1 A We do not know in any precise way how life was

2 formed. However, it is a very active field of research.

3 There are a number of studies going on, and we are

4 developing and continuing to develop within science a body

5 of knowledge that is beginning to provide some

6 enlightenment on this issue.

7 Q Now, you have been explaining why the creation

8 science dual model approach to the teaching of origins of

9 life on this planet is unscientific. Is there any other

10 aspect of the creation science treatment of the origins of

11 life on this planet that is similarly unscientific?

12 A Well, I find the use of probabilistic arguments to

13 be somewhat deceptive.

14 Q Would you explain what you mean?

15 A In general in the creation science literature, they

16 start out by assuming, by making statements about the

17 complexity of living systems. These will generally be

18 fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living

19 systems.

20 They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic

21 calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a

22 complex system will come about by random. When you do

23 that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they

24 then assert that therefore life by natural processes is

25 impossible.


1 A (Continuing)

2 But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the

3 processes by which life has come about in detail. To do

4 the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all

5 the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes

6 have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to

7 do the calculations. We are simply lacking the

8 information to do the calculations now, so to present them

9 on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive.

10 Q Is it also in your view unscientific?

11 A Since deception is unscientific, the answer to that

12 is yes.

13 Q Are there any other respects in which the

14 creation science treatments of the origins of life on this

15 planet is unscientific?

16 A Well, they play rather fast and loose with the use

17 of the second law of thermodynamics to indicate that the

18 natural origin of life would not be possible.

19 Q And can you describe for us what about the

20 creation-science treatment of the second law of

21 thermodynamics is unscientific?

22 A They state the second law in terms of the

23 spontaneous movement of systems from an order to a

24 disordered state, and then they argue that since evolution

25 and the origin of life involve states going from a


1 A (Continuing) disordered to more ordered states,

2 that these transitions are inconsistent with the second

3 law of thermodynamics.

4 What they totally leave out in the original statement of

5 these arguments is that the second law of thermodynamics

6 applies only to isolated systems. In the statement that

7 they use as the second law of thermodynamics, it applies

8 to isolated systems where the surface of the earth is, in

9 fact, not an isolated system, but an open system, and

10 therefore, not subject to the constraints that they place

11 on it in the isolated systems statement.

12 Q Doctor Morowitz, perhaps it would help if you

13 explained the second law of thermodynamics a bit.

14 A Although there are a large number of statements of

15 the law, for our purposes we can state the second law as

16 saying that in isolated systems there is a tendency of the

17 system to go to a maximum degree of molecular disorder.

18 Q And what is an isolated system?

19 A An isolated system is one that is cut off from all

20 matter or energy exchange with the rest of the universe.

21 Q Is the earth an isolated system?

22 A The earth is not an isolated system.

23 Q Does the second law of thermodynamics imply that

24 the surface of the earth is becoming disorganized?

25 A That does not follow from the second law of


1 A (Continuing) thermodynamics.

2 Q And that's because the earth is an open system?

3 A The earth is an open system because it has a flow

4 of energy from the sun to the earth, and then there is a

5 subsequent flow of energy from the earth to outer space,

6 and so those two constitute it being an open system.

7 Q Can you give us an example of how the second law

8 would work in an isolated system, a system that is totally

9 closed to influx of energy or matter?

10 A If you had an isolated system and you had within

11 that system a hot object and a cold object, which would be

12 a certain degree or organization, the two of them being at

13 different temperatures, if you put the two of those in

14 contact with each other, heat would flow from the hotter

15 body to the colder body and eventually, within the

16 isolated system, they would come to the same temperature.

17 That would be a more disordered state, because the state

18 would be uniform and homogeneous throughout.

19 Or if I may take a biological example, if we were to

20 take a laboratory mouse and put it in isolation; that is,

21 we were to put it in a closed, sealed container through

22 which there was no flow of matter or energy, then in a

23 short time the mouse would die, the very ordered structure

24 of all the molecules and cellular structures in the mouse

25 would decay, and if we came back in a few hundred or two


1 A (Continuing) thousand years, we would find just a

2 puddle of liquid gases and a few residual crystals. That

3 would be a movement from order to disorder in an isolated

4 system.

5 Q Now, I believe you testified that creation science

6 misstates the second law of thermodynamics. Is that so?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Can you give an example of the way they do that?

9 A Yes. In Morris' book Scientific Creationism, and

10 if I can look at a copy of that book, I can give you more

11 exact references.

12 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, the witness is referring to

13 the public school edition of Scientific Creationism, which

14 has previously been identified by plaintiffs as Exhibit 75

15 and admitted into evidence.

16 THE COURT: All right.

17 A If we look at page 23 of this book-I should state

18 at the outset that this book is by Henry M. Morris, who is

19 the director of the Institute for Creation Research. This

20 is a very well accepted book within the creationism

21 community and among the scientific creationists.

22 In this book, Morris, on page 22, states that law of

23 energy decay, the second law of thermodynamics, tells us

24 that energy continually perceives to lower levels of

25 utility.


1 A (Continuing)

2 He continues in that vein in discussing the second law,

3 he picks up again on this discussion on page 38. On page

4 38 he quotes a number of people, a number of rather well

5 known physicists, with such statements as, "In any

6 physical change that takes place by itself, the entropy

7 always increases-

8 Q Excuse me. You're reading at the very bottom of

9 that page, is that right?

10 A The bottom of page 38. And I should point out that

11 entropy is the measure of the molecular disorder of a

12 system. It's a mathematical measure of that disorder.

13 In another quotation he states. "As far as we know, all

14 changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of

15 increasing disorder, of increasing randomness of running

16 down."

17 In that entire discussion, the entire original

18 discussion of the second law of thermodynamics as applied

19 to living systems, the limitation of the second law to

20 closed systems is not made, nor is it pointed out that the

21 surface of the earth where life arose is not a closed

22 system, but an open system.

23 Q Does the book ever recognize the distinction

24 between an open and an isolated system?

25 A Yes. On page 40, the statement occurs that the


1 A (Continuing) second law, speaking about ordering,

2 he says, "The second law says this will not happen in any

3 natural process unless external factors enter to make it

4 happen." And by `external factors', I assume there he is

5 recognizing that the system is then open. `External

6 factors' means opening a system to the flow of matter and

7 energy.

8 And under these conditions, Morris admits that

9 organization can take place.

10 Q Does he continue that discussion of open systems?

11 A Yes. He then picks up again somewhat later in the

12 book on open systems, and he does that under a very

13 strange device.

14 He starts that discussion by saying, "When pressed,

15 however, for a means of reconciling of the entropy

16 principle with evolution, one of the following answers is

17 usually given," and then he gives a list of five answers,

18 the fifth of which is that the second law of thermo- the

19 second law does not apply to open systems.

20 So he finally admits to the fact that the second law does

21 not require that an open system like the earth go from an

22 ordered to a disordered state, but he does it in a way by

23 sneaking it in as a fifth item on the list of the excuses

24 that evolutionists give when pressed.

25 Q Is the limitation of the second law of


1 Q (Continuing) thermodynamics to isolate its systems

2 an evolutionist excuse?

3 A No. It is fundamental to the structure of

4 thermodynamics of an open system. It is fundamental to an

5 entire body of knowledge, which we will call the study

6 itself organizing systems, which is most relevant to this

7 problem of abiogenesis.

8 Q Doctor Morowitz, you've been referring thus far

9 only to the book Scientific Creationism. In your opinion

10 and based on your reading of creation science literature

11 generally, is that misapplication or misstatement of the

12 second law typical in that creation science literature?

13 A The views that Morris presents are very similar

14 throughout the rest of the literature that I am familiar

15 with.

16 Q Doctor Morowitz, I believe you testified that in

17 addition to misstating the second law of thermodynamics,

18 creation science literature also misapplies the second law

19 of thermodynamics to conclude that evolution is not

20 possible on earth. Is that accurate?

21 A That is true.

22 Q In what ways do they do that? What arguments do

23 they use?

24 A Well, again, the primary arguments are ignoring the

25 fact that the earth is an open system, and that for open


1 A (Continuing) systems under the flow of energy,

2 rather than being disordered, the systems, in fact, go

3 from less ordered to more ordered states, so that

4 evolution, rather than being contrary to the laws of

5 thermodynamics, is part of the unfolding of the laws of

6 thermodynamics.

7 Q Can you give us an example of the ordering effect

8 of energy flow in an open system?

9 A Yes. If we took the case we discussed before,

10 where we had two objects at different temperatures and we

11 placed them in contact and there was a flow of heat in

12 which they went to the same temperature, and we discussed

13 the reasons why that was a disordering phenomenon, if we

14 now take a sample of a substance that's at a uniform

15 temperature and we place it in contact with a radiator and

16 a refrigerator, there will be a flow of energy through

17 that system from the hot source to the cold sink, that

18 will give rise to a temperature gradient within the system

19 which is an ordering of that system

20 Q In the system, in the earth's biosphere system,

21 what is the energy source?

22 A For the surface of the earth, the principal energy

23 source is the electromagnetic energy which flows from the

24 sun.

25 Q What is the energy sink, to use your word?


1 A The energy sink is the cold of outer space. That

2 is to say, energy comes in from the sun, it would by and

3 large convert it to heat energy, that heat energy is

4 reradiated to outer space.

5 Q Is the ordering effect of the flow of energy

6 through the earth's system what caused the formation of

7 life on this planet?

8 A Yes. Although the exact processes are not known,

9 the primary driving force was certainly the flow of energy

10 through the system.

11 Q Do you know how life was formed, precisely?

12 A Again, not in precise detail, although as I pointed

13 out, it is an active area of scientific research, and at

14 the moment one, as an enthusiastic scientist always feels,

15 that we're getting close.

16 Q Does creation science literature take account of

17 the ordering effect of the flow of energy?

18 A No. Other than mentioning it in terms of an excuse

19 when pressed, they then go on to say, although the flow of

20 energy is capable of ordering the system, it does not do.

21 so because such ordering requires, and to use their

22 terminology on page 43 and 44, that "such ordering,"

23 according to the creation literature, "requires a program

24 to direct the growth and a power converter to energize the

25 growth."


1 Q Of those requirements of a program to direct growth

2 and a power converter, are those requirements recognized

3 elements of the second law of thermodynamics?

4 A Those are not part of the second law of

5 thermodynamics. However, I should point out that there is

6 nothing at all supernatural about an energy converter or a

7 program to direct growth.

8 Energy conversion occurs, let's say, in photochemical

9 conversion or electrochemical conversion. It's part of

10 the ordinary physics and chemistry of all systems.

11 Likewise, a program to direct growth can well be

12 encompassed under the laws of nature, the laws of quantum

13 mechanics, the laws of thermodynamics, the periodic table,

14 and the laws of nature, which are, indeed, a program to

15 direct the ordering of the universe.

16 Q Doctor Morowitz, is the scientific literature

17 regarding the ordering effect of the flow of energy well

18 known?

19 A Yes. It's certainly well known to all

20 thermodynamicists.

21 Q Is there a considerable amount of such literature?

22 A There are a number of books, scientific books,

23 there are a large number of journal articles on the

24 subject. And it's even found its way into the popular

25 press in the sense that in 1977 Ilya Prigogine was awarded


1 A (Continuing) the Nobel Prize in chemistry, cited in

2 part because of the results of his theory on the ordering

3 effect in biological systems, so that the matters we're

4 talking about are extremely well known.

5 Q Do you know whether there is any indication that

6 the creation-scientists who have written the literature

7 that you have read are familiar with this science

8 literature about the ordering effect of energy flow?

9 A Well, very frequently they quote the authors who

10 have written on the subject of the ordering effect of

11 energy flow, ut they rarely quote them in the exact areas

12 which are stressing that ordering effect.

13 Q Do they quote you?

14 A Yes, they do.

15 Q And you've written about the ordering effect of

16 energy flow, is that right?

17 A Yes, I have.

18 Q Doctor Morowitz, looking back at the book

19 Scientific Creationism, what is your assessment of the

20 rest of the section that you were referring to, through

21 page 46, I believe.

22 A Well it then goes on to what I would consider a

23 good deal of rambling, rather unscientific rambling.

24 Unscientific in the sense that wherever an open question

25 arises, it's referred back to an act of creation, whereas


1 A (Continuing) the scientific approach to an open

2 question would be to go into the laboratory and try to do

3 the experiments or to set up a theory or to do the hard

4 work, the enthusiastic science of going ahead and trying

5 to solve the problem.

6 And in the approach there, the unsolved problems are

7 always referred back to the supernatural, rather than the

8 scientific approach of `how do we go about solving them'.

9 Q Doctor Morowitz, you're a scientist studying the

10 origins of life. How do you approach that subject in

11 terms of your science?

12 A Well, I have certain reasonably detailed hypotheses

13 about now the energy flows in the early pre-biotic system

14 led to the chemical orderings in that system. And what I

15 do is to set up experiments in the laboratory, where we

16 actually introduce those flows into the system and then we

17 conduct various kinds of chemical and physical

18 investigations of the systems that are subject to these

19 energy flows to see now they organize under those flows.

20 Q Do you then publish your work as it proceeds?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Doctor Morowitz, do you know of any creation

23 science experimentation regarding the origins of life?

24 A I am not aware of any creation science experiments

25 in this area.


1 Q Are you aware of any creation science literature-

2 I'm sorry. Are you aware of any creation science

3 publication of his theory of the origins of life in any

4 reputable scientific journal?

5 A I'm not aware of it in any of the journals that I

6 read.

7 Q Doctor Morowitz, we have been speaking mostly about

8 the book, Scientific Creationism. What is your opinion

9 about the other creation-science literature you have read,

10 with respect to its attributes as science?

11 A Well, I think it's all very comparable. I think

12 this is a paradigm example, and insofar as this is not

13 science, the rest of the literature also is not science.

14 Q Doctor Morowitz, in your professional opinion, does

15 the creation-science treatment of abiogenesis, the origins

16 of life from non-life, have the attributes of science?

17 A No.

18 Q In your professional opinion, does the creation

19 science treatment of the second law of thermodynamics have

20 the attributes of science?

21 A No.

22 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I have no further questions.

23 MR CHILDS: We will reserve our cross examination

24 until after Doctor Gould's direct and cross.

25 THE COURT: All right. Fine.


1 MR NOVIK: May we please have a few minutes?

2 We'll be getting Doctor Gould from the witness room.

3 THE COURT: We'll take a ten minute recess.

4 (Thereupon, court was in

5 recess from 10:50 a.m.

6 to 11:00 a.m.)


8 MR NOVIK: Plaintiffs' next witness is Doctor

9 Stephen Gould.


11 Thereupon,



13 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

14 seen first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

15 testified as follows:,




18 Q Professor Gould, what is your current employment?

19 A Professor of Geology at Harvard University and

20 curator of invertebrate paleontology and comparative

21 zoology there.

22 Q I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 96

23 for identification, which purports to be your curriculum

24 vitae.

25 A (Examining same)


1 Q Does it accurately reflect your education,

2 training, experience and publications?

3 A Yes, it does.

4 MR NOVIK: I move that that be received in

5 evidence, your Honor.

6 THE COURT: That will be received.

7 MR NOVIK: (Continuing)

8 Q Professor Gould, when and where did your receive

9 your Ph.D.?

10 A Columbia University in 1967.

11 Q In what field?

12 A In paleontology.

13 Q What are your areas of expertise?

14 A Paleontology, geology, evolutionary theory, and

15 I've also studied the history of evolutionary theory.

16 Q Have you published a substantial number of books

17 and articles in these fields?

18 A Yes. I've written five books and more than a

19 hundred and fifty articles.

20 MR NOVIK: Your Honor, I offer Professor Gould as

21 an expert in the fields of geology, paleontology,

22 evolutionary theory, and the history of evolutionary

23 theory.

24 THE COURT: Any voir dire?

25 MR. WILLIAMS: No, your Honor.


1 MR NOVIK: (Continuing)

2 Professor Gould, I'm showing you a copy of Act

3 590. Have you had an opportunity to read that act?

4 A Yes, I have.

5 Q Have you read Act 590's definition of

6 creation-science as it relates specifically to geology?

7 A Yes. As it relates specifically to geology, point

8 number 5 proclaims that the earth's geology should be

9 explained by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a

10 world wide flood.

11 Q Have you read the creation science literature

12 relative to geology?

13 A I have indeed. Let me say just for the record,

14 though, I'll use the term `creation science' because it's

15 so enjoined by the Act, but in my view there is no such

16 item and creation science is not science. I would prefer

17 to refer to it as creationism.

18 But yes, I have read the creation science literature, so

19 called.

20 Q Is the statutory definition of creation science as

21 it relates to geology consistent with that creation

22 science literature?

23 A Yes. The creation science literature attempts to

24 interpret, in most of that literature, the entire

25 geological column as the product of Noah's Flood and its


1 A (Continuing) consequences, and it is certainly

2 consistent with point number 5 of the Act.

3 Q Have you read Act 590's definition of evolution as

4 it relates specifically to geology?

5 A Yes. I would say that that primarily is the point

6 that uniformitarianism is-

7 Q And the Act defines it as-

8 A Oh, yes. An explanation of the earth's geology by

9 catastrophism. Or it says that evolution is the

10 explanation of the earth's geology and evolutionary

11 sequence by uniformitarianism.

12 Q What does uniformitarianism mean?

13 A As creation science defines it, it refers to the

14 theory that I would call the notion of gradualism, namely,

15 that the phenomena of the earth and geological record were

16 produced by slow, steady, imperceptible change, and the

17 bar scale events were produced by this slow accumulation

18 of imperceptible change.

19 Q And it is in that sense that uniformitarianism is

20 used in the Act?

21 A In the Act, yes.

22 Q Are you familiar with scientific literature in the

23 field of geology?

24 A Yes, I have. In fact, I have authored several

25 articles on the meaning of uniformitarianism.


1 Q Is Act 590's definition of evolution in respect to

2 uniformitarianism consistent with the scientific

3 literature?

4 A Certainly not. It may be true that Charles Lyell,

5 a great nineteenth century geologist, had a fairly extreme

6 view of gradualism, but that's been entirely abandoned by

7 geologists today.

8 Geologists have been quite comfortable with the

9 explanations that some events have been the accumulation

10 of small changes, and others as the result of, at least,

11 local catastrophes.

12 Q So modern geologists believe in both; is that

13 correct?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Is the Act's definition of evolution in terms of

16 uniformitarianism creation consistent with the creation

17 science literature?

18 A Oh, yes. The creation science literature continues

19 to use the term "uniformitarianism" only to refer to the

20 notion of extreme gradualism. For example, they argue

21 that since fossils are generally only formed when

22 sediments accumulate very rapidly, that, therefore, there

23 is evidence for catastrophe, and somehow that confutes

24 uniformitarianism.

25 In fact, paleontologists do not deny that fossils that


1 A (Continuing) are preserved are generally buried by

2 at least locally catastrophic events, storms or rapid

3 accumulations of sediments. And indeed, that's why we

4 believe the fossils record is so imperfect and most

5 fossils never get a chance to be preserved, because the

6 rate of sedimentation is usually slow and most fossils

7 decay before they can be buried.

8 Q Is there any sense in which modern geologists do

9 believe in uniformitarianism?

10 A Indeed, but in a totally different meaning.

11 The term `uniformitarianism' has two very distinct

12 meanings that are utterly separate. First is the

13 methodological claim that the laws of nature are unvaried,

14 but natural laws can be used to explain the past as well

15 as the present.

16 That's a methodological claim that we assert in order to

17 do science.

18 The second meaning which we've been discussing, the

19 substantiative claim of falsifiable, the claim is often

20 false, about actual rates of change. Namely, the rates of

21 change are constant. And that is a diagnostic question for

22 scientists.

23 Q Could you give us an example of these two different

24 meanings of uniformitarianism?

25 A Yes. For example, take apples falling off of


1 A (Continuing) trees. That's the usual one. The

2 first principle, the methodological one that we do accept

3 as part of the definition of science, holds that if apples

4 fall off trees, they do that under the influence of

5 gravity. And we may assume that they do so in the past

6 and will continue to do so in the future.

7 For example, the great Scottish geologist James Hutton

8 said in the late eighteenth century on this point, that if

9 the stone, for example, which falls today will rise again

10 tomorrow, principles would fail and we would no longer be

11 able to investigate the past in the present. So that's

12 what we mean by the methodological assumption.

13 The notion of gradualism or constancy of rates would

14 hold, for example, that if two million apples fell off

15 trees in the state of Arkansas this year, then we could

16 assume with the constancy of rates in a million years from

17 now, two millions apples would fall, which of course is

18 absurd. Apples could become extinct between now and

19 then. We've got a contravene in the laws of science.

20 Q Does the creation science literature accurately

21 reflect these two different meanings of uniformitarianism?

22 A No, it doesn't. It continually confuses the two,

23 arguing that because we can't refute constancy of rates,

24 in many cases which indeed we can, that, therefore,

25 somehow the principle of the uniformity of law, or the


1 A (Continuing) constancy of natural law, is also

2 thrown into question. And they are totally separate

3 issues.

4 Q Let's return to the Act's definition of creation

5 science as including scientific evidence for a worldwide

6 flood. Are you aware of any scientific evidence which

7 would indicate a worldwide flood?

8 A No, I'm not.

9 Q Are you familiar with creation science literature

10 concerning a worldwide flood?

11 A Yes, I've read a good deal of it.

12 Q Is the creation-science theory concerning a

13 worldwide flood a scientific theory?

14 A At its core, it surely isn't, because from the

15 literature I've read, it explicitly calls upon miraculous

16 intervention by God; that it is an extension of natural

17 law.

18 That's what I take it we mean by miracles, for some of

19 these events in the flood narrative. For example, there

20 just isn't enough water in the world's oceans to

21 thoroughly cover the continents in a deluge as profound as

22 that of Noah's, and so they call upon water that is

23 presumed to be in the earth and Whitcomb and Morris in The

24 Genesis Flood talk about a giant canopy of water above the

25 firmament. But then have to rely upon God's miraculous


1 A (Continuing) intervention to get that water onto

2 the earth. If I may quote from Whitcomb and Morris-

3 Q What are you quoting from?

4 A Pardon me. It's from The Genesis Flood, by John

5 Whitcomb and Henry Morris. On page 76, the statement,

6 "The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any

7 kind of a Genesis flood without acknowledging the presence

8 of supernatural events."

9 Then the next paragraph, "That God intervened in the

10 supernatural way to gather the animals into the ark and to

11 keep them under control during the year of the flood is

12 explicitly stated in the text of scripture. Furthermore,

13 it is obvious that the opening of the windows of heaven in

14 order to allow the waters which were above the firmament

15 to fall upon the earth, and the breaking up of all the

16 bounties of the great deep, were supernatural acts of God."

17 THE COURT: What page?

18 THE WITNESS: Page 76, your Honor.

19 THE COURT: What exhibit?

20 MR NOVIK: Your Honor, I believe that The Genesis

21 Flood has been pre-marked- Actually, that has not been

22 pre-marked.

23 If the Court would like, we could mark that as

24 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 124-126.

25 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

Q You testified that at its core the flood theory is


1 Q (Continuing) a supernatural, relies on a

2 supernatural process; is that correct?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Are there any predictions based on flood geology

5 that can be tested?

6 A Yes, they do make certain testable predictions.

7 They have been tested and falsified long ago.

8 Q Could you give an example, please?

9 A Yes. The creation science literature assumes that

10 since God created all forms of life in six days of

11 twenty-four hours, that, therefore, all animals lived

12 simultaneously together. One would, therefore, assume, at

13 first thought, that the geological strata or the earth

14 would mix together all the forms of life, and yet that is

15 outstandingly not so.

16 And the outstanding fact of the fossil record which must

17 be admitted by everybody, creationists and evolutionists

18 alike, of course, is that rather than mixing together all

19 the animals, that the geological record is very well

20 ordered; that is, we have sequence of strata, and

21 different kinds of animals and plants characterize

22 different layers of those strata.

23 For example, in a rather old strata, we get certain

24 kinds of invertebrate, such as trilobites that are never

25 found in higher strata.


1 A (Continuing)

2 In strata of the middle age we find dinosaurs, but never

3 trilobites. They're gone. Never large mammals. In upper

4 strata we find large mammals but never any dinosaurs.

5 There is a definite sequence that occurs in the same

6 manner throughout the world and that would seem to

7 contradict the expectation that all forms of life lived

8 simultaneously should not so order themselves.

9 And therefore, creation scientists, in order to get

10 around this dilemma and to invoke another aspect of the

11 Genesis story, call upon Noah's flood and say that all the

12 animals and plants were mixed up together in this gigantic

13 flood and that the ordering in the strata of the earth

14 records the way in which these creatures settled out in

15 the strata after the flood or as the result of the flood.

16 Q Have creation scientists advanced any specific

17 arguments or claims for why a worldwide flood would sort

18 out the fossils in this unvarying sequence?

19 A Yes. As I read the literature, there are three

20 primary explanations that they invoke. First, what might

21 be called the principle of hydrodynamic sorting. That

22 when the flood was over, those creatures that were denser

23 or more streamlined would fall first to the bottom and

24 should end up in the lower strata.

25 The second principle you might call the principle of


1 A (Continuing) ecological zonation, namely, things

2 living in the bottom of the ocean end up in the lowest

3 strata, where those that lived in mountaintops, for

4 example, would probably end up in the uppermost strata.

5 And the third principle that they use is what I might

6 call differential intelligence of mobility. That smarter

7 animals or animals that can move and avoid the flood

8 waters might end up in higher strata because they would

9 have escaped the rising flood waters longer than others.

10 Q Are those three claims or hypotheses consistent

11 with the observable facts?

12 A Certainly not.

13 Q In your opinion, have they been falsified by the

14 observable facts?

15 A Yes, they have.

16 Q Could you give an example, please?

17 A Yes. If you look at the history of any

18 invertebrate group, for example, our record is very good.

19 We have thousands upon thousands of species in those

20 groups, and each species is confined to strata at a

21 certain point in the geological column.

22 They are recognizable species that only occur in a small

23 part of the geological column and in the same order

24 everywhere. And yet we find that throughout the history

25 of invertebrates, we get species each occurring at a


1 A (Continuing) separate level, but they do not

2 differ in any of those properties.

3 For example, in the history of clams, clams arose five

4 or six hundred million years ago. Initially almost all

5 clams were shallow burrowers, in that they burrowed into

6 the sediment. Now, it's true that in the history of clams

7 there have been some additions to that repertoire, some

8 clams like the scallops now swim, others are attached to

9 the top, but in fact, a large majority, large number of

10 species of clams still live in the same way.

11 So there is no difference in the hydrodynamic principles

12 among those clams throughout time; there is no difference

13 in ecological life-style, they are all shallow water

14 burrowers; they are not different in terms of intelligence

15 or mobility, indeed, clams can't even have heads. So they

16 cannot be intelligent creatures.

17 And yet, as I stated, each species of clam lives in a

18 definite part of the stratigraphic column and only there.

19 There are large-scale extinctions of certain kinds; you

20 never see them again, yet they do not differ in any of

21 the ways that the creation scientists have invoked to

22 explain the order in the strata as the results of the

23 single flood.

24 Q Could you give another example, please?

25 A Yes. Another good example is in the evolution of


1 A (Continuing) single-celled creatures. It is a

2 unicellular calcite (sic?) called foraminifera. Many of the

3 foraminifera are planktonic; that is, they are floating

4 organisms. They all live in the same lake floating at the

5 top or the upper waters of the oceans, they don't differ

6 in hydrodynamic properties. They live in the same

7 ecological zone, and they certainly don't differ in

8 intelligence and mobility. They don't even have a nervous

9 system.

10 And yet for the last twenty years there has been a

11 worldwide program to collect deep sea cores from all the

12 oceans of the earth. And in those cores, the sequence of

13 planktonic foraminifera species are invariably the same.

14 Each species is recognizable and lives in only a small

15 part of the column; some at the bottom of the column, some

16 at the top of the column. Those at the bottom do not

17 differ from those at the top, either in intelligence,

18 ecological examination, or hydrodynamic properties.

19 Q Professor Gould, does the creation science argument

20 based on principles of hydraulics explain why trilobites

21 are always found in the bottom layers of the stratigraphic

22 record?

23 A Certainly not. Trilobites are the most prominent

24 invertebrate animals found in the early strata that

25 contain complex invertebrates, but they are neither


1 A (Continuing) particularly streamlined or very

2 thin. In fact, one group of trilobites that occurred

3 early, even within the history of trilobites, in the

4 earliest rocks we call Cambrian, called the agnostids,

5 which are very delicate, tiny, floating creatures, yet

6 they are abundant not only with the trilobites, but early

7 in the history of trilobites. I don't see how that can be

8 explained that in any creation science philosophy.

9 Q Professor Gould, you have been talking up until now

10 about invertebrates. Do these creation science arguments

11 explain the stratigraphic sequence of vertebrates?

12 A They do just as badly. The earliest fossil

13 vertebrates are fishes, and one might think that's all

14 right because they were swimming in the sea, and yet in

15 detail it doesn't work out that well.

16 Indeed, the fishes with the relatively largest brains,

17 namely the sharks, occur rather early in the record. And

18 even more importantly, those fishes that, in fact, today

19 represent more than ninety percent of all fish species,

20 the teleosts, the most advanced fish, do not appear until

21 much later and do not flower until the period that we call

22 Cretaceous, which is sixty to a hundred million years

23 ago. The record of fishes goes back to three or four

24 hundred million years ago.

25 Why should the teleosts occur only in the upper strata?


1 A (Continuing)

2 Moreover, when you look at the history of other

3 vertebrate groups, in both the reptile and the mammals,

4 there are several lineages that have secondarily evolved

5 from terrestrial life to marine life and, therefore, lived

6 in the sea with fishes and you might expect them at the

7 bottom of the column. They're not. In fact, they occur

8 in geological sequences where their terrestrial relatives

9 occur.

10 For example, during the age of dinosaurs, there were

11 several linages of reptiles that returned to the sea.

12 Ichthyosaurus, pelycosarus and the therapsids, in

13 particular. And they are always found in the middle

14 strata with dinosaurs, never in the lower strata.

15 When you get a history of mammals, you find whales only

16 in the upper strata with other large mammals, never in the

17 lower strata, with the early fishes.

18 Q Do geologists and paleontologists have natural law

19 explanations for the universal sequences found in the

20 fossil record?

21 A Yes. The earth is very ancient, and those animals

22 that were alive at any given time occur in the rocks

23 deposited at that time. They then become extinct or

24 evolve into something else, and that's why they're never

25 found in younger rocks deposited on top of those.


1 Q Is it possible to determine at least relative dates

2 for the different strata in the stratigraphic record?

3 A Yes, indeed, just by noting which fossils

4 invariably occur in strata on top of others, and,

5 therefore, we assume deposited later and, therefore,

6 younger.

7 Q In assigning relative dates to the stratigraphic

8 record, is it necessary to rely at all on any theory of

9 evolution or any assumption of evolution?

10 A Certainly not. It's merely a question of

11 observation, to see what fossils occur in what sequences.

12 It's the same way throughout the earth; there is no

13 assumptionary process at all involved in that.

14 Q Do creation scientists claim that evolutionary

15 theory does play a role in the relative dating of the

16 geologic column?

17 A Yes. One of the most persistent claims is that the

18 whole geological column is probably invalid, because it's

19 involved in a circular argument, namely, that since you

20 need to assume evolution in order to establish the

21 sequence of fossils, but then use that sequence to

22 demonstrate evolution, that the whole subject is

23 tautological.

24 If I may give you some examples?

25 Q Please do.


1 A In Scientific Creationism

2 MR. NOVIK: I believe that's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 76

3 for identification, your Honor.

4 A In Scientific Creationism, on pages 95 and 96, we

5 read, as a cardinal principle, number 2, page 95, "The

6 assumption of evolution is the basis upon which fossils

7 are used to date the rocks." And then the tautology

8 argument is made on the next page, 96, "Thus, although the

9 fossil record has been interpreted to teach evolution, the

10 record itself has been based on the assumption of

11 evolution."

12 I repeat, that is not so, it is merely based on

13 observation of evidence of sequence.

14 Now, I continue the quote, "The message is a mere

15 tautology. The fossils speak of evolution because they

16 have been made to speak of evolution."

17 "Finally we being to recognize the real message of the

18 fossil is that there is no truly objective time sequence

19 to the fossil record, since the time connections are based

20 on the evolutionary assumption."

21 And there's another example, Duane Gish, in Evolution:

22 The Fossils Say No.

23 MR. NOVIK: I believe that's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 78

24 for identification, your Honor. And the book, Scientific

25 Creationism, comes in two versions, a public school

     edition and a non-public school edition, and those are


1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing) Exhibits 76 and 75.

2 A Duane Gish writes on page 59, "This arrangement of

3 various types of fossiliferous deposits in a supposed

4 time-sequence is known as the geological column. Its

5 arrangement is based on the assumption of evolution.

6 Q Professor Gould, would you please explain how

7 geologists do assign relative dates to different layers of

8 the stratigraphic record?

9 A Yes. We use these principles that have names that

10 involve some jargon. They are called the principles of

11 original horizontality; the principle of superposition,

12 and the principle of biotic succession.

13 Q What is the principle of original horizontality?

14 A The principle of original horizontality states that

15 sedimentary rocks that are deposited over large areas, say

16 that are deposited in oceans or lakes, are laid down

17 initially in relatively horizontal layers.

18 That doesn't mean that in a small area if you deposited

19 on a hill slope that you might not get some that are

20 somewhat inclined, but at least deposition in large basins

21 would be fundamentally horizontal.

22 Q What is the principle of superposition?

23 A The principle of superposition states that given

24 that principle of horizontality, that those strata that

25 lie on top of others will be younger because they were


1 A (Continuing) deposited later, unless subsequent

2 movements of the earth have disturbed the sequence by

3 folding, faulting, and other such processes.

4 Q What is folding?

5 A I will illustrate. Folding is when rocks

6 originally deposited in horizontal layers are twisted and

7 contorted in such a way that the sequence can be changed.

8 For example, if we had three horizontal layers laid

9 down, originally horizontal, in superposition, if through

10 later earth movement they got folded over, you can see how

11 the top layer here, which is the youngest layer, in a

12 folded sequence would come to lie underneath a layer of

13 rock actually older than it.

14 Q What is faulting?

15 A Faulting is when rocks break and later move. For

16 example, the kind of faulting most relevant here is what

17 we call thrust faulting. Suppose the rocks break. So we

18 have that three ways (Indicating), and that is the break

19 and that's the fault. Then what we call thrust faulting.

20 One sequence of rocks that is literally pushed over on top

27 of another, and that would also create a reverse of the

22 sequence, such as you see here. The oldest strata here,

23 this so-called thrust block broken and pushed over this

24 older stratum and would then come to lie upon the younger

25 stratum here, and you get all of those sequence.


1 Q Are geologists able to tell whether folding or

2 faulting or some other geological process has disturbed

3 the initial strata?

A Yes. And I should say it is not done secularly by

5 finding of fossil sequences, and then assuming that only

6 because of that there must be a fold or a fault. We look

7 for direct evidence, of fold or fault.

8 There are two main ways of doing that. The first is

9 geological mapping, where you actually trace out the folds

10 and faults in the earth's strata.

11 In the others you can well imagine what there is. For

12 example, in thrust faulting, a large block or blocks has

13 literally been pushed over. In another, there would be

14 some disturbance of the boundary. That is, this heavy

15 block of rock has literally pushed over the other. But

16 you would get fracturing and folding of rocks from either

17 side of the so-called thrust plane, and we find this.

18 Q Could you please give an example of a thrust fault?

19 A Probably the most famous thrust fault that is known

20 in the United States is the so-called Lewis Overthrust in

21 Montana where rather ancient rocks of pre-Cambrian age,

22 that is current even before we have the first

23 invertebrates and the fossil record, are thrust over much

24 younger rocks of Cretaceous age that is coeval with the

25 dinosaurs.


1 Q What do creation scientists say about the Lewis

2 Overthrust?

3 A They try to argue that it's a good example of why

4 the geological column is wrong, because of the sequence of

5 the mass and the sequence of fossils, and that it isn't

6 really an overthrust because they claim that the

7 sedimentary layers are in fact undisturbed, and that the

8 so-called thrust plane is really just a bedding plane, and

9 that it's a single calm sequence of the process of rocks.

10 Q Did they cite any evidence for that claim?

11 A Well, they certainly claim to. For example, again,

12 in the Genesis Flood that we referred to previously by

13 Whitcomb and Morris—

14 MR. NOVIK: That's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 126.

15 A —we find the following statement about the Genesis

16 flood. Whitcomb and Morris are here quoting from a

17 reputable source.

18 Q This is a statement about the Lewis Overthrust?

19 A Yes. A statement about the Lewis Overthrust from

20 an article by C.P. Ross and Richard Rezak quoted by

21 Whitcomb and Morris. And the quotation on page 187

22 reads: "Most visitors, especially those who stay on the

23 roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are

24 undisturbed" — the Belt strata is the upper strata of the

25 pre-Cambrian thrust, sorry — "that the Belt strata are


1 A (Continuing) undisturbed and lie almost as flat

2 today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished

3 so many years ago."

4 And that would seem to indicate that it was just a

5 single sequence. It's rather interesting if you would go

6 back to the Ross and Rezak article and read the very next

7 statement, which Morris and Whitcomb did not cite, you

8 would find the following.

9 The very next statement, uncited by Whitcomb and Morris,

10 is as follows: "Actually," talking about folded rocks,

11 "they are folded, and in certain places, they are

12 intensely so. From points on and near the trails in the

13 park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt

14 series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and

15 canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as

16 intricately as the soft younger strata in the mountains

17 south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the

18 park to the east," the younger strata being the Cretaceous

19 rocks below.

20 But that's certainly a good example of selective

21 misquotation.

22 THE COURT: Let me see if I've got both of those

23 references.

24 MR. NOVIK: The second reference, your Honor, I

25 believe has been marked as Plaintiffs'—


1 THE COURT: Before you get to the second one, the

2 first one is—

3 A The first one, your Honor, is from The Genesis

4 Flood.

5 THE COURT: That's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 126?

6 MR. NOVIK: That's correct, your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Page what?

8 MR. NOVIK: Page 187.

9 A The continuation, I'm citing from an article by

10 Christopher Weber called Common Creationist Attacks on

11 Geology.

12 THE COURT: Is that an exhibit?

13 MR. NOVIK: It's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 127, your

14 Honor.

15 THE COURT: From what page are you reading?

16 A That is on page 21, if I'm not mistaken. 21 and

17 22. It continues on 22.

18 Q Professor Gould, while the Court is making that

19 notation, if I might simply state, if you could slow down

20 your answers a little, the court reporter might be able

21 to—

22 A I apologize. My father is a court stenographer,

23 and I should know better.

24 Q Professor Gould, you've talked about the first two

25 principles geologists rely upon to assign relative dates


1 Q (Continuing) to this stratigraphic record. What

2 is the third principle?

3 A The third principle is biotic succession, which

4 states that fossils occur in the same sequence everywhere

5 in the earth.

6 For example, if we go to one place and examine a

7 sequence of strata, and we find — Well, they don't have

8 to be organisms — suppose we found bolts, nuts, and

9 screws. Bolts in the oldest rocks, nuts in the rocks, on

10 top of them, and screws in the rocks on top of them. By

11 the principle of biotic succession, we would find that

12 same sequence anywhere on earth.

13 If we went to another area, for example, we would find

14 bolts at the bottom, rocks in the middle, and screws on

15 top. And we use that to predict.

16 Suppose we go to another area and we find only one

17 sequence with only nuts in it, we would predict that in

18 rocks below that, if we dug, for example, we would

19 probably find bolts, and then screws would be in rocks

20 found on top of that.

21 Q And is that what you find?

22 A Yes, indeed.

23 Q Everywhere in the—

24 A Except when the sequence has been altered by

25 folding or faulting, and we could determine that on other


1 A (Continuing) grounds.

2 Q In order to assign relative dates based on the

3 sequence of fossils, is it necessary to assume that the

4 fossils in the higher strata evolved from the fossils in

5 the lower strata?

6 A Certainly not. It's merely a question of preserved

7 sequence. You don't have to assume any theory or process

8 at all. It could literally be bolts, nuts, and screws.

9 If they compared the same sequence everywhere, we could

10 use them.

11 Q So is the creation science claim that the

12 assumptions of evolutionary theory are essential to the

13 relative dating of the stratigraphic record correct?

14 A No. It's a red herring. The stratigraphic record

15 is established by observation and superposition.

16 Q When were those relative dates first established?

17 A In broad outline, the geological column was fully

18 established before Darwin published The Origin of

19 Species. And I might add, was established by scientists

20 by the most part who did not believe in evolution, didn't

21 even have the hypothesis available.

22 In fact, some of the scientists who first worked on the

23 geologic problem didn't even believe that the fossils they

24 had been classifying were organic. They really did see

25 them as so many nuts, bolts and screws, and yet recognized


1 A (Continuing) that you could date rocks thereby.

2 Q And is that knowledge of when the relative dates

3 were first assigned widely known?

4 A Indeed.

5 Q Do creation scientists refer to that at all?

6 A Not that I've seen.

7 Q Is there any other evidence in the fossil record

8 which is inconsistent with flood geology?

9 A Yes. I think the outstanding fact of the fossil

10 record is the evidence of several periods of mass

11 extinction during the history of life. And by mass

12 extinction, your Honor, I mean that you will find at a

13 certain level in the geological column, a certain strata

14 in rocks of the same age, the simultaneous last occurrence

15 of many forms of life; that you would never find any of

16 them in younger rocks piled on top of them.

17 The two most outstanding such extinctions are the one

18 that marked the end of the Permian Period, some two

19 hundred twenty-five million years ago when fully fifty

20 percent of all families of marine invertebrates became

21 extinct within a very short space of time.

22 The other major extinction, not quite as tumultuous, but

23 in effect was more famous, was the one that occurred at

24 the end of the Cretaceous, some sixty-five million years

25 later. The dinosaurs became extinct then, as well as


1 A (Continuing) several invertebrate groups,

2 including the amniotes. That posed a problem for the

3 creation science literature I've read, because they want

4 to see the entire geological column as the result of this

5 single flood of Noah, and they are expecting a more graded

6 sequence. Due to hydrodynamic sorting or differential

7 intelligence, you wouldn't expect these several episodes

8 of mass extinction.

9 Q How do creation scientists explain away the

10 evidence of repeated episodes of mass extinction?

11 A In the literature that I've read, in a most

12 remarkable way, considering that this is the outstanding

13 fact of the geological records paleontologists study.

14 Simply by not referring to it.

15 In Scientific Creationism, by Henry Morris, again, what

16 he does is merely to cite from a newspaper report coming,

17 at least from a science newspaper, a secondary news

18 journal, not even from the primary literature, one single

19 citation in which he misquotes a scientist to the effect

20 that perhaps these extinctions don't take place.

21 And he then argues, `You see, there weren't any such

22 extinctions anyway,' which I think makes a mockery of

23 hundreds of volumes of scientific literature devoted to

24 the study of mass extinctions and their causes.

25 Q Is the flood geology proposed by creation


1 Q (Continuing) scientists a new idea?

2 A No, it isn't. It was proposed more than a hundred

3 and fifty years ago, tested and falsified. It was, in

4 fact, the subject of intense geological discussion in

5 England in the 1820's. It was assumed by many of the

6 early geologists particularly the Reverend William

7 Buckland, the first professor, the first reader of geology

8 at Oxford University— Now, he didn't try to claim the

9 whole geological column was the result of this single

10 flood, out he did try and argue that all the upper strata

11 were products of a single flood. And indeed, he wrote a

12 book called The Reliqwae Deluviavi, or the relics of the

13 flood, in 1820 to argue that.

14 That proposition was extensively tested throughout the

15 1820's and falsified, because scientists, including

16 Buckland, who came to deny his previous assertion, found

17 that all the strata that they assumed were the same age

18 and a product of a single flood, were in many cases

19 superposed, and, therefore, represented many different

20 episodes.

21 Now, we know today that they, in fact, represent the

22 remains of glacial ages, not floods, and that there were

23 several ice ages.

24 Indeed, in 1831, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, then

25 president of the Geological Society of London, read in his


1 A (Continuing) presidential address, his recantation

2 of the flood theory. And I'd like to read it, because to

3 my mind it's one of the most beautiful statements ever

4 written by a scientist to express the true nature of

5 science as a tentative and correctable set of principles.

6 Adam Sedgwick, in the 1831 address, first of all, writes

7 that the theory is falsified, and says, "There is, I

8 think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably

9 established, namely, that the vast masses diluvial gravel"

10 — That's the name they gave to this strata they were

11 trying to attribute to the flood — "scattered almost over

12 the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and

13 transitory period."

14 Then he makes what is one of my favorite statements in

15 the history of science. He writes, "Having been myself a

16 believer, and to the best of my power, a propagator of

17 what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more

18 than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain,

19 I think it right as one of my last acts before I quit this

20 chair" — that is the chair of the Geological Society of

21 London — "thus publicly to read my recantation. We

22 ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the

23 Diluvian theory" — that was the flood theory — "and

24 referred all our old superficial gravel to the actions of

25 Mosaic flood. In classing together distant unknown


1 A (Continuing) formations under one name and giving

2 them a simultaneous origin, and in determining their date

3 not, by the organic remains we have discovered, but by

4 those we expected hypothetically hereafter to discover in

5 them, we have given one more example of the passion with

6 which the mind fastens upon general conclusions and of the

7 readiness with which it leaves the consideration of

8 unconnected truths."

9 Q Professor Gould, in your professional opinion, has

10 the flood geology theory required by a literal

11 interpretation of Genesis been falsified?

12 A Yes, it has, more than a hundred and fifty years

13 ago. Nothing new has occurred since then.

14 Q Is it consistent with a scientific method to

15 persist in a theory that has been falsified?

16 A Certainly not.

17 Q Professor Gould, have you read Act 590's definition

18 of creation science, as it relates specifically to

19 paleontology?

20 A Yes. Item 2.

21 Q What does Act 590 provide with regards to

22 paleontology?

23 A It states explicitly that there are changes only

24 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

25 and animals, and then explicitly states there must be a


1 A (Continuing) separate ancestry for man and apes.

2 Q Have you read the creation science literature

3 relevant to paleontology?

4 A Yes, I have.

5 Q Are Sections 4 (a), subdivisions 3 and 4 of the

6 Act's definition of creation science consistent with that

7 creation science literature?

8 A Yes. The main point that that literature makes is

9 how the existence of so-called gaps in the record — and

10 by `gaps' we mean the absence of transitional forms

11 linking ancestors and descendants — but the gaps in the

12 record are evidence for the changes only within fixed

13 limits of created kinds.

14 Q Is that a scientific theory?

15 A In its formulation, certainly not, because it calls

16 again upon the suspension of natural law and the divine,

17 or the creation by miracle, by fiat, of new forms of life.

18 Q How does the creation science literature deal with

19 the fossil evidence in this regard?

20 A By selected quotation, by overstating the extended

21 gaps, by not mentioning the transitional forms that do

22 exist in the literature.

23 Q Are there natural law explanations for these gaps

24 in the record?

25 A Yes, there are. Though there are gaps, and I don't


1 A (Continuing) mean to say that every aspect within

2 them has been resolved. But there are two major natural

3 law explanations, the traditional one, and one proposed

4 rather more recently, in part by myself.

5 The traditional explanation relies upon the extreme

6 imperfection of the geological record, and the other

7 explanation argued that the gaps are, in fact, the result

8 of the way we expect evolution to occur. It's called the

9 theory of punctuated equilibrium.

10 Q Let's turn first to the imperfection in the fossil

11 record. Would you please elaborate upon that explanation?

12 A Yes. The fossil record is a woefully incomplete

13 version of all the forms of life that existed. Some tiny

14 fraction of one percent of all the creatures that ever

15 lived have any opportunity of being fossilized. In most

16 areas of the world rocks are not being deposited, but

17 rather are being eroded.

18 Lyell expressed it in a famous metaphor, usually known

19 to historians as the "metaphor of the book." Lyell argues

20 that the fossil record is like a book of which very few

21 pages are preserved, and of the pages that are preserved,

22 very few lines, of the lines that are preserved, few

23 words, and of the words, few letters.. We can well imagine

24 that in such a book you would not be able to read a

25 particularly complete story.


1 Q Given the infrequency of fossilization, would

2 scientists expect to find a complete record of the

3 evolutionary process?

4 A No, you would not.

5 Q Would you please briefly explain the theory of

6 punctuated equilibrium?

7 A The theory of punctuated equilibrium, which is an

8 attempt to explain gaps as the normal workings of the

9 evolutionary process, begins by making a distinction

10 between two modes of evolution. First, evolution might

11 occur by the wholesale or entire transformation of one's

12 form, one's species into another.

13 We maintain in the theory of punctuated equilibrium that

14 that is, in fact, not a common mode of evolution, but what

15 normally happens, the usual way for evolutionary change to

16 occur, is by a process called speciation or branching.

17 That it's not the whole transformation of one entire

18 species into another, out a process of branching, whereby

19 one form splits off. In other words, a small group of

20 creatures may become isolated geographically from the

21 parental population, and then, under this small isolated

22 area, undergo a process of accumulation of genetic

23 changes to produce a new species.

24 The second aspect of the theory of punctuated

25 equilibrium— The first one is—


1 THE COURT: Did you say equilibrium?

2 A Equilibrium. I did leave out a point there.

3 That most species, successful species living in large

4 populations, do not change. In fact, are fairly stable in

5 the fossil record and live for a long time. The average

6 duration of marine invertebrate species was five to ten

7 million years. During that time they may fluctuate mildly

8 in morphology, but most of them — I don't say there

9 aren't exceptions — most of them don't change very much.

10 That's what we would expect for large, successful,

11 well-adapted populations. And that's the equilibrium part.

12 By punctuation, we refer to those events of speciation

13 where descendent species rather rapidly in geological

14 perspectives split off from their ancestors. And that's

15 the second point.

16 First, that evolutionary changes accumulate, not

17 through the transformation of entire population, but

18 through events of slipping, branching, or speciation.

19 Then we have to look at the ordinary time course, how

20 long the event of speciation takes. And it seems to be

21 that it occurs probably on the average — there is an

22 enormous variation — in perhaps tens of thousands of years.

24 Now, tens of thousands of years, admittedly, is very

25 slow by the scale of our lives. By the scale of our


1 A (Continuing) lives, ten thousand years has been

2 deceptively slow. But remember, we're talking about

3 geological time. Ten thousand years, in almost every

4 geological situation, is represented by a single bedding

5 plane, by a single stratum, not by a long sequence of

6 deposits.

7 And therefore the species forms in ten thousand years,

8 although that's slow by the standards of our life, in

9 fact, in geological representation, you would find all of

10 that represented on a single bedding plane. In other

11 words, you wouldn't see it.

12 What's more, if it's a small, isolated population that's

13 speciated, then the chance of finding the actual event of

14 speciation is very, very small, indeed. And therefore, it

15 is characteristic of the fossil record that new species

16 appear geologically abruptly. This is to my mind a

17 correct representation of the way in which we believe the

18 evolution occurs.

19 Q Professor Gould, would it assist you in your

20 testimony in explaining punctuated equilibrium to refer to

21 a chart?

22 A Yes. I have a chart that I presented to you. What

23 we see here, your Honor—

24 MR. NOVIK: Professor Gould, let me state for the

25 record, I am handing to you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 101 for