Deposition of Margaret Helder
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
- - -
REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al.,)
)
Plaintiffs,)
)
vs. ) NO. LR-C-81-322
)
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et )
al., )
)
Defendants.)
_____________________________)
DEPOSITION OF
DR. MARGARET HELDER
Tuesday, November 17, 1981
Reported by:
CAROLINE ANDERSON, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1903, and
DEAN MC DONALD, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1869
2
I N D E X
PAGE
DEPOSITION OF DR. MARGARET HELDER
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE 5
- - -
EXHIBITS
Plaintiffs'
1 Copy of curriculum vitae of
Dr. Margaret Helder 5
2 Copy of one-page published letter
to the editors of Discovery
Magazine 59
3A, 3B Two pages of drawings of algae 87
- - -
3
BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of
Taking Deposition, and on Tuesday, November 17, 1981,
commencing at the hour of 9:45 o'clock a.m. thereof, at
the offices of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market
Plaza, San Francisco, California, before us, CAROLINE
ANDERSON and DEAN MC DONALD, Certified Shorthand
Reporters and Notaries Public in and for the State of
California, personally appeared
DR. MARGARET HELDER,
called as a witness herein, who, being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.
- - -
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by STEPHEN
G. WOLFE, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.
KAPLAN, HOLLINGSWORTH, BREWER & BILHEIMER, The
Tower Building, Suite 955, Fourth and Center Streets,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, represented by PHILIP E.
KAPLAN, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.
STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,
represented by DAVID WILLIAMS and CALLIS L. CHILDS,
Deputy Attorneys General, appeared as counsel on
behalf of the defendants.
4
SUSAN STURM and BRUCE ENNIS, Attorneys at Law,
American Civil Liberties Union, 132 W. 43rd Street,
Seventh Floor, New York, New York 10036, appeared as
counsel on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Also present: Dr. James Hickman and Dr. George
Carroll.
- - -
5
MR. WOLFE: The stipulations which govern the
deposition will be that the witness need not sign her
deposition before the same Notary who took it and that
all objections except those as to form of the question
are reserved to the time of trial.
Plaintiffs have requested that the witness review
and correct and sign the deposition within five days of
receipt of the original, and the position of plaintiffs
is that if that proves to be impossible, plaintiffs
are entitled to use the deposition as though that had
happened after five days.
- - -
DR. MARGARET HELDER,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE:
MR. WOLFE: Q. Please state your name and address
for the record.
A. Margaret Helder; **** **** ******, ********,
*******,******.
MR. WOLFE: I will ask the reporter to mark as
Helder Deposition Exhibit 1 a copy of the curriculum
vitae provided to us by the defendants.
[Copy of curriculum vitae of
Dr. Margaret Helder was marked
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for
identification.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, I will show you Exhibit 1
6
and ask you if you recognize it.
A. Yes.
MR. CHILDS: Steve, I would like to say one thing
just for the record, and I probably won't say anything
else, and that is that Dr. Helder made available this
morning at approximately 9:00 o'clock or thereabouts all
the documents which she felt were responsive to the
request that had been relayed to her by Tim Humphries
of our office and that you all do have those available
to you during the day for her deposition today.
MR. WOLFE: Yes, that's right. We received them
at approximately 9:00 this morning.
MR. CHILDS: And we requested that they not be
copied during the day so that you all would not be at
a disadvantage, that we want them to be available to you
to question her about them.
MR. WOLFE: Very good.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, did you prepare the
curriculum vitae, Exhibit 1?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, have you studied at any colleges
other than those listed on the vitae?
A. No.
Q. Have you had any educational training since
the granting of your Ph.D.?
A. As stated, I did postdoctoral research two
years. Then I was hired as an assistant professor, so
7
the answer is no.
Q. Doctor, can you tell me what the National
Research Council is?
A. Yes.
The National Research Council is the government
granting agency from the federal government, and most
research in Canada is funded either by the National
Research Council or by the Medical Research Council.
Most medical research would get Medical Council
research grants and just pure research would get National
Council grants.
Q. Doctor, your answer might have been somewhat
ambiguous. The National Research Council is an agency
of the Canadian federal government?
A. That is right.
Q. Are research grants from the National Research
Council competitive grants?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Can you tell me approximately how many
graduate students were at the University of Western
Ontario in the years that you were studying there for
your Ph.D.?
A. Botany graduate students? 60?
I have no idea. It was a lot.
Q. 60 is the best approximation you can make?
8
A. 60 would be conservative.
Q. Are you able to approximate how many of those
60 graduate students would have had research grants from
the National Research Council?
A. Do you mwan scholarships?
Q. Well, let me withdraw that question and ask
another.
Can you distinguish for me, please, a research
grant and a scholarship grant?
A. Research grants go only to faculty. A
scholarship grant goes to support a graduate student.
The research grant to a faculty member goes to
undergraduates, plus a research grant can be used to pay
a graduate student, but the graduate students can only
get scholarships for studentship.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, were any of your
degrees granted with honors?
A. With honors? I don't know what the
classification for my Ph.D. was except that the outside
examining professor said that it was one of the best
theses he had ever read, and the examining professor
from the university said that it was one of the best
defenses they had ever read, so I assume that it would
have been given a very good grade; but we aren't
informed. You get your Ph.D. or you don't. So I don't
know what grade I would have got.
My Bachelor's degree was an honors degree, which
9
means that it's more difficult than a pass degree; but
we don't have cum laude, that sort of stuff that you
hear about in the states.
My outside examining professor was Dr. F. K.
Sparrow from the University of Michigan. He is deceased,
however, so you can't consult him, but that is who it
was.
Q. Doctor, could you describe the responsibilities
of your position as assistant professor in bioscience
at Brock University?
A. That is a typical faculty position.
I would have had all the responsibilities of any
other faculty member.
Associate professor means rank and, of course, you
come in at the rank of assistant professor.
I taught courses; I directed fourth-year research
programs for honors courses; I had a graduate student;
I conducted my own research; I sat on faculty committees.
Whatever any other faculty member did, I did.
Q. Were the courses that you taught graduate
or undergraduate courses?
A. They were undergraduate courses.
We did not teach -- in Canada you do not teach
graduate courses, as such. Graduate students do
research, but they do not take courses that are listed
as graduate courses in most cases.
Q. I believe you said earlier that you
supervised the research of one graduate student.
10
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And were your duties any different while you
served as a part-time lecturer?
A. Oh, yes. A part-time lecturer only lectures
in set courses.
Q. And were you doing research on your own at
the time that you were a part-time lecturer?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, is the University of Western Ontario
accredited by a Canadian accrediting body?
A. The University of Western Ontario is one of
the five top universities in Canada, probably ranks
about three or four.
Q. Doctor, do you know whether it's accredited
by an accrediting body, and if you do, can you tell me
which one?
A. Of course, it's accredited. I don't know
what the proceedings in Canada for accrediting are
except that, as I said, it is one of the top
universities.
A degree from Western Ontario is a really good
degree.
Q. Is Brock University accredited by an
accrediting body?
A. It has the same status as any other university
in Ontario. It's a small university so that it's not
as prestigious, but a degree -- it's a university run
by the Province of Ontario as are all the other
11
universities in Ontario.
Q. I take it then that you do not know the name
of any accrediting body that has accredited Brock
University?
A. I do not know how universities are
accredited in Canada.
Ok, I think they get a charter. It would have
whatever a university is supposed to have, however.
Q. Doctor, while you were assistant professor
at Brock University, did you have a writing or
publishing obligation?
A. It's considered a good thing to publish.
There is nothing that says you must publish within such
and such a time, but most people do try to publish.
Q. Have you ever been tenured in any of your
positions?
A. No.
Tenure would come after four years full-time
appointment at any given institution. I wasn't there
that long.
Q. So that you were never eligible for tenure?
A. I was never eligible.
Q. Doctor, did you ever study at any universities
other than the two listed on your vitae?
A. I took one course in mathematics one summer
at the University of Manitoba.
Q. Did you ever leave any university in the
midst of a course of study?
12
A. No.
Q. Was your Ph.D. thesis published, Dr. Helder?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Dr. Helder, have you ever made any grant
applications which were not funded?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been subject to academic
discipline?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been subject to any professional
action by a professional group?
A. No.
Q. Could you describe for me the membership
criteria and the purposes of the American Society of
Limnology and Oceanography?
A. The American Society of Limnology and
Oceanography is made up of people who study freshwater
biology, which is limnology, and oceanography, which
is biology in the ocean.
Physical processes would be included in limnology,
so physics and biology and chemistry -- so physics,
biology, chemistry, freshwater and biology and
chemistry of the oceans.
Mainly the membership would be American scientists,
but, of course, there are a sprinkling of Canadians,
as well.
You have to have the signatures of two members in
good standing to join.
13
Q. How long have you been a member of the
American Society?
A. I guess since '67, either '66 or '67.
Q. Do you recall who your sponsors for membership
were?
A. Yes.
It was Dr. Hamish Duffy, who is a limnologist on
the faculty of the University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, and a graduate student of his whose name I
wouldn't know.
Q. Is there any classification of membership
within the American Society which is honorary or
elective?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Have you ever been an officer of the American
Society?
A. No.
Q. Do you know approximately how many members
the American Society has?
A. Hundreds.
I have no idea.
There is a membership list that comes out every
several years, and it's thick like this [indicating] and
might be even thousands, for all I know.
Q. Would you describe for me the membership
criteria and the purposes of the Creation Science
Association of Alberta.
A. The purpose of the Creation Science
14
Association of Alberta is to inform the public of the
merits, scientific merits of the Creationist's position
and to promote the inclusion of the scientific merits
of Creationism in educational institutions; so it's
educational and informative.
Q. How long have you been a member of the
Creation Science Association?
A. Since 1978.
Q. Is membership in the Creation Science
Association sponsored?
A. No.
Q. Do you know how many members there are?
A. I do not know.
Q. Can you approximate the size of the
membership?
A. It would be in the hundreds.
Q. Do you know when the Creation Science
Association was founded?
A. Yes.
It was founded in 1975.
Q. Have you ever held any office within the
Association other than vice president?
A. No.
Q. How long have you been vice president?
A. '79, I think.
Q. Does the Creation Science Association publish
a journal?
A. Yes. We publish Creation Dialogue.
15
Q. How long has that been published?
A. Since 1975.
Q. Does the association have a full-time staff?
A. No. It's all volunteer.
Q. Will you tell me who the editor of Creation
dialogue is.
A. It's a chap called Ronald Bellamy.
Q. Is Creation Dialogue a referreed journal?
A. Of course not.
Q. Doctor, is the Canadian Journal of Botany a
referreed journal?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the Journal of Development in Industrial
Microbiology referreed?
A. Yes, as far as I know.
I know it was read, so I assume it's referreed,
but I don't know for sure.
Q. Doctor, have you any publications that are
not listed in the publications list in your vitae?
A. There is one.
Q. What is that, please.
A. In our church periodical, a very obscure
periodical, and you have it in your file.
Q. Could you tell me the name of the church
periodical.
A. Clarion.
Q. And by what church is that published?
A. The Canadian Reformed.
16
Q. Can you tell me the title of the paper?
A. Well, if you had the paper in front of me,
I could tell you.
Q. I'm sorry that I don't.
MR. CHILDS: It's one of the documents she made
available this morning.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Do you know the subject matter of
the paper?
A. Environmental issues.
Q. Doctor, have you ever had a paper submitted
for publication which was rejected?
A. No.
Q. Are you a member of any scientific societies
other than the two listed on your vitae?
A. I have been a member of the Canadian
Botanical Association.
I didn't pay my dues for the last year, so I don't
know whether I qualify as a member or not.
Q. Are there any others?
A. I did belong to the International Association
for Great Lakes Research.
Again, I haven't paid my dues for about two years,
I guess, maybe more, because we moved away from the
Great Lakes.
Q. Is membership in the Canadian Botanical
Association elective?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Is membership in the Canadian Botanical
17
Association elective?
A. No.
Q. Did it require sponsorship?
A. Normally, it does.
I was at a scientific meeting where they were
signing up graduate students, so I just got signed up.
I didn't have to go and collect signatures.
Q. When did you become a member of the Botanical
Association?
A. Have you got my vitae here?
Okay. That was in June of 1967.
Q. Is it correct that the Canadian Botanical
Association publishes the Canadian Journal of Botany?
A. No.
The National Research Council of Canada publishes
the Canadian Journal of Botany.
Q. Could you tell me the membership criteria
of the International Association for Great Lakes
Research?
A. I don't recall getting signatures.
I think anybody who is interested can sign up.
Q. Do you recall when you became a member of
the International Association?
A. I think this was in 1970.
Q. Have you ever held an office in either the
Canadian Botanical Association or International
Association for Great Lakes Research?
A. No.
18
Q. Does the International Association publish a
journal?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Do you know the name?
A. The Journal of International Association of
Great Lakes Research, a long handle.
Q. Do you know approximately how many members
the Canadian Botanical Association has?
A. That would be in the hundreds.
Canada is a small country.
Q. Do you know if there is an elective or
honorary membership classification in that association?
A. I do not think so.
Q. Doctor, have you ever sought membership in
a professional association which was denied?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had membership in a professional
association which was terminated aside from the two
possible instances that you have mentioned?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had any adjunct teaching
positions that are not listed in your vitae?
A. I don't understand what you mean.
Q. Well, I simply wonder whether you have
taught any class or seminars perhaps on a one-time
basis that may not be listed on your vitae.
A. Yes.
I lectured this summer in the Institute for Creation
19
Science at Three Hills, Alberta, and that was sponsored
by our Creation Science Association.
Q. Doctor, could you tell me the subject of
the lecture that you gave this summer.
A. You have the lecture notes that I gave to
the students.
I talked about the origin of cells in nuclei, and
the technical term is eucaryotic.
I talked about the fossil record of plants; I
talked about natural selection, and I talked about
environmental issues.
[Recess taken.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, what are the membership
requirements of the Creation Science Association of
Alberta?
A. The membership requirement is that one sign
a statement of principle and pay $5.
Q. Do the documents that you gave us this
morning include a copy of that statement of principle?
A. No.
It never occurred to me that was relevant.
Q. Are you able to recall the substance of
that statement?
A. Yes.
The statement affirms assent with the six-day
creation week, with a deluge in the time of Hoah and a
belief in Christ as savior.
Q. Okay.
20
Doctor, does the statement of principle take any
position on the literal truth of the Bible?
A. I do not recall.
Q. Does it take any position on the use of the
Bible in scientific inquiry?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, I would request that when you return
to Canada, you would make available to us a copy of
that statement of principle.
MR. CHILDS: You can send that to us to distribute.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, have you heard of the
Creation Research Society?
A. Creation Research Society -- the words
sound familiar. Where are their headquarters?
Q. Well, ma'am, they are an institution with
headquarters in San Diego, I believe.
A. There are a number of organizations that
have similar titles.
Q. Are you a member of the Creation Research
Society?
A. No.
Q. Have you heard of the Institute for Creation
Research?
A. Of course.
Q. Are you a member of that institute?
A. Of course.
Q. Are you a member of that institute?
A. No.
Q. Have you heard of the Creation Science
21
Research Center?
A. The Creation --
Q. Science Research Center.
A. Again, the words sound familiar. I do not
know if I have heard of it. I don't know where it is.
Q. I take it then that you are not a member of
that Center.
A. No.
Q. Have you heard of the Bible Science
Association?
A. I have heard of it, yes.
Q. Are you a member of the Bible Science
Association?
A. No.
Q. Have you heard of the Citizens for Fairness
in Educational?
A. The words sound familiar.
I have possibly read of it in the newspaper. I
do not know.
Q. I take it you are not a member of that
group.
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Have you heard of the Citizens for Balanced
Education as to Origin?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Doctor, are you a member of the Moral
Majority?
A. No.
22
Q. Are you a member of any Right of Life
organization?
A. No.
Q. Were you --
A. Oh, yes, I beg your pardon, we are, yes.
Right to Life, yes.
Q. Can you tell me who you meant by "we" in
your previous answer?
A. My husband and I.
Q. Can you tell me the name of the organization?
A. I can.
It's Right to Life.
Q. Do you recall how long you have been a
member?
A. Let me see.
I think that was 1977.
Q. Can you tell me what the criteria for
membership are?
A. Payment of $2.
Q. Doctor, were you listed as one of the persons
who applied to intervene in this lawsuit in July?
A. No.
Q. Were you contacted by anyone about the
possibility of being an intervenor in this action?
A. In the file that you have I received a
letter from Wendell Bird.
I think that was September.
I did not reply to it.
23
Q. Doctor, are you a member of a church?
A. Yes.
Q. What church is that?
A. Canadian Reformed Church.
Q. And when did you become a member?
A. When I got married, 1972.
I guess it was 1973.
We were married in '72 in December, and I joined
that church in '73.
Q. Is your husband a member of that church?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Had you been a member of a church prior to
your marriage?
A. Yes.
Q. What church was that?
A. Anglican.
Episcopalian, you would call it here.
Q. And how long had you been a member of the
Anglican Church?
A. Well, I was baptized when I was a baby.
Q. Have you been baptized in the Canadian
Reformed Church?
A. They baptize infants. No.
Q. Do you hold any offices in the Canadian
Reformed Church?
A. They don't let women hold office.
Q. Do you attend church services regularly?
A. Yes.
24
Q. Are you able to estimate how often on a
weekly or monthly basis?
A. Every Sunday.
Q. Do you belong to any groups or associations
within the church?
A. Yes.
It's a couples club.
Q. Are there any others?
A. That I belong to?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. No.
Q. Doctor, do you consider yourself a religious
fundamentalist?
A. Could you define the term "fundamentalist"?
Q. Well, I'm interested in your definition of
the term and whether you consider yourself to be a
religious fundamentalist by your own definition.
A. Well, as I stated, my background is
Anglican and very Anglican. I have a brother who is
an Anglican minister, and my grandfather was an
Anglican minister.
Anglicans are generally not included in the
designation "fundamentalist." Therefore, I would not
consider myself a fundamentalist.
Q. Would you say that your joining the Canadian
Reformed Church changes your opinion as to whether you
were a fundamentalist?
A. Canadian Reformed people do not like the
25
designation "fundamentalist," and they would not apply
it to themselves.
Q. Do you have a personal religious counselor
or advisor?
A. I don't know what you mean.
Q. Do you have one person to whom you look as
your personal religious advisor?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever done evangelical or conversion
work in the church?
A. Ho.
Q. Have you ever read the Bible?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know which versions of the Bible you
have read?
A. Well, at home we have the New English Bible.
We have the American Revised Standard, I think it is.
I can't remember the title exactly.
We have the Revised Standard, and we have the King
James.
Q. Doctor, could you estimate how often you
read the bible?
A. We read the bible once a day.
Q. Do you consult the Bible in your work as a
scientist?
A. No.
Q. Do you regard the Bible as a source of
personal revelation?
26
A. I don't understand what you mean.
Q. Do you regard the Bible as setting out a
code of conduct for an individual life?
A. A code of conduct, yes.
Q. Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant
or infallible?
A. Could you define that?
Q. Well, the ordinary English meaning, that is,
that the Bible has no mistakes in it and is never
wrong.
A. That is a difficult question because, of
course, there are texts. You know, different texts have
different translations, so sometimes they don't exactly
agree on the translation; but as a general principle,
I would say the Bible does not have errors, though
there might be errors in the translation in different
translations.
Q. Do you believe that the Bible is literally
true?
A. That is the same thing as the previous
question.
Yes, it is.
Q. Could you tell me why you believe that the
bible is inerrant or infallible excepting the
possibility of translation error?
A. Why --
MR. CHILDS: I will object to that as being
ambiguous.
27
I would appreciate it if you would ask her the
source of her belief, and I think without that the
question would be ambiguous.
MR. WOLFE: I accept that modification.
Q. Could you state, please, the source of your
belief that the Bible is inerrant excepting the
possibility of translation error?
A. I would say that it's a priori assumption.
Q. Doctor, I'm not certain if I understand.
Will you explain that last answer.
A. I assume the Bible to be correct. This is
what I was taught.
Q. When you say that is what you were taught,
by whom were you taught?
A. Well, one could refer to the 39 articles of
the Anglican Church.
Q. Doctor, I'm not familiar with the 39
articles of the Anglican faith.
Does one or more of those articles state that the
Bible is inerrant?
A. I haven't read them lately, but basically
that is what the 39 articles set out, is the basic
elements of the Christian faith, and that is one of
them.
Q. I see.
Do you regard belief in the inerrancy of the
Bible as a basic article of the Christian faith?
A. I would say that there are a lot of people
28
who would not think so, so it is not a sine qua non.
Q. Do you regard it as a basic aspect of the
Christian faith?
A. From a personal -- for myself I think it
important.
Q. In an earlier answer I believe you said that,
I think it was, a lot of people would not regard belief
in the inerrancy of the Bible as a basic tenet of the
Christian faith.
Did you mean a lot of Christians when you said a
lot of people?
A. Yes.
Q. Does the Canadian Reformed Church have a
view as to whether the Bible is inerrant?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. It is inerrant in the Canadian Reformed
statement of whatever.
They have three statements of principle which are
common to the Presbyterian Church.
Q. Can you tell me what the substance of each
of those is?
A. No.
Things like -- I can't even think of the names of
them -- creeds.
Q. Do you regard the Bible as a product of
divine revelation?
A. Yes.
29
Q. Do you know if that is the position of the
Canadian Reformed Church?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your understanding that the 39 articles
of the Angelican faith also regard the Bible as a product
of divine revelation?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, would your religious belief permit
you to tell a lie or a half truth in order to spread
the faith?
A. In order to --
Q. To spread the faith?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if that is the position of the
Canadian Reformed Church, as well?
A. They wouldn't be keen on telling lies.
Q. Do you know if the telling of a lie or half
truth is regarded as a different matter if it's in aid
of conversion of someone who does not --
A. It would not be looked upon with favor in
any circumstances.
[Recess taken.]
MR. CHILDS: We are going to object to anybody
being present for the deposition other than the witness
being deposed, counsel for the respective parties and
representatives of the parties.
MR. KAPLAN: The basis of the objection?
MR. CHILDS: That is what my understanding of the
30
law is.
MR. KAPLAN: I don't think there is anything in the
rules that says we cannot have a consultant with us and
our own people with us who have helped us prepare for
the deposition. I don't think there is anything in the
rules or the law that suggests we can't do that.
MR. KLASFELD: In any event, Mr. Childs has his
objection.
MR. CHILDS: Until I hear to the contrary from
David, we are not going to proceed under those
circumstances until we get a ruling from the judge.
What I would suggest is that they be absent until
the judge gives us a ruling on that.
MR. KLASFELD: Let me suggest then that we do that,
and we will just raise it with the judge at 11:30, if
you are not going to let the deposition continue.
MR. CHILDS: I researched that particular subject
five years ago, and the law I found at that time
supports me. I cannot cite it to you now.
MR. KLASFELD: Let's not delay the deposition any
longer.
MR. KAPLAN: It's only 30 minutes.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, does the Bible predict
future events?
A. Could you define what you mean by "future
events."
Q. Does the Bible state that any things are
going to happen in the future that haven't happened yet?
31
A. I think most theologians would say yes.
Q. Do you have an opinion of your own?
A. I would agree that most theologians' opinions
are correct.
Q. Do you agree because of some independent
thought or analysis on your part or merely because
most theologians say so and it must therefore be
correct?
A. I would say I agree because it is the opinion
of most theologians that that is the case.
Q. Can you name any instances that you are
aware of?
A. I would say there is only one that I can
think of, and that is that there will be an end to time.
Q. Are you aware of any instance in which the
Bible has predicted something that had not happened
yet which has happened since up to this time?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Can you recall any instance in which you
would say that the Bible 2000 years ago predicted
something that happened a thousand years ago or that
has happened up to now that is a prediction that was
made and come true?
A. No.
Q. Do you regard the Bible as a source of
scientific knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Is the Bible an inspiration to you at all
32
in your research?
A. Not in my research.
Q. Do you use it at all in your research in any
fashion?
A. No.
Q. Has the Bible ever suggested a specific
project to you for investigation?
A. No.
Q. Has the Bible ever suggested to you a
possible solution to a problem that was raised by the
research of yourself or another?
A. Not even remotely.
Q. Dr. Helder, when did you first learn about
this legal action?
A. Well, I read the newspapers last March and
they referred to a trial coming up in Arkansas. that is
when I first learned about it. All the Canadian papers
talked about it.
Q. Who first asked you whether you would be
willing to testify in this case?
A. Mr. Campbell.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was Thanksgiving, the day after
Thanksgiving in Canada, and that is around the middle
of October.
I can't recall the exact date.
I could consult a calendar and find out.
Q. Do you know how Mr. Campbell was given your
33
name?
A. Yes.
Q. How was that?
A. In your files you have a letter from Wendell
to me, which I did not reply to, but Wendell Bird gave
Mr. Campbell my name.
Q. When did you first agree to testify in this
action?
A. When Mr. Campbell phoned.
Q. That was the day after Thanksgiving?
A. That is correct.
Q. On how many occasions since then have you
talked or corresponded with someone from the Arkansas
Attorney General's office?
A. Mr. Tim Humphries phoned about my coming
for a deposition. That is the extent of my contact with
Arkansas.
Q. So that is one phone call with Mr. Campbell
and one with Mr. Humphries?
A. No. Mr. Humphries phoned once to say would
I come to San Francisco, and he phoned another time to
tell me where in San Francisco.
Q. Do you recall when those two conversations
with Mr. Humphries were?
A. I talked to Mr. Humphries this past Sunday
afternoon. I do not recall the other one.
Q. Doctor, in your phone call with Mr. Campbell
on the day after Thanksgiving, can you recall for me
34
the substance of your conversation with him, what he
said and what you said?
A. It was a very brief conversation.
He said that act, whatever had been passed, but
that a trial was coming up; would I testify on behalf
of the State; and I said yes.
Q. Did you discuss at all at that time what
your testimony might be?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, I will show you now a copy of
defendants' first list of witnesses, which is dated the
19th of October 1981 and which bears the numbered
paragraph 3, your name and address and a description of
your expected testimony.
A. That is my field.
Q. Did you ever discuss with anyone from the
Arkansas Attorney General's office the description that
would be given for your testimony?
A. I guess I said that was my field.
Q. Do you recall having had that discussion?
A. I do not recall mentioning these exact words
or any words aboutit.
Q. You don't recall such a conversation with
either Mr. Campbell or Mr. Humphries?
A. It must have been when Mr. Campbell phoned.
I must have said something about my field of expertise.
Q. But you don't actually recall that
conversation any longer?
35
A. No.
Q. Doctor, I will show you another document
which is plaintiff's first set of interrogatories, and
I ask you if you have ever seen that before.
A. No, I have not.
Q. Could you read paragraph 1A through 1D and
tell me if you have ever had any discussion with a
representative of the Arkansas Attorney Genera's office
about any of those matters?
A. As far as A is concerned, I sent them a
vitae.
We have already discussed B.
I had no discussion on C prior to last night.
and D, nothing.
Q. Doctor, do you recall when you were asked
for your vitae?
A. That was when Mr. Campbell phoned.
Q. Do you recall when you sent it?
A. I sent it several days later.
Q. Doctor, have you ever seen a list of
documents which were requested by plaintiffs from each
of the experts who were expected to testify?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you ever discussed a request for
certain documents with any representative of the Attorney
General's Office?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
36
A. Sunday afternoon.
Q. And with whom did you have that discussion?
A. Mr. Humphries.
Q. Did Mr. Humphries read to you from any
documents so far as you know?
A. I presume he was reading.
Q. Are the documents that you brought with you
today and that you gave to us a couple of hours ago all
that you know of that were relevant to the subjects that
Mr. Humphries mentioned to you on Sunday?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you ever had a discussion about a
request for documents prior to this past Sunday?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, are you being paid for testimony
in this action?
A. No.
Q. Are any of your fees or expenses being
reimbursed?
A. My expenses are being paid.
Q. What expenses, Doctor?
A. Air fare and hotel accommodations and taxis.
Q. Do you know by whom they are being repaid
to you?
A. I presume the State of Arkansas.
Q. Has anyone told you who will be paying?
A. The State of Arkansas.
Q. I'm not certain that I understand.
37
Are you saying that the State of Arkansas -- do
you recall what individual spoke to you about the subject
of your being reimbursed?
A. Mr. Campbell.
Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. When he phoned.
Q. That day after Canadian Thanksgiving?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, I will give you a calendar now and
ask if you can recall which day your discussion with
Mr. Campbell may have been.
A. It was either the 6th or the 13th of
October. I do not know which one of those dates.
Q. Doctor, I believe you mentioned earlier a
discussion last evening.
Did you have any discussion last evening with anyone
from the Arkansas Attorney General's office?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell me the substance of that
conversation?
A. Well, I have never had any experience with
litigation whatsoever. I had never heard of a
deposition before. So Mr. Campbell and Mr. Childs
outlined what takes place at a deposition.
Q. Did you have any discussion with them about
the substance of what your testimony would be?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the substance of that discussion?
38
A. As I stated to you -- that gentleman over
there -- I stated that I would center my discussion on
discussion of the nucleus of green algae, of systematics
of algae in general and definition of science.
Q. Prior to the discussion last evening, had
you ever discussed the specifics of your testimony
with anyone from the Attorney General's office?
A. No.
Q. Of the three topics that you have mentioned,
did Mr. Campbell or Mr. Childs suggest any of them to
you?
A. Not one of them.
Q. Have you ever discussed the substance of
the testimony that you might give in this action with
anyone else?
A. My husband.
Q. With anyone other than your husband?
A. My brother-in-law lives with us, also.
Probably at suppertime conversation we did discuss it.
Q. Can you approximate on how many occasions
you might have discussed your possible testimony with
your husband or your brother-in-law?
A. I cannot approximate.
Q. Do you recall any of the substance of any
one of those conversations?
A. No.
Q. In those discussions with your husband or
your brother-in-law, did you discuss any topics other
39
than the three that you mentioned to me just a moment
ago?
A. No.
MR. CHILDS: I would like to add for the record
that she had her three subjects broken down represented
by documents in three folders, the three folders that
were given you this morning.
I hope they were all kept together, because they
might create some confusion if they are not in the
right folder.
MR. KAPLAN: We did not alter that.
MR. WOLFE: I expect they will be.
Q. Doctor, was there any subspecialty of botany
that you concentrated on in your Ph.D. studies?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that?
A. Aquatic fungi.
Q. And did your studies of aquatic fungi involve
work with algae, as well?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the relationship of aquatic fungi
and algae in the work that you did for your Ph.D.?
A. The aquatic fungi on the algae, either
parasitizing algae or growing on dead, nonliving algal
material, usually dead cells.
Q. Doctor, have you had any contact with any
of the named defendants in this action?
They are essentially the Arkansas State Board of
40
Education, a local school board in Arkansas.
A. None.
Q. Have you discussed this case with any
Creation Science groups or members of any Creation
Science organizations?
A. Yes.
Q. I told the organization of which I am a
member that I would be coming to Arkansas.
Q. Did you have any other discussion about the
case with members of the Creation Science Association of
Alberta?
A. No.
Q. Are there any other Creation Science groups
with whom you have discussed this case?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had any discussion of the
Arkansas statute that is at issue in this action with
any Creation Science organization?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen a copy of the Arkansas
statute that is in question?
A. Yes. It sits in the file that you got.
Q. How did you obtain that copy?
A. Mr. Campbell sent it to me.
Q. Do you recall approximately when that was?
A. I do not.
His covering letter with the date is in the file.
Q. Have you ever seen a Creation Science bill
41
or model statute from another jurisdiction?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, have you ever had any contact with
Wendell Bird?
A. He wrote me a letter.
I have not had any contact with him.
Q. None at all aside from the letter you
received?
A. None at all aside from the letter that I
received.
Q. Have you ever had any contact with John
Whitehead?
A. No, I never heard of him.
Q. Have you ever given any testimony before a
legislative hearing or administrative hearing of any
kind?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever spoken to a school board in
the past?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever given any lectures or
participated in a debate about Creation Science or
Evolution Science?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever participated in a debate or
given a lecture about the Bible?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, have you ever had a criminal arrest
42
or conviction?
A. I have not.
Q. Doctor, could you tell me your understanding
of the term "Creation Scientist"?
A. Well, first of all, I would like to define
the term "scientist."
A scientist is someone who studies nature, who
follows a set procedure to study nature, specifically
observation, prediction, hypothesis, experimentation and
acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis.
Now, when it comes to observing present-day
phenomena, all scientists are the same. When it comes
to topics on origins, these could be defined as
metaphysical.
For example, there was an editorial in Nature this
past summer. it's in your file. I can't remember the
exact date. I think it was March 12, '81.
Now, in that editorial it defines anything that
cannot be repeated at the present time as a metaphysical
topic.
Now, basically, as outlined in that Nature
editorial, there are two groups of scientists. One
group has a prior assumption that there is no
phenomenon that cannot be explained by mechanistic
processes; the other group has a prior assumption that
it is possible that there are some aspects of origins
that cannot be explained by mechanistic processes.
That is the difference.
43
Q. Doctor, would you characterize Creation
Scientists as belonging in one of those groups rather
than the other?
A. Yes, the Creation Scientist would question
whether all aspects of origins can be explained by
mechanistic processes.
Q. Would you say that Evolution Scientists
belong in one of those groups rather than the other?
A. Yes, according to the definition in Nature
of the 12th of March -- I think it's the 12th of March
-- Evolution Scientists would be in the first category,
assuming that there is no phenomenon that cannot be
explained by mechanistic processes.
Q. Doctor, given the definitions that you have
just given, would you consider yourself a Creation
Scientist?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you consider yourself an Evolution
Scientist?
A. No.
You can't be both.
Q. Have you always, since the time that you
were first a scientist, been a Creation Scientist?
A. Yes.
Q. When would you say that you first considered
yourself to be a Creation Scientist?
A. That is my background from the time I was
a child.
44
Q. Doctor, when you say that your background
since the time you were a child has been what has made
you a Creation Scientist, are you referring to your
religious education?
A. Now, you are saying is that what made me a
Creation Scientist?
Q. I believe my question was unclear.
I think you mentioned before essentially that your
background since the time you were a child had been as
a Creation Scientist.
A. No, not as a Creation Scientist, because a
child isn't a scientist.
Do you want to know when I became a scientist?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, Creationism was taught to me as a
child.
When I approached university, I did not know if I
would find support for my position from science, but I
have never in any science that I have seen, seen
anything to cause me to doubt that my position is a good
one.
Q. Then is it correct that you have been a
Creationist since you were a child and you have been a
Creation Scientist from the time that you were a
scientist?
A. That is correct.
Q. Could you tell me by whom Creationism was
taught to you as a child?
45
A. Creationism was taught to me as a child by
my parents.
Q. Was Creationism taught to you at all in
your church or Sunday school when you were a child?
A. No.
Q. Was Creationism taught to you at all in
school when you were a child?
A. No, definitely the opposite.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, could you give me your
understanding of the definition that you would use of
religion?
A. A series of beliefs.
Q. Are there any particular contents of a series
of beliefs that make it a religion?
A. I would say so.
Q. Given your understanding, would you regard
Creation Science as a religion?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Creation Science has nothing to do with
religion.
Creation Science is just looking at natural
phenomena.
Q. Given your understanding of religion, would
you regard Evolution Science as a religion?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
46
A. Again, it's looking at natural phenomena.
Q. Doctor, would you regard the Creation
Science Association of Alberta as a religious
organization?
A. Emphatically not.
Q. Why not?
A. We deal with science only.
Q. Doctor, I believe you stated earlier that
the Creation Science Association of Alberta requires
those applying for membership to sign a statement of
principle; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you regard the contents of that
statement of principle as a series of beliefs of the
sort that you defined as religion?
A. I defined religion as a series of beliefs.
Are you asking me, are the statement of principles in
the Creation Science statement of principles, are they
a series of beliefs; is that what you are asking me?
Q. Yes.
A. I would say they are a series of prior
assumptions.
Q. Could you distinguish for me your
understanding of a series of prior assumptions and a
series of beliefs?
A. The two can be equated.
Q. Doctor, by your statement, "the two can be
equated," do you mean that a series of prior assumptions
47
as you understood it and used the phrase is the same as
a religion?
A. No.
Q. What equation would you make between a
series of prior assumptions and a series of beliefs, as
you define religion?
A. Well, in that any group of beliefs can be
defined as religion; I just won't concede that religion
is a relevant term.
Q. Doctor, I'm afraid I didn't understand your
answer that you would not concede that religion is a
relevant term.
A. I'm just not going to say any more.
Q. Doctor, does it remain your view that the
Creation Science Association of Alberta is a scientific
group?
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Will you read the question back,
please.
[Record read.]
THE WITNESS: I never defined it as scientific.
I said it was educational and informative.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Then is it true that you did not
regard the Creation Science Association of Alberta as
a scientific group?
A. It deals with natural phenomena. In that
it deals with natural phenomena, it is scientific.
MR. CHILDS: I would like the record to reflect
48
that it's approximately 11:45 and two gentlemen have
entered the room pursuant to Judge Overton's order that
the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs be allowed to
attend the deposition of Dr. Helder, and I would like
for the record at this time to reflect exactly who
these gentlemen are, what their role in this case is
and whether or not they will be called as witnesses in
the trial.
MR. WOLFE: These gentlemen have been named, and
the court reporter has their names. They have not
been listed on the plaintiffs' list of witnesses.
There is no present expectation that either of these
gentlemen will be a witness at trial, although that is
not precluded. They are simply here as consultants
to the attorney taking the deposition.
THE WITNESS: Could I hear your names?
MR. CARROLL: My name is George Carroll, C-a-r-r-o-
l-l.
I am Associate Professor of Biology at the
University of Oregon in Eugene.
THE WITNESS: Could I ask what your field is?
MR. CARROLL: I am a mycologist, m-y-c-o-l-o-g-y.
MR. HICKMAN: I am Jim Hickman. and I am an
associate research botanist at the Jepsom Herbarium,
J-e-p-s-o-m, H-e-r-b-a-r-i-u-m, the University of
California at Berkeley.
My area is plant ecology and systematic botany.
MR. WOLFE: Will you please read back the last
49
question and answer.
[Record read.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, do you regard the Creation
Science Association of Alberta as a religious group?
A. No.
Q. Do you regard the statement of principles
that members of the association are required to subscribe
to as a religious series of beliefs?
A. As I stated, it is a series of prior
assumptions.
Q. Does that mean that you do not regard it as
a religious series of beliefs?
A. I just won't answer.
Q. Dr. Helder, would you explain to me why you
won't answer?
A. You are dealing with semantics, and I
don't think it relevant.
Q. Well, Doctor, I certainly hope to deal with
something more substantial than merely semantics, and I
have been trying to parse the testimony and the
definitions that you have given me in the last short
while, and I just want to find out whether you regard
the statement of principle that we talked about off and
on as a series of beliefs, that is, a religion, which
I understand to have been the definition that you use
of religion.
Do you regard the statement of principle as a
religious series of beliefs?
50
A. I don't have to answer you.
Q. Well, no, of course, you do not.
Then do you refuse to answer that question?
A. I refuse to be trapped.
Q. Doctor, could you recall for me, please, the
substance of the statement of principle that members of
the Creation Science Association of Alberta subscribe
to?
MR. CHILDS: We have already gone over that. She
brought up three of them, and you asked her about two
others that were not.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, was it your testimony
earlier that among the contents of the statement of
principles is a belief in Jesus Christ as savior?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you regard that as a religious belief?
A. As I just stated, it's a prior assumption.
Q. Would you explain to me your understanding
of the difference between a series of prior assumptions
and a series of beliefs?
A. Well, when people talk about religion they
have a connotation of it which isn't necessarily my
connotation, so I would rather use a term that does
not have connotates associated with it.
Q. Doctor, perhaps I haven't made myself
sufficiently clear in this series of questions that we
have had trouble over, but all I want to find out
about is your own views, and I would be happy to have
