1 (December 7, 1981)

2 (1:30 p.m.)

3 MR. SIANO: I'd like to approach the bench, your

4 Honor.

5 MR. WILLIAMS: There is a small point to clarify.

6 (Bench Discussion)

7 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in connection with Mr.

8 Marsden's testimony, there was some question about these

9 labels. In connection with discovery, we obtained copies

10 of these documents from the organizations themselves.

11 Those are the documents which have the labels.

12 The books that Professor Marsden brought with him from

13 Grand Rapids do not have the labels. I offer to stipulate

14 with my adversary just to that. I have asked whether Mr.

15 Williams is willing to do that, and he is unwilling to do

16 that. I think that would be a more efficient way to

17 address this particular narrow issue.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: All I am saying is, they chose the

19 books they wanted to bring in. Those are the ones they

20 brought in.

21 THE COURT: Why don't you stipulate that the books

22 he brought from Grand Rapids didn't have the labels? Is

23 Marsden not available?

24 MR. SIANO: He is here, your Honor. I guess we

25 will have to put him on the stand.


1 THE COURT: Well, bring him and let him testify as

2 to those.

3 Will that satisfy you?

4 MR. WILLIAMS: I am not disputing it occurred. I am

5 just saying they brought the books they wanted to use. If

6 they think it is that relevant, they could have brought

7 these in in the first place.

8 THE COURT: Will you stipulate to that?

9 MR. WILLIAMS: I will stipulate to it.

10 THE COURT: Okay, fine.

11 MR. SIANO: I will state it for the record, and you

12 can state whether you agree. Thank you, Judge.


(End of Bench Discussion)

14 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, parties have agreed that

15 copies of the books which Professor Marsden brought from

16 Grand Rapids, titled Troubled Waters of Evolution, by

17 Henry Morris, Studies of the Bible and Science, by Henry

18 Morris, and Evolution: The Fossils Say No, do not have

19 any disclaimatory labels in them. The books which the

20 Plaintiffs obtained in discovery from the creation science

21 organizations in this case, i.e., The Troubled Waters of

22 Evolution, Studies of the Bible and Science, both by

23 Henry Morris, are the copies of those books which have

24 labels, and as so stipulated by the parties.

25 THE COURT: Call your next witness.


1 MR. CEARLEY: Plaintiff calls Professor Dorothy

2 Nelkin. Mr. Dewey Crawford will handle the direct

3 examination.

4 Thereupon



6 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

7 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

8 testified as follows:





12 Q Professor Nelkin, would you state your full name for

13 the record, please?

14 A Dorothy Nelkin.

15 Q By whom are you presently employed?

16 A Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

17 Q Who position do you hold there?

18 A I'm a professor in the Department of Sociology and

19 in a program called Science Technology and Society.

20 Q I'm going to ask that Plaintiff's Exhibit

21 Ninety-Nine be passed to Professor Nelkin, and when that

22 arrives, Professor Nelkin, I'm going to ask you if you can

23 identify that as being your curriculum vitae?

24 (Examining same) Yes.

25 Q Your career pattern has been a little bit unusual as


1 Q (Continuing) far as academics, has it not, as far

2 as obtaining your present academic position?

3 A (Nodding affirmatively) Yes, it has. I think women

4 often have unusual, women particularly in my generation

5 often have unusual career patterns.

6 I did not obtain a Ph.D., but instead worked my way into

7 the profession by writing books and by getting some

8 recognition on the basis of work. And Cornell was an open

9 enough academic community to accept that as a reasonable

10 equivalent.

11 Q You are a full tenured professor at Cornell, are you

12 not?

13 A Yes. I have been since 1977. I have been a

14 professor there since 1973 or something.

15 Q And you have also been elected by your colleagues in

16 the sociological profession as president of your academic

17 society in sociology?

18 A I was. I'm past president of the society called the

19 Social Studies of Science. But that is rotating. I am no

20 longer in the position.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I would like to have

22 Plaintiff's Exhibit Ninety-nine for identification

23 received into evidence as Professor Nelkin's curriculum

24 vitae.

25 THE COURT: It will be received.


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

2 Q Professor Nelkin, will you tell us briefly what your

3 area of research and scholarship is?

4 A Yes. I tend to focus my research on the social

5 implications of science and technology. I study the

6 questions of science and public participation and the

7 relationship between science and the public.

8 I have been particularly interested in my research on

9 the way lay groups, lay groups can be used by— The way

10 science becomes a source of legitimation, a source of

11 credibility for many groups with other kinds of causes.

12 Q Do you have any particular means or methods of

13 approaching these subjects?

14 A Well, I find it very useful to study conflicts, to

15 study controversies, as a means of understanding what

16 people really want, what their demands are, how they

17 articulate these demands. And I have focused my work on

18 controversy.

19 Q Controversies involving science and technology?

20 A Always involving some aspect of science or

21 technology or both.

22 Q Can you give us some examples of such disputes that

23 you have studied or written about?

24 A Well, I've worked on a lot, I've written a lot on

25 technological siting disputes, like the siting of airports


1 A (Continuing) or nuclear power plants. I've written

2 a great deal on the nuclear debate, both in this country

3 and in western Europe.

4 I've studied the recombinant DNA dispute, a little bit

5 on Laetrile dispute, again focusing on issues of expertise

6 and the way people use experts and use science as a way to

7 deal with these issues.

8 Q Can you explain the methods which sociologists use

9 in, drawing conclusions about controversies or the

10 movements?

11 A Well, sociologists use a great number of methods.

12 My own method is to do extensive interviewing, but I start

13 always by collecting the material of any group, or, not

14 only of any group, but surrounding the issue that I am

15 studying. I try to bury myself in the literature, whether

16 it's legal literature, whether it's the documents produced

17 by various groups, to really understand the issues. And

18 after that I do extensive in-depth interviewing with

19 people representing all sides of the controversy.

20 I seldom concentrate on any one group. I try to

21 understand their relationship to society. it's called, in

22 its logical terms, extended case analysis.

23 Q All right. Did you conduct such a study of the

24 creation science movement?

25 A Yes, I did.


1 Q Would you tell me how you came to do that and when

2 you did that?

3 A I became interested in creation science movement

4 around 1973-74, and started collecting material at that

5 time, but then really began to pursue it as a full time

6 research endeavor, I think it was '74 or '75.

7 I, again, collected a lot of material that was written

8 by the creationists, to try to understand and try to get

9 myself under their skins, so to speak, to try to

10 understand what they were thinking, what their concerns

11 were, the diversity of their concerns. And then, also, I

12 tried to look at a lot of other material from teachers,

13 from scientists, from people in the California school.

14 I focused primarily in California at that time, because

15 that's where there was a lot of activity going on.

16 After that, I went around and interviewed people. I

17 interviewed at the Institute for Creation Research,

18 several Morrises, Duane Gish, Lester Lane. I hung around

19 here and talked to some students and some other people.

20 I also went to the Creation Science Research Center and

21 interviewed the Segraves.

22 In addition, I also talked to teachers in various parts

23 of the country, to educators, to school superintendents,

24 People on the California school board, the revolutionists,

25 Mr. Mayer of the Bible Science Curriculum Center, and


1 A (Continuing) others, to try to understand the full

2 dimensions of the dispute and to understand its dynamics.

3 Q This work was not undertaken in connection with any

4 lawsuit or consulting role for any organization, was it?

5 A No, no. It came strictly out of my own curiosity,

6 to understand how a movement that seemed to represent

7 something which most scientists have assumed was long

8 dormant, since 1925. How and why this had revived. Why

9 did it all of a sudden begin to have some apparent

10 political salience. Why this should re-emerge at this

11 particular point in time.

12 What were the ideas being expressed at the time by the

13 creationists themselves which would bring this kind of

14 activity to the fore once more.

15 Q Did you start off with any particular sympathies or

16 feelings about the movement one way or the other?

17 A Well, in some sense I did, because I thought it was

18 kind of strange, as I mentioned, that this should all of a

19 sudden in an age where science has a wide credibility,

20 where scientific events seem to have been relatively well

21 accepted, it seemed strange that this kind of challenge to

22 contemporary science should arise.

23 On the other hand, I started out — and I think this is

24 evidenced in my other work — with some sense of sympathy

25 for people who are challenging science and who feel that


1 A (Continuing) their values are somehow disturbed by

2 scientific research.

3 And I started out with some genuine sense of sympathy

4 for people who are concerned about their young and are

5 concerned about the values being taught in school.

6 Q After completing your study, did you publish your

7 conclusions?

8 A Yes. I published it in the book called, Science

9 Textbook Controversies: The Politics of Equal Time,

10 published by M. I. T. Press in 1977, was the first edition

11 and it was in paperback in 1978.

12 Q Did you also write several articles for magazines?

13 A Yes. Really based on the same material that is in

14 the book.

15 Q As a result of your study, did you form any opinions

16 about creation science?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Would you tell us, from a reasonable degree of

19 scholarly certainty, what those opinions are?

20 A Yes. Very briefly, there were several different

21 conclusions. First of all, I found that the science of

22 creationists, I felt on the basis of my interviews, to be

23 part of a broader fundamentalist movement, which is

24 essentially opposed to modernism and to science as part of

25 modernism. And they are opposed to it primarily for


1 A (Continuing) religious and social reasons.

2 And they were attempting to try to use, as some of the

3 other groups had, science as a way to legitimate what they

4 were saying, using science as a kind of political resource

5 to legitimizes and give credibility to their own views

6 concerning the literal interpretation of the Bible;

7 Also, I found that one of the reasons underlying the

8 whole of their activities were concerns about a growing

9 secularism in society and a concern that this was going to

10 cut down on the constituency would destroy the values of

11 their young and have their youths. It was a very normal

12 concern that their youths were going off in some direction

13 that they themselves felt very uncomfortable with.

14 Q Could you elaborate for me on what you mean when you

15 say they were using science to legitimize their religious


17 A Yes. Science generally has had a lot of salience in

18 society. It has an image of neutrality, of objectivity.

19 It is widely used by a lot of groups. I mean, after all

20 the transcendental meditationists call themselves the

21 Science of Creative Intelligence. When I looked at the

22 Laetrile people, they used scientific evidence to document

23 the applicancy of apricot pits.

24 Every group that I have studied tends to draw scientific

25 knowledge, scientific evidence, tries to incorporate them


1 A (Continuing) into them, even if their concerns are

2 religious or social or have to do with freedom of choice.

3 They tend to be a translation of these values into

4 scientific and technical terms.

5 It seems to be a ubiquitous tendency in our society,

6 and I think the creationists, as well, are doing this.

7 This is a propagandistic kind of activity in my mind.

8 Q What do creation scientists find objectionable in

9 science?

10 A Well, there are several feelings that run through.

11 One which is very, very strong is a concern about science

12 representing some sort of flux, some sort of change; a

13 great deal of uncertainty. And, as you know, in our

14 society there is a great deal of concern about uncertainty

15 at the present point.

16 Order is a very fundamental value to the scientist, and

17 A scientist's order is a question of design creates a

18 sense of order.

19 Second of all, there is a profound concern about

20 immorality and concern about creating a moral environment,

21 and an association with the evolution theory and the

22 relationships between man and animals is a sore spot of

23 immorality.

24 Q Have you selected, at my request, a illustrative

25 statement from creation scientists which shows that point?


1 A Yeah. I have a couple of quotes. One from Wendell

2 Bird, who is an attorney who writes.

3 Q Who does he work for?

4 A He's a member of the Institute of Creation

5 Research. And in an argument about evolution in public

6 schools, what creationists can do, he writes, "Christians

7 are commanded to be lights for a crooked and perverse

8 nation, and are to stand against the devil with the armour

9 of God. Christians have a responsibility to ensure light

10 and to oppose evil in the public school system, because

11 our country is shaped powerfully by the public school

12 curriculum and our tax dollars finance public education."

13 Q Is that a part of an article describing how

14 Creationists can get creation science in the public

15 schools?

16 A Well, the subtitle above that is, "The

17 Responsibility: Creationists Should Request Instruction

18 in Scientific Creationism."

19 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to

20 the reference to that document. There has been no

21 authentication of that article. I have not seen it. If

22 it is an exhibit, it has not been referred to as one as

23 such.

24 Further, I want to enter an objection to this line of

25 inquiry on the grounds, again, of relevancy. This witness


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) is painting with a very broad

2 brush that all of these things have occurred. I don't

3 think there has been a sufficient showing that a

4 sufficient study has been made to, first of all, make

5 these conclusions; secondly, to relate to this lawsuit

6 that we are concerned with here today.

7 THE COURT: I don't know how many objections that

8 amounts to. Let's take them one at a time. I think what

9 she's reading from is part of the plaintiffs' pre-trial

10 appendix to the brief. I've read it somewhere else when I

11 was reading some material for the trial, and I think it's

12 in that.

13 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, it's Exhibit

14 Eighty-three for identification. It's an excerpt from a

15 periodical which ICR publishes called Impact. It's a

16 self-authenticating document under federal rules covering

17 newspapers and periodicals. It's also information on

18 which Professor Nelkin has, in part, formed her

19 conclusions and comes in as material forming the basis of

20 an expert's opinion and is also admissible for that reason.

21 THE COURT: I agree with that. But he is saying he

22 hasn't seen the document. I think it is in information

23 that has been furnished, at least, to me.

24 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we provided them with all

25 copies of exhibits that were marked for identification.


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) It's page 126 of Exhibit for

2 Identification Eighty-three, which was served on the

3 Attorney General's office.

4 THE COURT: in response to the other objection, I

5 think the material is relevant. I think she is qualified

6 to express opinions as an expert.

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

9 Q We're not going to belabor the point. There was a

10 second vocation I think you selected?

11 A Yes. In my interviews I found that the creationists

12 were relating evolution theories to everything, from

13 Communism to sexual promiscuity to the decline of the

14 family, and at that time to streaking.

15 Henry Morris in Scientific Creationism writes, "The

16 results of two generations of this evolutionary

17 indoctrination have been devastating. Secularized schools

18 have begotten a secularized society. The child is the

19 father of the man and if the child is led to believe he is

20 merely an evolved beast, the man he becomes will behave as

21 a beast, either aggressively struggling for supremacy

22 himself, or blindly following aggressive leaders."

23 I think that essentially documents what we have found or

24 I have found in my own research.

25 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would like to move


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) that Exhibit Eighty-three,

2 from which she previously read, and Exhibit Seventy-six,

3 which have both been marked for identification, be

4 received into evidence.

5 THE COURT: They will be received. And Mr.

6 Williams, I will note your objection to those two

7 documents.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, your Honor.

9 A The third thing that comes through is the concern

10 about secularism and implication for the literal

11 interpretation, that this would essentially defy the

12 literal interpretation of Genesis and consequently it

13 in a loss of faith. And this comes through very clearly

14 in a quote from Robert Kofahl in the Handy Dandy Evolution

15 Refuter. That's Exhibit Eighty-eight, I think.

16 Q It's page 141.

17 Would you read the quotation you selected from the Handy

18 Dandy Evolution Refuter, Professor Nelkin?

19 A "The reason God the Creator worked for some fifteen

20 hundred years—"

21 Q Professor, excuse me. Would you slow down a little

22 bit? People are having trouble understanding you.

23 A Okay. Let me skip down a little so it won't take so

24 long.

25 "But to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved, a


1 A (Continuing) sinner must believe what the Bible

2 says about his personal sin and guilt before a holy God

3 and about what Christ has done to save him. Anything,

4 therefore, which stands in the way of faith in the Bible

5 as the Word of God can keep sinful men and women from the

6 Savior whom they must know or perish. Supposedly

7 scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the

8 Bible can cause some people to doubt the Bible and thus

9 hinder them from coming in humble faith to Jesus Christ

10 for salvation."

11 I think that's the essence of the quote.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would ask that Exhibit

13 Eighty-eight marked for identification be received into

14 evidence.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: I object on the same grounds, your

16 Honor.

17 THE COURT: I will receive Exhibit Eighty-eight, but

18 I don't understand how that relates to the creation

19 science theory. Is that the product of the Institute, or

20 one of—

21 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

22 Q Would you tell us who published the Handy Dandy

23 Evolution Refuter? Which organization does this come

24 from, Professor Nelkin?

25 A It's published by Beta Books in San Diego, and it


1 A (Continuing) is, I believe, if I remember right,

2 Kofahl is a member, is or was a member of the Institute

3 for Creation Research. And I make a strong association

4 between the Institute for Creation Research, which has

5 been a primary organization among scientific creationists

6 and Act 590.

7 Q I'm going to explore that point with you in just a

8 moment, Professor Nelkin.

9 Your testimony is that that book is by a prominent

10 spokesman of the creation science movement?

11 A Yes.

12 Q How do creation scientists respond to the concerns

13 that you've just articulated?

14 A Well, first of all, their aim and their intention,

15 as far as I could discern, was really to convince people

16 to essentially believe their beliefs, convergent in the

17 sense of convergence of ideas. They want people to

18 believe their definition of reality. And in order to do

19 that, they really felt it was incumbent upon them in

20 today's age to call into question scientific ideas and to

21 give their own ideas a sense of scientific credibility.

22 How they do that is partly, mostly through negative

23 argument, to try to undermine, to try to present arguments

24 that would undermine evolution theories. And to argue

25 therefore, if you can undermine evolution theories, then


1 A (Continuing) the creationism appeared as the only

2 alternative.

3 Their methods of research, however, to somebody who were

4 very familiar with scientific methods of research don't

5 quite fit. They, first of all, start with a priori

6 assumption. Rather than keeping an open mind about the

7 evidence, they really use evidence in order to prove what

8 they would like to prove.

9 Q Professor Nelkin, have you studied ordinary

10 scientists?

11 A Yeah. I don't know if you want a quote on the way

12 they approach things on their a priori assumptions or

13 not. Would that be useful to you?

14 Q Certainly, go ahead. Identify what you are reading

15 from.

16 A Oh, yeah. This from, again, from Henry Morris.

17 Scientific Creationism is the name of the book. It is

18 Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, California.

19 Q I believe that is Exhibit 76.

20 A The exhibit is 76, yes. "It should be emphasized

21 that this order is followed, not because of scientific

22 data are considered more reliable than Biblical doctrine.

23 To the contrary, it is precisely because Biblical

24 revolution is absolutely authoritative and persistent that

25 the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the


1 A (Continuing) same testimony as that of the

2 scripture."

3 "There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of

4 science can contradict the Bible and, therefore, there is

5 no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any

6 aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a

7 verdict in favor of evolution." Very straightforward

8 statement.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: I would ask that that be received in

10 evidence.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will object again.

12 THE COURT: You don't need to restate the grounds of

13 to the objection.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like to add one

15 other thing. I think the point does need to be made, and

16 I am sure the Court is aware of this, but ICR, any group,

17 is not on trial.

18 What we are trying is the constitutionality of this Act.

19 At this point, I have not seen evidence going to whether

20 this Act is constitutional or not.

21 There has been a lot of so-called background, which is

22 totally irrelevant from a legal perspective. What does

23 the Act require? That is what we are concerned about.

24 What does the Act on its face require? The Act has not

25 even been implemented yet.


1 MR. WILLLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 What they are, in effect, saying, as I understand it is,

3 the Act can't be implemented because of some of these

4 problems with some of the writings. The Act hasn't been

5 implemented yet and they can't challenge it except as to

6 its constitutionality on its face.

7 THE COURT: I appreciate the argument you are

8 making. I read it in the Brief, and I make the same

9 ruling on it.

10 I think, in order to save a lot of time and to save a

11 lot of effort on your part, if you would just tell me you

12 object on the ground that it is not relevant or on the

13 grounds previously stated, that will help. You don't need

14 to make an argument each time.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, your Honor.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

17 Q Let me address that point. I think the record

18 already reflects that many of the publications of the

19 Institute for Creation Research are published in two

20 editions; is that correct?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Is Evolution: The Fossils Say No by Duane T. Gish

23 an illustration of that?

24 A Yes. There seems to be one for public schools and

25 one for general public.


1 Q I think the Attorney General's office has already

2 made the point that when we asked the ICR for those

3 documents and they produced them to us, they put—

4 MR.WILLIAMS: I object to that characterization. I

5 never made that point. I made the stipulation in response

6 to a request.

7 THE COURT: Wait just a second. He is going to

8 withdraw that statement.

9 Go ahead and just ask her the question.

10 MR.CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

11 Q You are familiar with the way scientists operate?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Are you familiar with any other set of texts which

14 carry labels in them designating whether it is religious

15 or science?

16 A No, I have never heard of it before. I can't

17 imagine that just simply semantic changes in books which

18 really carry the same message would really make any

is difference, and I have never seen any scientific books

20 which are written several in editions except for efforts

21 to popularize them. But that does not try to say that one

22 is scientific and one is not.

23 Q Let me turn now and ask you some specific questions

24 about the scientific-creation roots. You heard Professor

25 Marsden testify earlier today?


1 A Yes.

2 Q Did you hear him mention the American Scientific

3 Affiliation?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Could you give us a brief description of the

6 creation-science groups and their development?

7 A Okay. The American Scientific Affiliation was

8 developed, I believe, in 1941 or the early 1940's. At

9 that time, most of the creationists, as I understand, were

10 members of that affiliation. They began to split with it

11 in the late 1950's, early 1960's, because it was really

12 not fundamentalist enough with respect particularly to

13 science.

14 There were several things that occurred at that period.

15 First was the public concern about science education,

16 about the lag of the United States behind the Soviets, the

17 Russians. In particular, that was evidenced by Sputnik,

18 and that caused the National Science Foundation to develop

19 a whole series of federal programs in physics and in

20 biology, which attempted to create science textbooks for

21 the public schools that were more in tune with the latest

22 developments in contemporary science.

23 There was a Darwin centennial in 1959 in which a big

24 case was made to the fact that in biology textbooks in

25 particular there was an extraordinary lag between what was


1 A (Continuing) known within the scientific community

2 and how this was portrayed in the public schools.

3 On the basis of that, the Biology Science Curriculum

4 Study was developed and created books more in keeping with

5 contemporary and well accepted research.

6 So then you began to have public school textbooks in the

7 early Sixties which were developing evolution theories.

8 There were several other things. The Supreme Court

9 ruling in 1963 on prayer in schools was an issue which

10 irritated a number of people.

11 In California, and that's where a lot of the action is

12 at this time or was at that time, Max Rafferty was very

13 concerned about godlessness in the school system.

14 Q Who is Max Rafferty?

15 A Max Rafferty was Superintendent of Schools for the

16 State of California at that time, a fundamentalist, and

17 extremely concerned about the lack of religion in the

18 public schools. He used words like `godlessness' and

19 `secularism' and was very concerned, so he had a little

20 form of political support.

21 At the same time the creationists began, Henry Morris,

22 in particular, began to write books that began to have a

23 dissemination among certain groups.

24 At that time, also, the Creation Research Society split

25 away from the ASA, the American Scientific Affiliation, to


1 A (Continuing) form their own group. I believe it

2 was in 1963. They had an oath, which I don't have with me.

3 Q Is this a copy of that?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Let me pass you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for

6 identification which, along with the other exhibits for

7 identification, have been provided to the Attorney

8 General's office, and I will ask you, please, if you can

9 identify that.

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, at this time, if I might,

11 I would just like to make an objection on the grounds of

12 hearsay. All this that this witness is testifying to is

13 to hearsay.

14 THE COURT: Okay, sir. I will note that objection.

15 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

16 Q Did you identify Exhibit 115?

17 A I can't defend myself against hearsay.

18 Q If you would, please, just describe for us what

19 Exhibit 115 is.

20 A Exhibit 115 is a brochure from the Creation Research

21 Society, a Xerox of a brochure, with a brief history of

22 the organization organized in 1963, firmly committed to

23 scientific special creation.

24 Q Is there an oath which Creation Research Society

25 members must take?


1 A There is a position statement, and then on the

2 application form, to become a voting member you have to

3 have a degree in some recognized area of science.

4 In addition, all members must subscribe to the

5 following: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and

6 because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its

7 assertions are historically and scientifically true in all

8 of the original autographs. To the student of nature,

9 this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a

10 factual presentation of simple-historical truths.

11 Second, "All basic types of living things, including

12 man, were made by direct creative acts of God during

13 Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever

14 biological changes have occurred since Creation have

15 accomplished only changes within the original created

16 kinds."

17 Third, "The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly

18 referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical

19 event, worldwide in its extent and effects.

20 Fourth, "Finally, we are an organization of Christian

21 men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and

22 Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and

23 Eve as ones man and one woman, and their subsequent fall

24 into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of

25 a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come


1 A (Continuing) only through accepting Jesus Christ as

2 our savior."

3 That is the oath or what members have to subscribe to in

4 the ISCRS.

5 Q Is that a leading creation-science organization?

6 A Yes, although it did split once again. These groups

7 tend to split over certain issues. There was a leadership

8 dispute and the CSRC, the Creation Science Research Center

9 then formed in the late Sixties, and that became, by and

10 large, a publishing organization.

11 Then there was a copyright dispute and there was also a

12 dispute over strategy, and it split once more. Henry

13 Morris formed the ICR. It's like the government with all

14 these acronyms. The Institute for Creation Research,

15 which went to Christian Heritage College, which was a new

16 organization in El Cajon, California, supported by the

17 Scott Memorial Baptist Church, and it became the research

18 institute, the research arm and teaching arm also, in the

19 scientific area of Christian Heritage College, which at

20 that time its president was Tim LaHay.

21 Q Could you tell us, please, if there are other

22 organizations that come to mind?

23 A The Bible Science Association is another one and

24 that's been much more of a mass based organization, which

25 serves as a means to disseminate a lot of the material.


1 A (Continuing) Most of the documents, most of the

2 lectures, most of the activities of the people in the ICR,

3 which is now the most active organization, are the

4 lecturers in almost entirely Bible colleges and other

5 religious organizations, and also their writings are

6 published primarily through religious sources.

7 Q Are those the leading national organizations

8 dedicated to promoting creation-science?

9 A Those, at this moment, are the leading

10 Organizations. I think they have subgroups in various

11 states, but these are the leading major national

12 organizations, yes.

13 Q You told us you conducted your study in I think you

14 said around '74 or '75?

15 A '76, yes. '75-'76 was the main part of it, yes.

16 Q Have you had occasion to update your research since

17 that time?

18 A Well, when one does research like that and moves on

19 to other things, what one does is to continually collect

20 material and stick it in the file. I don't really have

21 time to look at it terribly carefully. I was called on

22 the Sacramento case. Was it a year ago—January. The

23 attorney general there had called me. I could not

24 participate in it because I was off to France on

25 sabbatical. But I did have — Again, as it began to come


1 A (Continuing) up, I began to review the material I

2 had collected in the meantime. And then obviously knowing

3 that this was coming up, I have been intensively immersed

4 in material recently. So, I feel pretty up to date.

5 Q Has anything in the material you have reviewed

6 recently changed your conclusions?

7 A No. It has only reinforced it. The only difference

8 I seek really, is it seems to me that in some sense the

9 creationists are a little more politically astute. They

10 have changed — The effort to completely separate, which I

11 really can't quite encompass, I can't quite understand how

12 they can do this, the effort to completely separate

13 biblical creationism from scientific creationism is

14 demarcated just a little bit. There seems to be some

15 conflict within the organization, and I think that is

16 reflected in this split, a conflict within the

17 organization about how to maintain an appeal to a

18 basically religious constituents on the one hand, and gain

19 scientific credibility on the other.

20 I seem to read in their literature at this point a sense

21 of contradiction as they are pulled in two directions.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: I think I failed to offer into

23 evidence Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for identification. It's

24 the Creation Research Society oath, and I ask that that be

25 received.


1 THE COURT: That will be received.

2 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like my objection

3 made on the grounds previously stated, plus no

4 authentication.

5 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

6 Q Did you, based on your interviews, were you able to

7 create a composite picture of the creation-science leaders

8 based on the research?

9 A Well, it's not really a composite picture in any

10 kind of technical or statistical sense. However, I was

11 told an awful lot of times that these were people who were

12 brought up in fundamentalist families. They were bright

13 kids who went off to college and got trained as

14 scientists. They continually had some trouble reconciling

15 what they were learning with the fundamentalist

16 background. Resorted often to a theistic evolution,

17 essentially saying that God was responsible for change.

18 But, then, somewhere later, felt kind of uncomfortable

19 with all of this and turned to creationism when that

20 alternative occurred. They were attracted to this as a

21 way to reconcile their own self doubts. This is a story I

22 heard again and again in my interviews.

23 Recently got reconfirmed in something that I read by

24 Gary Parker where he says that God told him this

25 essentially. God essentially changed his mind and opened


1 A (Continuing) up new kinds of possibilities with the

2 science in creationism, so the internal conflict didn't

3 really register.

4 Q Professor Nelkin, have you read Act 590?

5 A Yes, I have read Act 590.

6 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether Act 590

7 reflects a connection with the creation-science

8 organizations which you've just described?

9 A Yes, in a couple of ways. Going through, it looked

10 awfully familiar, a lot of it. An awful lot of it seems

11 to have come almost word by word, except in a somewhat

12 different order, from a resolution that was written up, a

13 model resolution that was written by—Was it Wendell

14 Bird—Bird from Institution of Creation Research.

15 In checking over that, the wording was almost

16 identical. The order of the items was somewhat different.

17 In terms of the definition of creationism, it is the

18 kind of definition of creationism I have seen again and

19 again in creationist writings. The same items appear,

20 slightly different wording, but they are fundamentally no

21 different than the statements that come out of the

22 organizations, such as the Institution for Creation

23 Research.

24 Q Could I ask that Exhibit 106 for identification be

25 passed to you, and ask if you can identify that as being


1 Q (Continuing) the Resolution that you referred to.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I think I've got the

3 wrong exhibit number. If I may, on re-direct, I will put

4 that in through her, and I think that will save some time.

5 No more questions.




8 Q Ms. Nelkin, isn't it true that your predominant area

9 of study into the creation-science movement, as you have

10 termed it, came from approximately 1973 up through 1977?

11 A Yes, my primary time in which I was studying that

12 movement, yes.

13 Q And since 1977, say, one of your average weeks, how

14 much time have you spent in studying creation-science?

15 A Very little on a regular basis until very recently,

16 and then it's been full-time again.

17 Q Until how recently?

18 A I picked it up for a couple of weeks in January, a

19 year ago. Then I picked it up, the material up again—Had

20 a lot of it on hand so that it was not hard to get

21 at—about three or four weeks ago.

22 Q But even during that time you weren't spending

23 full-time, were you?

24 A I was also teaching my classes. Researchers in

25 universities don't have full time for research. We do


1 A (Continuing) other things. But in another sense,

2 also I've been teaching about the dispute, looking at the

3 controversy in my classes each year, so I've kept up on

4 the material to do that.

5 Q As a matter of fact, when you wrote your book in

6 1977, at that point, really, your research effectively

7 ended, didn't it?

8 A For the purposes of what I was writing then, yes.

9 Since then, I have resumed it.

10 Q For the purposes of testifying in two lawsuits?

11 A No. One lawsuit. I did not testify in the other

12 lawsuit because I was in Paris at the time it was held.

13 Q But you did look at it at times because of the

14 lawsuit?

15 A I looked at it, the material because of that, yes,

16 and for the purpose of testifying in this lawsuit, and

17 also because of considerable interest, again, because of

18 the lawsuit. So, I've taken it up again, yes.

19 Q When you began studying what you call the science

20 textbook controversy— First of all, the question of the

21 science textbook controversies includes something more in

22 your mind than merely creation-science, does it not?

23 A When I was studying those controversies, there was a

24 simultaneous dispute going on called "The Man, a Course of

25 study" dispute, which raised a lot of the same issues.


1 A (Continuing) So, I used that, as well as another

2 example.

3 Q What was "The Man, a Course of Study" dispute?

4 A It was a social science curriculum developed by the

5 National Science Foundation do teach at the younger school

6 level. I think it was fifth and sixth grades.

7 Q Describe, if you would, the general approach of "The

8 Man, a Course of Study.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I don't

10 understand the relevance of this. Professor Nelkin's book

11 was called The Scientific Textbook Controversies. She

12 studied two controversies; one over creationism and one

13 over some humanities textbooks that were also

14 controversial at that time.

15 It is a second controversy. If your Honor wants to hear

16 it, fine, but I really don't see the materiality of it.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, there are two purposes.

18 First of all, in Plaintiffs ` Exhibit 1 for identification,

19 an article by Ms. Nelkin, this is gone into in some

20 depth. There appears to be, to some degree, an effort to

21 kind of intertwine the two controversies. I want to make

22 clear that they are not intertwined.

23 Second, in "Man, A Course of Study", there were some

24 concepts studied which were highly controversial. They

25 were formulated by some scientists from the National


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Science Foundation, funding,

2 at least. Fifth and sixth graders were studying such

3 questions about what is human about human beings and they

4 were studying animal behavior and how it related to humans.

5 The concepts, even Ms. Nelkin has admitted, were highly

6 controversial and somewhat problematic. There has been an

7 argument made by the plaintiffs in this case that you

8 shouldn't force on high school students this false ploy

9 between what they see as religion and science, that high

10 school students are too impressionable.

11 I would points out that if fifth and sixth graders are

12 not too impressionable to look at these issues in the view

13 of the scientists, who Ms. Nelkin I think acknowledges

14 competent scientists, neither should high school students

15 be too impressionable to look at the facts on both sides

16 of the question of origins.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, it seems very collateral

18 to me.

19 THE COURT: I think it would be easier just to

20 listen to the testimony. I think, really, the relevance

21 of that is kind of remote but if you want to go into that,

22 that's fine.

23 MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think it will take that long,

24 your Honor.

25 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat your question? I


1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) couldn't follow your line of

2 argument.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: That was a statement. That was not a

4 question. Let, me ask you the question now.

5 THE WITNESS: All right.

6 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

7 Q "The Man, A Course of Study", could you just give me

8 a brief sketch of the sort of issues that were being

9 present to fifth and sixth graders in that curriculum?

10 A This is an effort to teach students about values.

11 It did have an evolutionary component because it made

12 assumptions that there, were genetic relationships between

13 man and animals, and it looked at animal behavior. It was

14 widely considered to be an interesting course.

15 Its methodology was somewhat controversial because it

16 allowed—It was not rote teaching. It was teaching which

17 involved a lot of participation, a lot of discussion by

18 students.

19 Some of the major concerns came up about whether this

20 was an appropriate methodology through which to teach

21 students or whether children should be simply told by

22 their teachers what is right and what is wrong. That was

23 a controversial aspect of that dispute.

24 Q And the scientists who formulated that based on your

25 studies felt this would be an appropriate course of study


1 Q (Continuing) for fifth and sixth graders; is that correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q They didn't feel that fifth and sixth graders were

4 too impressionable to handle these questions; is that

5 correct?

6 A No. I think it was the assumption that fifth and

7 sixth graders are pretty intelligent and thoughtful human

8 beings and could, yes, deal with it.

9 Q The controversy over "Man, A Course of Study", do

10 you know whether—Well, first of all—that course was ever

11 protested in Arkansas?

12 A I don't remember. It was protested in a number of

13 states. Arkansas could have been one of them, but I

14 really don't remember whether Arkansas was, in fact a

15 state in which it was protested.

16 Q Isn't it true that you don't necessarily see "Man, A

17 Course of Study" in the creation-science movement, as you

18 have termed it, to be one and the same? Those are

19 interrelated in terms of the same people were involved?

20 A There is some overlapping in the people involved in

21 the two studies. John Conlan, for example, the

22 representative, got involved and was also very supportive

23 of the creationist movement. And his aide, I can't

24 remember, a British guy, also got involved. Yes, there

25 was some relationship. The Galbraiths in Texas also got


1 A (Continuing) very agitated about that, similarly

2 agitated about the teaching of the evolution theory. Yes,

3 there were some connections.

4 Q The groups you previously identified as being the

5 leading creation-science groups, did any of them take a

6 formal position on "Man, A Course of Study", to the best

7 of your knowledge?

8 A I don't believe so, but I am not sure. I don't

9 remember.

10 Q In your article entitled Science-Textbook

11 Controversies, which has been previously admitted as

12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for identification, you state that,

13 referring to textbooks published by the Biological Science

14 Curricula Study Committee, you said, quote, All three

15 reflected the fact that modern biological research is

16 based on evolutionary assumptions, close quote?

17 A Yes.

18 Q So, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that

19 somehow creation-science was based on some sort of a

20 priori assumptions. Is not evolution also based on some a

21 priori assumptions?

22 A What is the beginning part again?

23 Q You were talking about three textbooks. Three

24 textbooks were developed, each emphasizing a different

25 aspect of current biological research. Molecular biology,

137. Page Missing


1 A (Continuing) data and to understand.

2 Q Let me ask, you, in Exhibit 1 you state that

3 creation-scientists believe, quote, that all basic types of

4 living things, including man, were made by a direct

5 creative act of God during the creation week."

6 A Yes.

7 Q Can you tell me where does creation-science, as it

8 is defined in Act 590, say that all living things were

9 created in one week.

10 A Act 590 denies—

11 Q I am asking if you can tell me where.

12 A I think it does not state that exactly in that way,

13 and it does not also want to use the word "God", but I

14 find it very difficult to distinguish the notion of a

15 creator and world by design without— I mean, I think that

16 is the semantic equivalent.

17 Q But you studied this, not from you own personal

18 opinion but you studied it as a social science, did you

19 not?

20 A Yes.

21 Q So I want to ask you, not your personal opinion but

22 what you have been able to determine from studying this

23 question.

24 A My opinion is based on what I studied.

25 Q But where in Act 590 does it state that man was


1 Q (Continuing) created within one week?

2 A It does not go into that kind of detail.

3 Q Where in Act 590 does it say that, quote, God, close

4 quote, did the creating?

5 A No, Act 590 does not go into the absolute details.

6 Q It doesn't say that, does it?

7 A No.

8 Q You further state in Exhibit 1 that many

9 nonscientists believe that science is authoritative, exact

10 and definitive?

11 A Yes.

12 Q And, further, that few textbooks are careful to

13 stress the distinction between facts and interpretation?

14 A Yes.

15 Q —Or to suggest that intuition and speculation

16 actually guide the development of scientific concepts?

17 A (Nodding affirmatively)

18 Q First of all, that's an acknowledgment by you, is it

19 not, that things such as intuition and speculation do lead

20 to scientific concepts?

21 A I think there is a great deal of speculation in

22 science, and then it's tested, systematically tested;

23 approached with skepticism and tested, yes.

24 Q Can't the shortcomings you have pinpointed on

25 textbooks lead to false impression that what are


1 Q (Continuing) scientific theories are facts?

2 A I think there is a lot of room for improvement in

3 science popularization. I've written a great deal about

4 this. I think it's a very difficult thing to do to convey

5 both the subtlety and the complexity of science and yet

6 convey it at a level at which it can be understood and

7 which the innuendoes and the procedures and the kinds of

8 insights that go into science are conveyed. It's a major

9 challenge to the scientific community.

10 Q Who was Julian Huxley?

11 A Julian Huxley was a biologist in the nineteenth

12 century.

13 Q Would it be fair to say he was a proponent of

14 evolution?

15 A Well, and he and other people have used—There are a

16 lot of people who have used evolution theory for

17 purposes—special purposes. I am not sure scientists can

18 do anything about that. Scientific theories are amenable

19 to being exploited and used.

20 Q So evolutionary theory can be abused?

21 A Every science and every religious theory can be

22 abused by the public if somebody cares to do so, yes.

23 Q As you understand or what you know about Julian

24 Huxley, was he someone who adopted or adhered to the

25 theory of evolution?


1 A I believe so.

2 Q Are you aware that he called the concept of

3 evolution a naturalistic religion?

4 A (Nodding affirmatively)

5 Q So, at least, Huxley saw some sort of religion being

6 based on evolution, did he not?

7 A There were a lot of nineteenth century scientists

8 who really looked to religion as a way to document the

9 existence of God, yes. That was characteristic of a lot

10 of Darwin's contemporaries and, in fact, his

11 contemporaries in the scientific community were—had a lot

12 of problems with Darwinian theory, yes. In the nineteenth

13 century, definitely.

14 Q In your article that I just quoted from, is not one

15 of you conclusions, "that questions which have normally

16 been resolved by professional consensus are being brought

17 into the political arena"?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Is your conclusion not further that, "The processes

20 resulting in democratic values such as freedom of choice,

21 equality and fairness enter into science policy"?

22 A Yes, and when it comes to the determination of

23 scientific theory—

24 Q I am asking if that is your conclusion?

25 A No, because you are taking it out of context.


1 Q I don't want to take it out of context. Let me read

2 you the quote.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: What are you reading?

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit 1, page 30, the last sentence.

5 Q "As questions that are normally resolved by

6 professional consensus are brought into the political

7 arena, and as democratic values such as freedom of choice,

8 equality and fairness enter into science policy, the

9 consequences of such resistance to science may be

10 painful." First of all, is that correct?

11 A Yes. I want to underline the word `policy'. I

12 don't want that to be shown in the record to say science .

13 Q I think I read `policy', did I not?

14 A But I want to emphasize that.

15 Q You didn't emphasize it in your article.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: If Mr. Williams intends to

17 interrogate Professor Nelkin at some length about this

18 article, I would like to give her a copy of it for her

19 reference.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: I've just finished my questioning on

21 the article, Mr. Crawford.

22 THE WITNESS: May I add a point to that, because I

23 think it,- again, is out of context. I do not think that

24 values of democracy and fairness enter the judgment as to

25 what is valid scientific theory.


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 Q But they do into valid science policy?

3 A Into science policy, where money should be allocated

4 for science, et cetera. But into theories of science,

5 science is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy.

6 Achievement, bodies of knowledge, an acceptable set of

7 procedures, these are the things that define science, not

8 democracy, not audience applause.

9 Q I want to refer you now to Exhibit 2 for

10 identification of the plaintiffs' case. This is your

11 article entitled, "Science, Rationality and the

12 Creation/Evolution Dispute".

13 Do you not state in this article that an argument that,

14 quote, science is natural, close quote; it is simply not

15 convincing on historical grounds?

16 A Yes. The argument the scientists make, I think, is

17 a defensive one that exaggerates the total neutrality and

18 objectivity of science, and it allows people to abuse

19 science by having, by taking political recourse to that

20 concept.

21 Q In fact, you go on to say that "Neutral—"

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I am sorry to keep

23 intruding, but if he could just identify where he is

24 reading—

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Page 12 of the article.


1 Q That, in fact, "Neutral, apolitical criteria have

2 very little meaning in the context of science education";

3 isn't that right?

4 A Historically, yes.

5 Q You state, do you not, that in discussing, at the

6 top of page 15, the conflict between creation science and

7 evolution, you state, quote, "As each side defends its

8 position and criticizes the other, their arguments are

9 strikingly similar. Indeed, the debate often sounds like

10 a battle between two dogmatic groups as the anti-dogmatic

11 norms of science fade with the effort to convey the

12 validity of a scientific theory. At times, in the course

13 of the dispute, it becomes difficult to distinguish

14 science from politics and ideology, a fact which only

15 reinforces creationist claims"?

16 A Yes, because the dispute has taken—

17 Q First of all, let me ask you a question about that.

18 A Sure.

19 Q What you are saying here, is it not, is that there

20 is a parallel between the arguments made by the

21 creationists and the evolutionists?

22 A Yes. What I'm saying, though, in a larger sense is

23 that scientists have not, because they have been somewhat

24 isolated from such political challenges, are not very

25 experienced in dealing with such challenges, and I think


1 A (Continuing) that is a real problem in this day and

2 age.

3 So that when they tend to get confronted by a great

4 number of attacks, they tend to respond very, I feel, much

5 too defensively and instead of just sticking to their

6 guns, essentially fall into the trap of creating parallel

7 arguments.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, this has been previously

9 marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 2. Unless the

10 plaintiffs have some intention of offering it into

11 evidence, I would like to offer it into evidence as a

12 defendant's exhibit.

13 MR. CRAWFORD: I have no objection.

14 THE COURT: It will be received.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

16 Q Ms. Nelkin, are you aware that some scientific

17 journals have established a policy of refusing any

18 consideration of any articles on creation science?

19 A I am not aware it is policy. I know there's been

20 problems in peer reviewing them.

21 Q Let me refer you back to Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs'

22 Exhibit 1—Excuse me. Do you recall an article you wrote

23 on "Creation vs. Evolution: The Politics of Science

24 Education"?

25 A Yes.


1 Q Do you recall in that article you discussed the fact

2 that the National Association of Biology Teachers, their

3 journal stopped publishing any creationist articles by

4 November of 1972?

5 A Yes. It was deluged with articles that stated from

6 preconceptions that simply—

7 Q I am not asking where they came from. I am asking

8 if you are aware whether, in fact, they stopped accepting

9 articles?

10 A Yes, I remember the article and the debate at that

11 time.

12 Q Thank you very much.

13 Ms. Nelkin, you do not believe in the existence of a

14 God, do you?

15 A No.

16 Q But you believe that a religious person can be a

17 competent scientist, don't you?

18 A Certainly.

19 Q in your study of science, have you come to a

20 conclusion that we now have a purity of science so that

21 society no longer affects science and the scientific

22 method?

23 A Do I believe that?

24 Q In your studies, have you come to that conclusion?

25 A That the purity of science no longer—No, I have not


1 A (Continuing) come to that conclusion.

2 Q As a matter of fact, would you say the opposite is

3 true, that society to some degree does tend to affect

4 science?

5 A That is not the opposite, but to some degree there

6 is, yes, certainly.

7 Q You also have looked, have you not, at the way

8 courts have generally handled scientific questions?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And you have some doubts personally about the

11 ability of a court to handle a scientific question, don't

12 you?

13 A That is a very complicated question to answer

14 briefly. I think there is a tendency for a lot of

15 technical questions that come to the court to be

16 translated into scientific and technical terms; that a lot

17 of these cases, Vermont Yankee, for example, for one

18 thing, have become very difficult in terms of the ability

19 of the courts to gain sufficient technical competence to

20 make judgments as to whether, in fact, the agencies are

21 doing their jobs.

22 I am very familiar with the Bazelon-Levanthal argument

23 as to the extent to which courts should be buttressing

24 their technical competence or whether they should simply

25 refer these cases back to the agencies that do have the


1 A (Continuing) technical competence or to the

2 legislature to handle them.

3 I have generally come out on the latter side, the

4 Bazelon side to this, that the practical notion of

5 training lawyers to be both scientists and lawyers at the

6 same time, and judges also, to have them technically

7 competent in all fields that are going to come before

8 them, really doesn't work out very well.

9 Q So you've come up on the side of referring it back

10 to the administrative agency or the legislature where it

11 came from?

12 MR. CRAWFORD: I object.

13 MR. WILLIAMS: That was her testimony, I believe.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: I heard the word `legislature' that I

15 had not heard before.

16 THE WITNESS: That was in the Vermont Yankee case.

17 I don't think that applies to every —I certainly don't

18 think it applies to this case, but I'm looking at the

19 Vermont Yankee case in particular.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Ms. Nelkin. First of all,

21 we have an objection. Your Honor, if I could ask the

22 witness—

23 MR. CRAWFORD: I heard what she said.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: All right.


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 Q Do you think academic freedom includes necessarily

3 the freedom to teach anything an individual wants to teach

4 at any particular time?

5 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I am going to

6 object. We have not tendered Professor Nelkin as an

7 expert on academic freedom. We tendered her as an expert

8 on sociology of science and controversies involving

9 science. I think to take her into the field of academic

10 freedom and areas in which she doesn't necessarily claim

11 expertise is inappropriate.

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, she is a professor at

13 Cornell University. I am not asking her for a legal

14 judgment; I am asking her as a member of the academic

15 community.

16 THE COURT: That's fine. That's overruled.

17 THE WITNESS: So the question is, do I think—

18 Would you repeat the question, please?

19 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

20 Q Do you think that academic freedom includes

21 necessarily the freedom to teach anything that an

22 individual wants to teach at any particular time?

23 A No.

24 Q Do you think that a teacher has to agree with a

25 theory before they can effectively teach it?