty conclusions are?
A. Well, evolution, for example. Macroevolution is understood by modern Humanists as a faulty conclusion from the scientific evidence.
Q. And you draw this conclusion from the perspective of a philosopher?
A. Yeah. Uh-huh. I have to — I have to accept the available scientific principles from the scientific community. In other words, they tell me the second law of thermodynamics is a fundamental scientific principle, and I say, "Well, if it is, let's see what that leads to, and I philosophize about that, and I say, "Well, it looks to me like that leads to God and creation."
Q. And you do this — does this inspiration that we referred to earlier impact on the philosophizing?
A. It has no part in the argument whatsoever.
Q. Besides the second law of thermodynamics, are there any other scientific principles you analyze?
A. Uh-huh. I analyze the result of the paleontological record, the geological column, the result of the fossil — the fossil record.
Q. What exactly — what exactly in the fossil record does — do you examine, or have you examined?
A. I have examined — I've studied geology on the college level and also am an amateur rock collector. I've examined the Gaps, the fixity of kinds that are there, and read books by both evolutionists and nonevolutionists on that.
Q. Now, we have your college theology course?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Your rock collecting — you said you examined the Gaps?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What exactly did you look at or see?
A. I looked at the evolutionary text books such as Dunbar's textbook on geology, which he showed where the fossils were, which ones were found and which strata, where the Gaps are in these?
Q. You looked at — all right. Now, that's Dunbar's book. What else have you looked at in connection with the paleontological record?
A. I've looked at some of the creationists' material.
Q. What particularly?
A. Well, the writings of Morris and Gish, (sic.) from the Creation Research Society. I've looked at — I've also examined personally, and read the book on the dinosaur footprints. The book on the dinosaurs that came out by Whitcomb (sic.) John Whitcomb, Jr., and that was a study of the Glen Rose, Texas Dinosaur footprints by human footprints. I have made a trip to Glen Rose to examine these myself. I have viewed the film that was produced on that particular —
Q. Is that Paluxy River?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. This gentleman Morris that you — is that Henry Morris?
A. Yeah. Henry Morris.
Q. Is he in your mind an authority on creation?
A. He's one of the authorities on scientific-creationism, yeah.
Q. He's recognized in your mind as an authority?
A. Well, he's — he has a Doctorate in Science, and he has done a lot of research on this and written books, and studied and lectured and debated on it, so I'd call him an authority, yeah.
Q. You'd recognize him as an authority?
A. Yeah. I would recognize him — I don't agree with all of his views, but I would recognize him as an authority in his point of view as a matter of fact I disagree with a couple of his views, the same ones that I pointed out earlier in the bill, on the Section 4a, 5 and 6.
Q. I'm just trying to get if you recognize him as an authority on scientific-creationism?
A. Yes. Yes. Yes, I do recognize him as an authority and so — Gish also.
Q. You recognize Gish as an authority?
A. Yes
Q. How about a gentleman by the name of Gary Parker, do you recognize him.
A. I don't know Gary Parker.
Q. Okay. Have you had occasion to examine a book called Scientific-Creationism?
A. Uh-huh. I think that's — I think that's a very credible book from their point of view.
Q. All right. Have you had occasion to examine any other books in the area of scientific-creationism?
A. Yes. Uh, one of the things I brought, and I think I gave you, is a bibliography on evolution. It's called Select Bibliography on Evolution. And there are a number of books on here that I have examined. A good one on this topic is by Wilder-Smith, the second one from the last, called Man's Origin, Man's Destiny. Another excellent one is by Wysong, W-Y-S-O-N-G, entitled, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1978 I've also looked at a number of other books on this list, but they are two that I would recommend as credible books from that point of view.
Q. Now, would you mark this, please, as Geisler Exhibit 7, and this as Geisler Exhibit 8, so we'll know what we're talking about.
(Thereupon Geisler Exhibits 7 and 8 were marked for the record.)
Q. Dr. Geisler, have you had occasion to examine the books on this list, I mean all of them?
A. No. I have not read all of all of those books. I have read some of most of them, and all of some of them.
Q. Where did this list come from?
A. That list was compiled by me through the research that I did, plus research that students of mine did on topics where they wrote maybe a thesis or term papers under me, and if they would quote a book, and it had a good idea, I'd look up the book and say, "Hey, there's a good one and scan it or read parts of it or
all of it, and add it to the list.
Q. So you generated this list?
A. That particular list is my compilation, that's right.
Q. When did you make this list?
A. Well, that list was made up some time ago: For example, you'll notice that Morris' and Gish's book are not on that list yet, and that you'll notice in the bottom the books are typed in different type. Those were just put on, so that list, if you will forgive the expression from a creationist, evolved gradually over just five to eight years, probably.
Q. If we say this list, we're referring to Geisler Exhibit 7, a one-page document, captioned, Select Bibliography of Evolution. So we have Henry Morris' book and Duane — What exact did we say about Henry Morris? What book was his?
A. Scientific-Creationism.
Q. And Mr. Gish, what book of his?
A. Well, there's a little one and a big one by similar titles. I think — if I'm not mistaken, they are both called Scientific-Creationism. There is a little one called that, and there's the thicker one, but they may have slightly different titles. I don't know, because I don't have it written down in front of me.
Q. Do you have all those books?
A. I don't possess all of them, no. I possess maybe about— I would say possess, in my personal library, which is a selection, not a collection. I only buy books that I think I'm going to use over and over again. Otherwise, I borrow them from the library. I probably have a dozen books on creation-evolution.
Q. But you think all of these books are — are —
A. Something that somebody who is interested in that topic ought to look at. And the — and the ones that I've read, present a credible case for their point of view.
Q. All right. I'd like you to — if you could, just go down this list, and tell me on each one which books you've read, which books you have, which books you've just written down, based on the quotes that somebody has given to you?
A. Okay. The first one, Anderson, Fossils in Focus, I've read the whole book. That's — is that all you want me to tell?
Q. Yes.
A. Biology is cert —
Q. Now, if there is a book on there that you think is an authority, would you tell me about that? Would you just say that for me so I'll know which books you consider to be authoritative?
A. Uh, authoritative meaning what? What do you mean by authoritative?
Q. Well, meaning do you recognize them as an authority in the area of creation-science or evolution?
A. Well, under my definition of authority?
Q. Yeah. Well, you give me your definition of authority.
A. Okay. What I understand as an authority is someone who, has some scientific credentials, that is who has studied science and has done research into the scientific data that relates to this topic.
And I recognize the first one Anderson, Fossils in Focus, as having scientific credentials and credibility.
The second one, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, I have not read the whole book. I have looked at that, scanned it. It's a textbook intended for colleges. I have not read the whole book, so can't comment on the specific contents of it.
Clark — Robert E. Clark, The Universe: Plan or Accident? I have read that whole book. That speaks only to the point of the creation of the universe, not the creation of life itself, and he argues — and think that on that point, he has credibility, because that's largely a philosophical point.
The next one, Prehistory and Earth Models, by Coak, C-O-A-K, I have not read. That one was recommended by a student who had some interesting quotes from —
The next one by — on Evolution: Possible or Impossible? Grand Rapids. I read and do not consider to be a scientific authority on it.
The next one, Arthur Custance, Evolution or Creation, Zondervan. I consider to be a good book I've read, and consider it to be a credible scientific presentation.
The next one, William Dankenbring, First Genesis: A New Case for Creation, I have not read.
The next one, Donald England, A Christian View of Origins, Baker Book House, I have not read.
The next one, George F. Howe, H-O-W-E, "Creationist Botany Today: A Progress Report." I have read, as well as some other things that he wrote. He's a credible scientist-creationist.
The next one, James Jauncey, Science Returns to God. I have read the whole book, and it's credible. He's got about six scientific degrees.
The next one, Martin Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to NeoDarwinian Interpretation of Evil, I have not read. I have just read parts of, excerpts.
The next one, The Creation Explanation, I have not read.
The next one, Walter Lammerts, Scientific Studies in Special Creation, I have read parts of, and consider that to be a good book.
The next one, Walter Lammerts, Why Not Creation? I have also read parts of, and consider it to be a good book.
Henry Morris, Evolution and the Modern Christian, Grand Rapids; read; good book.
Symposium on Creation, Henry Morris, read; that's a good book.
Donald Patten, Symposium on Creation I've read. That's a good book.
Bernard Ramm, Christian View of Science and Scripture. I've read that whole book. That's a good, book.
Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Time and Space. I read that, and that is not a credible book from a scientific standpoint, because he is not a scientist. That's written from a theological standpoint.
Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, is a credible book from a scientific standpoint.
And Wysong is an excellent book from a scientific standpoint, because it's a two-model approach. He doesn't come to any conclusion. He just presents both sides of it. What if — and it's, think, an excellent book.
