WILLIAMS: Q Doctor Ruse, isn't it true the last time you were actually enrolled in a course in biology was at the age of approximately thirteen or fourteen? A: Probably more like thirteen or fourteen. Q That's what I said, thirteen or fourteen. A:Yes. Q And you have not made any independent examination of the scientific data to determine whether there are scientific evidences which support creation science, have you? A: No. Q You stated that all scientists that you were aware of believed that evolution happened? A: Yes. Q Do all scientists that you are aware of believe that life evolved from non-life? A: No. Q So to the extent that's part of evolution, all scientists don't agree with that, do they? A: Well, to the extent that's evolution. But of

302 A: (Continuing) course, as I said in my, earlier on, I don't conclude that in evolution. I say I don't. I don't think that evolutionists do. Q Do not some scientists include that? A: Well, creation scientists. Q Do not some scientists say that life emerged from non-life? A: Well, the word "emerged", of course, is a bit of a funny word. Q Evolved, I'll use that word. A: Certainly some scientists would say that. But as I said, that's not necessarily part of the theory of evolution.

Q But it is a scientific theory, nonetheless, isn't it? A: Well, it's a scientific hypothesis. Q It is science? A: Yes. Q And do some scientists say that, or have theories about how the universe was formed? A: They do. Q And is that science? A: Yes. Q How it was formed initially? The ultimate origin of the universe? A: Well, you know, you'd have to tell me what exactly

303 A: (Continuing) they are saying at a particular time. I mean, scientists, a lot of them are very religious, and certainly, I'm quite sure that some scientists have made claims that I would certainly judge to be religious and have then gone on to make scientific claims. Q Are you aware of what is commonly referred to as "the big bang theory"? A: I've certainly heard of it, but, no, this isn't my area of expertise. Q I understand that. But you consider that to the degree that you are aware of the theory to be a scientific hypothesis? A: To the degree that I'm aware of it, yes. Q Does the theory of evolution state exactly where man evolved from? A: Not really. The theory of evolution shouldn't be confused with sort of phylogeny, the actual path of evolution. A theory is something to do with the actual causes, the processes, rather than what actually happened right down the line like that. Now, certainly, I would say that evolutionists today believe that man evolved naturally. And I'm sure we all know that there is an awful lot of speculation about how this occurred.

304 A: (Continuing) But I wouldn't have said that the actual point at which man evolved was part of the theory, per se. It's something that you are going to try to explain through the mechanisms. Q You mentioned, I believe, was it Kant, is that correct?. A: K-a-n-t. Immanuel Kant. Q And he spoke of, perhaps, evolution of the world from some sort of clouds? A: Right. Q Would you consider that to be a scientific hypothesis? A: Well, I'd say it's a scientific hypothesis. Certainly at that point it wasn't much more. In the nineteenth century, quite a bit of work was done on the nebular hypothesis, and certain aspects of it seemed to work and others didn't. Q So again, that is science? A: Yes. I would want to say so, yes. At least I would want to say that it was something which could be dealt with as science. Q So generally, then, in terms of looking at theories of origin, we are talking about ultimate origins of the universe, the planet earth, and of life; that there are what you consider to be theories or hypotheses of science

305 Q (Continuing) which address these questions. Is that correct? A: No. I don't like your words "ultimate origins". I think you are trying to slip that one in there. Talking of origins, yes, I think that they can be scientific theories. If you're going to start talking about ultimate origins in the sense of where did it all begin way back when; start wondering what was before time started, then I don't see that this is necessarily going to be scientific at all. Seems to me you are really getting into metaphysics or religion. Q In other words, when you say ultimate, do you consider that to mean, for example, where matter came from, the inorganic matter from which life later evolved?

A: I think you certainly could. But you are talking about the nebular hypothesis, for example. Now, Kant, as it were, took the gases. I mean, he said, "Look, we start with these gases, and there seems to be evidence of these. Now, how could these, as it were, develop into a universe like ours?" Now, in that sort of sense of origin, I would say that we could certainly have a scientific theory; we can have a hypothesis. I'm not sure, though, that I'd want to talk about that as ultimate origins.

306 Q I understand that your theory of evolution, as you have articulated in your testimony here today, takes life as a given; that there was life? A: Well, it's not my theory. Q Well, the one that you have articulated and we have adopted? A: Yes. I would say it takes life as a given. I'm certainly not denying it, but there is going to be obvious interests in, well, where did life come from before that. Q And that can be a question of science? A: It certainly can, yes. Not that it can be, but certainly is. Q Then how can we, first of all, test those theories? For example, the nebular hypothesis, how the world was formed from clouds. A: Well, do you mind if we talk about how we test, say, a theory, a biological theory, because, as I say, my area of expertise is not positive physics. Q But you have said this is a science theory, so I'd like to know how— A: Sure. Well, what you're going to do is a number of things. First of all, for example, with nebular hypothesis, you might see, for example, whether it's happening elsewhere in the universe, whether something analogous is occurring. That's one way. It's sort of a natural


so on and so forth. What they think would be closely analogous. Q Closely analogous? A: Closely analogous. I doubt if you and I would be arguing like — well. look. say. and then put these people together into. First of all. you are going to start with inorganic molecules. yes. life might be naturally produced. And so you are going to start to think about the sorts of stages in which life might be produced. I mean. This is the sort of work scientists are doing. what you might try to do is run some controlled experiments of your own. we were not there to see it happen. computer simulated models and so on and so forth. Q Why not? A: Well. 308 Q How it might have happened? A: Well. suggestion that maybe the earth originally had certain gases. I mean. to continue. Now. you might try to set up some sort of model which you think in some respects is very similar. certain sorts of compounds. the hypothesis is that if you start with something like this. And what the scientist . And of course. obviously. Q You can't do it? A: You can't do it. clearly you are not going to go back to the original point in time of our universe and start again and see if it works. running experiments. then possibly way down the road. we're not arguing — talking like we are at the moment. Today. if we had been.A: (Continuing) experiment. because we don't have time machines. I mean. what they think would be closely analogous. these sorts of things. certain sorts of electrical discharges and so on and so forth. Alternatively. I mean. the point is. looking for evidences. you are going to be working with. But what the scientist is going to do is clear up some sort of hypothesis. That doesn't mean to say that it's not scientific or that the scientists can't make any scientific claims about it. say. For example. amino acids or certain more complex models. and then sort of run it and see whether this comes out. this is the sort of thing which is occurring today on the origins of life. for example.

one is working analogically from other planets and so on and so forth. from Jupiter or Mars but not from our earth. there's a lots of sorts of shades of gray in between. Q So if we don't really know what the elements were. Q How do scientists know what gases there were when the world or the earth was formed? A: Well. is what they've done. I mean. you know. "Okay. calculating with gravity what sorts of things would have been going to do. let's put some electric sparks through. what's on other planets. Q And from that we'd know what was on this planet? A: No. and sometimes it hasn't worked. what's on other universes. we can calculate what is going to be thrown out from the sun or if something exploded. But sometimes it certainly has. you can study what there was. attain. I mean. Q How do we know what was on this planet? A: Well." 309 A: (Continuing) This. So again. in fact. and so on and so forth. what sorts of things are on our earth. I mean. Let's mix these various compounds together. Now. say. you may well know that there's quite a controversy at the moment among scientists. as one always does. were on earth. Let's try running experiments to see if this works. in fact. I do want to emphasize I'm not a philosopher of physics. let's see if the sorts of things that I would like to see occur. have done is say. in fact. do. I think you are using the word "know" in either `I know it or I don't know it.' In fact. of course. what sorts of things are on other planets. how can we test or falsify that? A: Well. exactly which processes or which products. when we look at what the properties of the earth are. my hypothesis predicts. I don't think anybody is talking about `we know what's on this planet. But one's inferring back. we've . for example. here's my hypothesis.' It's sort of black or white. these sorts of things. there are various ways in which you can do this. what scientists. But I read an article in Science I think about this time last year where there's some controversy 310 A: (Continuing) now about which.

I've certainly given a false impression because that's not so. 1873. there's one well-known American. Some would argue random factors such as genetic drift. obviously — were won over almost completely to an evolutionary position. that in looking at Darwin's 312 Q (Continuing) Origin of the Species that all scientists don't agree on natural selection. of beliefs about the origination of life here on earth. Q You stated. And certainly if I've given the impression. Swiss American. Now. certainly scientists working in the field at all interested in the topic — I'm not talking. for example. "Now I know. Q You've stated that since shortly after Origin of Species was published. Is that correct? . then you put 311 A: (Continuing) them on the back shelf. now. This is the way that science works. but also. I think he died about 1872. If they seem to go for a while. But my point and the point I certainly want to stand by is that the scientific community was won over incredibly rapidly. it's something that a scientist today would want to claim. about creation scientists. Adam Safley. certainly. so on and so forth. I didn't say that. his son. Louie Agassiz. though. If there seems to be things against them. what shall I say. at Harvard who never became an evolutionist. now there's no doubt. in North America to a great extent. Some would argue natural selection. is what I've written about most. On the other hand. You try out hypotheses. there were one or two old men who died believing in sort of God's instantaneous creation. credible scientists. certainly. is that correct? A: No. you work with them. Now. Alexander. then they enter as they were in the community of science for a while. which. these sorts of certain sorts of hypotheses. interestingly. I think. in Britain. became quite a fervent evolutionist. for example. Some things we know or we feel more reasonably assured about than others." then I'm sorry. for example. that. of course. evolution had never been questioned. You throw them up. What I said was shortly after the Origin of Species was published.

And I think — I say even today — I think today that this would be general consensus that natural selection is extremely important. Q You've talked about how the creation scientists quote evolutionists out of context. I didn't quite say that. And furthermore. Again. My feeling is. and I think I can go so far as to say that this is a very professional feeling. I mean. one of the leading authorities on that Stephen J. Gould. I hope they are enjoying themselves. in fact. in fact. a man for whom I've got a great deal of admiration. I think increasingly they've allowed natural selection an important role. Q Also. in your opinion? . Because they believe it. I would say that they also believe that selection is important. What I said was that there's quite a bit of debate both at the time of Darwin and today about the causes of evolution. if an evolutionist should quote a creation scientist out of context. would that be any less dishonest. I'd want to say one of the most important and stimulating evolutionist writing today. In fact. For example. one of the plaintiffs' other witnesses? A: Yes. T. Yet.A: Well. who was well-known for getting up and debating with the Bishop of Oxford. Because they are punctuated equilibrists — I suppose that's the sort of term — you might want to slap a subpoena on them and find out exactly what they do believe. Q And is one of the people who you would identify with that group. I can see at least two or three of them right here today watching us. Darwin's supposedly great supporter. But is what is not often known is that there was a great controversy at Darwin's time. always had quite severe doubts about the adequacy of selection. People from Darwin on have always said that there are other causes. are not some scientists today arguing something which is commonly termed the "punctuated equilibrium 313 Q (Continuing) theory of evolution"? A: They certainly are. Yes. what they are saying is selection is not everything. using one sentence. Huxley. and there is quite a controversy today. is that there weren't many evolutionists who denied natural selection role. H. no.

you and I can agree. that it was. Q And when you quote from some of the books you mentioned earlier. My understanding was it wasn't evolution on trial here. that neither creation science nor evolution science can be classified as a scientific theory? A: I think we can agree on that. can we not. I personally don't necessarily accept everything that Popper wants to say. I've got a book by these people. falsifiability and the other criteria. I'd be happy to reread it. creation. Now. But I. Doctor Gish's book. I think I can go further and say that this is a very common claim by the scientific creationists that neither side is— I mean. A: Well. Kofahl and Segraves. as you know. and I think I did it fairly. if you like. 315 Q Doctor Ruse. did you.A: I think that I would have to say that it would be no less dishonest if one sort of played fast and loose with 314 A: (Continuing) that point there. but I think that's what I did. for example. then I expect I probably didn't. That's the first point. . you know— Let me add very strongly that I want to dispute the implication that I'm being dishonest at this point. that that book does specifically talk about how in the author's opinion if you used the criteria which you have used this morning of testability. what is it. you didn't point out to the Court. I don't think they are altogether consistent at times. who talk about a scientific alternative to evolution. So I've don't think that I've quoted Gish out of context at all. if you didn't hear it. under the pure definition as articulated by Karl Popper. I was asked to give an example of a passage in scientific creationist writings where the scientific creationists quite explicitly appeal to processes outside the natural course of law. I mean. specifically. And secondly. I didn't hear it. neither evolution nor creation science can qualify as a scientific theory? A: I thought it was— Q Did you point that out? If you did. that Gish goes on to talk about how neither.

yes Q It was not Larry Parker? A: No. they quite often say that they are the same status. What they say is that. And then. Q Don't the creation scientists make the claim that creation science is as scientific as evolution science? A: Well. well. sometimes they want to say they are both philosophical. defines creation science is identical to— Act 590 is identical to the creation science literature. pay your money. later on we're told. which is certainly true. that the creation scientists want to put evolutionary theory and creation theory on the same footing. Q That was by Gary Parker. Now. I'm told that it is scientific. you know. It was Gary Parker. sometimes they want to say they are both religious. take your choice. on the cover. neither is scientific. My understanding. Is that correct? . Can you answer my question? Do they make that claim? A: What? That it's as scientific? Q Yes. And of course. They make so many different sort of fuzzy 316 A: (Continuing) claims. a book by Parker? A: Yes. that's what the bill is all about. Q You also quoted some works. this is one of the things I was talking about with Mr. it's like— Q Excuse me. you know. the definition used.Sort of on page one. I mean. Novik. A: No. you know. Q You testified on: direct examination that Section 4(a) of Act 590 as it. Creation: The Facts of Life. is that right? A: That's right. sometimes they want to say they are both scientific. to a certain extent.

was. is creation science ever identified or called a theory? A: Well. And I deliberately didn't use that one. in my professional opinion. that it doesn't make any sense to talk about scientific evidences in isolation. I wanted to use a nonreligious version. does it not? A: It does. I mean.A: Yes. Scientific Creationism. does it not? A: Yes. Q How about data. 4(a). And my point is. well. Evolution science means the 318 A: (Continuing) scientific evidences for evolution. furthermore. 317 Q The creation science literature that you have read. But if you will remember. Q Within Act 590. In other words. to keep the sorts of references I was dealing with to public school editions as much as I could. Pretty Victorian in its length. that's not scientific. that comes in a Christian edition as well. I mean. creation science means the scientific evidences for creation. et cetera. scientific theory. the facts? A: What about the facts? Q Cannot scientific evidences mean the scientific data? A: Not just a naked fact on its own." And if you remember. it could just as well be religious or metaphysical or anything mathematical. I don't see the word "theory" there. . But as I went on to say. there's an awful lot of it. the book that I referred to. and creation science literature is. Q And Act 590 specifically prohibits the use of any religious writing. I don't think that one can read this without understanding "theory. you know. I drew this particularly on the analysis of the first two sentences. scientific evidences mean. I was very careful to state and. what? Scientific hypothesis. just as I said earlier. some of it does rely upon religious writings. For example. In the sense that this is one paragraph. I see the whole passages as being written very carefully to avoid the use of the word theory.

science is a body of knowledge which you try to bind together to lead to scientific understanding. has there been no 320 . the thing is. Q What is a model? A: In my opinion. let me put it this way. and then later on he talks about models where what he's trying to do is set up specific little sort of explanations to deal with specific sorts of situations. And I think most philosophers of science would know what I'm talking about Q Can you have scientific evidences for a model? A: Well. Q In taxonomy are the terms species in general and other classifications. Facts disembodied on their own are not part of science. I assume what he's doing is. And that's precisely why I want to say that creation science means scientific evidences for creation is meaningless unless you are talking about a theory of creation. a scientific model is certainly something that you use in the context of scientific evidences. talking about a theory. has written a book called Evolving: The Theory and Processes of Evolution. but certainly. You said that's not an exact term? A: Yes. 319 A: (Continuing) For example. a model is — it's one of those words which is very commonly used I think of a model as being a sort of subpart of a theory.You see. That's the way which I would use it as a philosopher of science. It's only inasmuch as your bringing together within a sort of framework that you start to get science. Q You talked about the use of the word "kind". Q So a model is more narrow than a theory? A theory is broader? Is that generally— A: Well. in the overall context. are they fixed? Has there been no change in them? A: What do you mean by "fixed. And presumably. Doctor Ayala. another of the witnesses.

as I know it.A: (Continuing) change in them"? Q Well. which is very. Certainly. don't breed with others. you can't turn this one against me because I'm an evolutionist and I expect to find that. Q But the definition for species that you gave me breaks down in that one example. brought up a lot more arbitrary in the sense that it's a lot more place for the taxonomist to make his or her own decisions. is that they are not like triangles. But of course. And certainly this was a notion of species which certainly goes back. does it not? A: Oh. perhaps higher orders are. is a dog a different species than a wolf? A: I guess so. you said. as we all know. has that been unchanging through time? A: Well. This is the whole point about the evolutionary theory. before Darwin. Q Species. when you are dealing with concepts in the biological . has the definition of the species or the particular classification of animals. But I think it's very interesting. in the early nineteenth century. in fact. On the other hand. listen. it ain't a triangle. then if it hasn't got three sides. That's to say. the point is. For example. though. 321 Q For example. that's a very interesting question from a historical point of view. for examples. you are going to find conflicts. into species. that's the whole— Any definition you give in biology. very similar in many respects to the concept of species today. a species is a group of organisms like human beings which breed between themselves. you see. If I give you a definition of triangle. what I'm doing is I'm giving you the point about biological concepts. are groups which interbreed and do not breed with other groups? A: Basically. that you talk about species that. Q Do they interbreed. you see a concept of species being used. I think one can see differences in emphasis. say. a couple of hundred years. yes. for example. genera and higher orders. to your knowledge? A: Sometimes you get this. And certainly. again. you know.

that doesn't mean to say we don't have paradigm cases. But— Q Thank you. Is that not correct. Now. Williams. Now. did the peppered moths become dark colored? Did they change into dark colored moths? A: No. say. it doesn't. 323 Q Now. some sort of species of fruit fly and human beings. we are a good. that they interbreed within themselves and do not breed with others. You mean. you know. did the individual moth change? . Did those peppered moths— There were peppered moths and what was the other. Q I'm just merely asking you. Of course. my belief is that 322 A: (Continuing) one species will change into another or can split into two different ones. that that concept did not have any fixed definition. as an evolutionist. a darker colored moth. then you are dealing with things which are a great deal fuzzier. I expect to find species all the way from being one species like human beings to being sort of two separate species like. Doctor Ruse? A: Well. Q You testified concerning kinds. But your definition of species does not apply to the just one example I mentioned. You had discussed the example of these peppered moths as an example of evolution. we don't breed with horses. it doesn't worry me at all. does that fit the example of the species of a dog and wolf? A: No. does your definition of species. Mr. borderline cases. you know. you know. for example. classification of the species. So the fact that we I think you are twisting my words. humans don't breed with cabbages. There's light and dark. of course. I mean. is that correct? A: Yes.

Q Are you aware that in discussing that example in the introduction to the Origin of Species. Q Is L. that they — "they" being the creation scientists — talk about a relatively recent inception of the earth. as I said. to your knowledge. you mentioned that. a creation scientist? A: You certainly know perfectly well that I know that he isn't. yes. let's say. a week last Friday. Q All right. Certain races or groups. Harrison Matthews stated that these experiments demonstrate natural selection in action. correct? A: Yes. as I say. and you take that to mean six to ten thousand years? A: Well. well. Q Was any new species created — excuse me — evolved in that peppered moth example? A: To the best of my knowledge. You've got two forms within the same species. Q So you had two species when you started and you had two species— 324 A: No. Q So it could be several million years old and still be relatively recent on the scale of the several billion year age which some scientists think the earth is? . I interpret that against the scientific creationist literature. And there were still two forms. As I said. Q Now. but they do not show evolution in progress? A: Am I aware of that passage? Q Yes. populations within the species did indeed. yes. if you just look at the sentence right there. A: I have glanced through it. Two forms. no.Q Or the species changed? A: The species. and I know those are the sorts of sentiments which he expresses in that introduction. in discussing the definition of creation science in the Act. I am quite sure you are reading correctly. Harrison Matthews. it could be anything from. L. a hundred million years to.

"Well. So I can think of lots of different notions of creator. you know. by creator. Q You also talked about the two model approach. It's just so fuzzy that I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Plato suggests in The Timaes. can you think of any other options besides having a creator and not having a creator? A: I don't really think I can. yes. But as I say. Q But if we talk about creator in the broad context of that word. can you think of any other options besides there was some sort of creator at some point and there was not? 325 A: Well. not having a creator. like. for example. I'll tell you something. It's either/or? A: Right. now. And I think one would have to specify a little more definitely what you meant by creator in that sort of context. I'm not altogether 326 A: (Continuing) sure that I know what the disjunction means. I would say that. then. I could think of some sort of life force or world force. I can't. now. So if I say no. does that mean that the earth is eternal or that it just was caused by nothing? Q I'm not asking you what significance you would attach to it. . Q And just looking at the origin of life and of man and the universe. I find that very difficult to answer because that's a sort of religious question or at least a metaphysical question. I have to confess it's at least partly predicated on the fact that your question— And I'm not trying to be clever. so I certainly think there are lots of options that are open. if you say to me. I think it could be.A: Yes. which you say it polarizes. I mean Yahweh of the Old Testament. And same of the others were talking about some of these yesterday. for example. I mean. I'm asking if you can think of any other options? A: Well.

would not evidence against one be evidence for the other if they are mutually exclusive? A: If they are. as far as I know. On the other hand. I would want to say that at least as far as life coming here on this earth is concerned. And you mentioned one that life was generated by some slow processes. to be quite honest about it. again. of course. Q All right. A: And if wishes came true. two models. 25 327 A: (Continuing) I thought. However. Q I understand that. I would agree with what you're saying. I think that finally there are parts of their book where they certainly seemed to me to slop over into religion. And you mentioned a theory or hypothesis espoused by Crick. First of all. And I'm not sure that anybody else does. the creation of life or how life came about. let's look at 4(a)(2) which mentions the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism. was my opinion. Q Directing your attention to Act 590. I thought that they ignored an awful lot of evidence. as I understand. Personally. let me put it that way. and if they should be mutually exclusive. then. Q You also talked about the other theories on. I haven't read Crick's book. you've got the if in. it's not well confirmed science. that at least parts of it were acceptable as scientific hypotheses.Q If there are two approaches. I'll tell you. I would have thought that this is at least a form that science could be. I don't know that there is any scientific evidence to suggest that it's a single organism or many organisms. then beggars could ride. However. Let's look at the first part? . And then you mentioned one espoused by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. I don't like the term "single organism" there. do you know whether there is any scientific evidence to support that portion of the definition? A: Well. Do you consider those to be scientific hypotheses? A: Well. I mean. I just saw a review of it in the New York Review of Books. but I thought parts of it. and this. I have read rather quickly Hoyle and Wick—whatever it is. book.

A: The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds. and in my opinion. was a perfectly good scientific theory. Obviously we wouldn't hold them as scientific today. Yes. in light of our present-day knowledge. there would be no jobs for evolutionists. The excitement of being a scientist is that a lot of the laws we don't know at the moment. do they? A: You know. and certainly there are some things that we would count out. yes. part of the excitement is we don't know all of the laws. for example. I mean. to the extent that we can. for example. that's an interesting question. it doesn't necessarily— I mean. They certainly wouldn't be very scientific if we held them. We'd say today. but we are working towards them. And if we knew all of the laws. they don't seem very scientific. yes. Q And science is a changing— A: It's an ongoing process. It made a lot of sense. do you think that people will look back on this day and age and look at what we consider now to be scientific and have the same sort of impression that that is not scientific as they look at it. no. there is good evidence to suggest that certain random processes are also extremely important. Q And when we look back now at some of the things which were considered to be scientific years ago. for example. there are some things I think we'd want to say. that's not scientific. again. the Ptolemaic system belief that the earth was at the center. On the other 329 A: (Continuing) hand. 328 A: (Continuing) I would have thought that. that's obviously religious. Q As we. look into the future. but they certainly were validly scientific by our own criteria in the past. although it may have been today? . "Well. well. Of course. Q And could there be natural laws which would be utilized in looking at that aspect of the definition? A: I would have thought so.

Q (3) speaks of the degree of change that there is. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q Now. MR. MR. science will be— A But I don't think they are going to say we are not scientists. WILLIAMS: Your Honor. "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals. looking back at the definition in 4(a) again. Also. at how much change has occurred since certain times in the past and 331 . Q If we are not. a couple of hundred years from now people will look back at us and say. It's going to be a pretty boring future for our grandchildren. if you look at 4(a)(3). how could they have believed all those sorts of things?" And I. I think in the last two. I hope I'm around two hundred years from now to answer that. certainly. Williams on a number of occasions interrupted the witness' answer. "Well. you know. professors talk too much. too. Now. and I would appreciate it if he could be instructed not to do that. say. MR. NOVIK: Your Honor. my understanding is he's finished the answer. I hope very 330 A: (Continuing) much that's the case. your Honor. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. three hundred years the notion of science has started to solidify. I hope we are both around. the witness has interrupted me on a couple of occasions. You know. Mr.A: Do you know." if we start looking at the degree of change. otherwise. that's a very interesting question. I'm not quite sure I'm following you. A: We can certainly look. is that not something we can look at by resort to natural laws? A: That we can use— That we can look at— Now. and that. But I'm not sure I agree with you there. for example. for example. I think you are right to suggest that. at the time of Newton. people were getting to the point where they could have a good feel for what science was.

I'm not prepared to accept that creation scientists do do it. for example. . then. looking at the ancestry for man and apes." There we are talking about the age of the earth and how long life has been on the earth. I don't think creation scientists would be prepared to take counter-evidence. It says "separate" there. So. Q And (6) "a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds. is explanation of the earth's geology something which we could study by resort to natural laws rather than miracles? A: Yes it is. Q Looking.A: (Continuing) using laws. They argue. it's another of your hypotheticals. would it? A: Well. And as I pointed out earlier. I'm quite prepared to accept that. But separate or not separate. at (5). explanation of the earth's geology. would not be a scientific theory. certainly. I think one can study the age of the earth naturally by using laws and inferring back. that the laws change or speeded up or grew in certain intensities and so on and so forth. therefore. it. But of course. it does require the willingness to be prepared to take counter-evidence to what you find. did that require the implication of miracles to study that? A: No. Q You said that something which can explain everything is not a scientific theory? A: Right. what I do want to suggest is that 332 A: (Continuing) very frequently the creation scientists do not. Q If that statement were true about the theory of evolution. Q And (4). Williams. However. because evolutionists do this and they don't use miracles. Can we look at that or resort to natural laws without looking at miracles? A: We can. one could talk about Parker's book where he flatly denies or twists every finding by paleoanthropologists in the last ten years about human ancestry. Q Does that require miracles to study that? A: No. Again. for example. Mr. I certainly don't think it does. of course.

Mr.Q Well. "if it were the case. does it limit the scientific evidence which can be brought in to support creation science to Biblical references? A: Act 590 says nothing at all about the Bible in the sense that Act 590 does not use the term "the Bible" anywhere. Q What does Act 590 say you can use to support creation science? A: Well. Could I get an answer to my question first? . we don't accept it? A: Right. based upon your own knowledge. accepting the hypothetical that if it were the case." Now. do you happen to know whether those have been accepted by the Arkansas Department of Education for use as textbooks in implementing Act 590? A: No. The books you have referred to. Thank you. we've got." Q All right. Williams. would not stand the scrutiny of this law because they do rely upon religious references. I don't. once again. so I argue that the consequent doesn't follow. And you said that creation scientists. is that not true? A: That's the problem. I'm asking you if it were true? A: But I'm just saying. Q Many of them. they start with the Bible and if it doesn't fit in there. the words are "scientific evidences. what I'm saying and what I've said earlier is that "it's not the case". in fact. Q As you look in Act 590. However. Q You also talked about creation science or about the 333 Q (Continuing) quality or attribute or criteria of science as being falsifiable. 334 Q Excuse me. then your consequent follows.

I mean. I believe. Q Do you recall that you told me in your deposition that you said. as I said.A: Yes. but my understanding is that in some schools it is certainly taught and not simply in private schools. in which case I would have said I don't know. Is that correct? A: I do. It's a question. you could put it at different levels. but in some of the public schools. Fine. Q Have you ever made any effort to find out how creation science is taught in Canada? A: Have I made any effort? . it is a religion. But of course. Q Is creation science taught in the public schools of Canada? A: My understanding — and again." in answer to that question? A: Well. A: I would have thought so. And you base that in part upon your own experience in teaching the philosophy of religion. "I don't know. yes. that in the Province of Alberta it is taught. Q I'm not trying to cut you off A: I've just said what you want me to say. you don't— I think it's a very general sort of question which is so general. The answer is yes. Q And you state finally that creation science is not a science. I've only said half of what I want to say. if I just finish by saying yes. it could have been much more specific. Q Does the science curriculum in secondary schools have an effect one way or the other for good or ill on a student when that student enters a university to study science? A Is this sort of a general question? Q You can take the question as you will. yes. And in the context of 335 A: (Continuing) our discussion earlier. please understand I do not speak as a professional educator at that level in Canada. for example.

I talk about creationism as it was up through the 1850's and this sort 337 A: (Continuing) of thing. I teach creationism in a historical context. I confess. great controversy. different types of philosophy? A: I certain try to give a balance treatment to what I teach. Q But in the past. of course. in fact. 336 A: (Continuing) And certainly. Q Has the teaching of creation science ever been a matter of much great debate in Canada? A: It's growing debate. ago I debated with one of the creationists. A: In fact. . Q When you teach your courses in philosophy. I mean. I think it is.Q Yes. I mean. do you try to give some sort of balanced treatment to different is theories. about two months. one of the co-authors of Doctor Morris' book on the equivalent of public television. interestingly. That's not a criticism. by the way. So. For example. and you polarize things much more quickly than we do. an awful lot of Canadian news tend to be about you folks. I'm teaching it in a historical context. for example. in a historical context. I teach— Look. has it been a matter of much debate or controversy in Canada? A: I wouldn't say it's been a matter of great debate. like that of the event of welcoming Doctor Gish onto my campus in February. I have certainly talked to some of the evolutionists on campus. But it doesn't follow that I should teach every particular philosophy that every particular philosopher has ever held or anybody else has ever held. but I intend to. Q But you do teach some philosophies which might be conflicting or at least not consistent with each other? A: I certainly do. you know. I teach history of science. since you took my deposition. I mean. I confess I haven't found out very much yet.

don't you? A: I certainly do. For example. for example. as I see it. in my book on The Darwinian Revolution. you are certainly not going to try to teach everything. at the high school level. of course. Education isn't sort of an indifferent— THE COURT: Where are you going with that? MR. do I have any objection to all theories which I hold as." Q What you are saying. which are held by the consensus of scientists being taught. I don't have any objection.Q But you try to be fair in teaching these different philosophies. "Well now. but because of the whole general philosophy of proper education that educators must select. listen. six weeks on punctuated equilibria. And in fact. choices do have to be made in curriculum? A: Not just because of a limited amount of time. undergraduate level. say. the fundamentals. high school level and also at the university level. WILLIAMS: Pardon? THE COURT: What is the point of going into that? MR. I'm not prepared to accept scientific evidence without talking about the theory." I'd say. If you say to me. is because of a limited amount of time. maybe you should be spending a bit more time on Mendel's laws. WILLIAMS: The point of that is that in teaching all scientific evidence and that curriculum has to be. then. with the proviso that. Q Do you have any objection to all of the scientific evidence on theories of origin being taught in the public school science classroom? A: Well. "Oh. he will concede that you have to make some choice of curriculum. for example. one is going to talk about some of the controversies. you used that term "scientific evidence" again. teaching the latest thing in punctuated equilibria at the high school level. I'd like to think that I'm being fair to the creationists. what shall I say. fellow. one is going to be teaching the basic. well. But as far as. Certainly. at the university level. some of the ideas. . we are going to spend. somebody said. this 338 A: (Continuing) sort of thing.

" And then other days I say. that. It could well be final cause or something like this. They want to state that apparently the state has no right to make any choice of curriculum. perhaps. I'm a bit like Charles Darwin in this respect. MR. your Honor. "You know. I'm sure there must be a cause. it falls to the 339 MR. Q Is your conception of a God some sort of world 340 Q (Continuing) force? Is that one way you would describe it? . unmoved mover — and agnosticism. WILLIAMS: (Continuing. I mean. don't really know. what do you use that in relation to your concept of a God? A: I'm talking about in the sense of some sort of ultimate religious sort of reason. Q The term "cause". It doesn't necessarily mean cause in the sense of a physical cause.) individual teacher to teach what they want. In other words. to some degree. MR. how they want." Q There must be a cause? A: There must be something that— There must have been something originally.THE COURT: That seems so obvious to me. It's not obvious in the plaintiffs' pleadings. Some days I get up and say. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q What is your personal belief in the existence of a God? A: I would say that today my position is somewhere between deist — that's to say in believing in some sort of. maybe there isn't after all. when they want. but let's go on to something else. WILLIAMS:Well. THE COURT: I don't believe they make that contention. "Well.

" I'm referring to page 52. lines 7 through .A: As I say. Q But you did tell me in your deposition that your conception of God would be that there might be some sort of. world force? A: There might be because. And if I say. "Sudden creation of life. "No. I don't say my conception of a God is some sort of world force. I'm not even an expert on my own beliefs in this respect. You say. sometimes there is more to life than what we see here and now. Q Do you feel a religious person can be a competent scientist. to be perfectly honest. you know. energy. Q But did you not tell me in your deposition. in creating the universe. on the other hand. Q As you look at the definition in the Act of creation science. is that consistent with your own religious beliefs? A: Sudden creation of the universe. quite frankly. I don't think. I mean. the life or man? A: Not really. Section 4(a)(1). I. I prefer not to talk in terms of consistency." et. perhaps. quote. the whole thing is simply. a mystery to me. you have earlier equated Section 4(a) to some sort of supernatural intervention by a creator? A: Right. but how is all going to end. I think that one— This sort of level. It's all so foggy to me. Doctor Ruse. had a hand. Q Well. that that was— I asked you the question. is this consistent. well.cetera. and life from nothing. figuratively speaking. as I say. Doctor Ruse? A: Oh. "Is that consistent with your religious beliefs. what concerns me is not how did it all start. Q And is that consistent with your religious beliefs? A: That some sort of supernatural thing way back when— I don't think it's inconsistent. in whatever form. then already I'm starting to define what my position is more than I'm prepared to do. Q Do you have a personal belief as to whether a creator." and you said. that that's a very exciting part to me. is it consistent. 341 A: (Continuing) As I say. My conception is. to me it's almost a meaningless question. certainly.

yes. And I object on the grounds that this line is entirely irrelevant to these proceedings. 4(b)(1)." That's definite. it has not. I guess possibly I could in some respects. no. I'm not an atheist. I just wonder how relevant they are to go into 343 THE COURT: (Continuing) all this kind of exchange of words." I'll have to say. "Well. I think they are relevant. but other respects. could I accept 4(a)(1). Would that be consistent with your religious beliefs? MR. you know. If you ask me. We're really getting to the borderline here where if you insist on an answer. it's so. . WILLIAMS: Your Honor. well. are you not an atheist. that's fine with me. we will stipulate to that. I would have to say. and I can go on to other matters. It doesn't seem to get us any place. it's not something I feel very confident about. I've allowed the questioning to go an without objection because I thought the relevance would become apparent. NOVIK: That was precisely my point. I'm prepared to say no. I'll give you an answer if you want it. "Well." I mean." And if you say. if you ask me. MR. If you want to continue to beat it. "Well. do you really think there is. As I say. and I'll stand by it. To me. NOVIK: Excuse me. but it's. if the plaintiffs want to stipulate that the religious beliefs of the witnesses on these matters are not relevant." I can 342 A: (Continuing) say yes. THE COURT: I think the religious beliefs of the witnesses could be relevant on the issue of bias or a question of bias of a witness. foggy that I'm no. THE COURT: What relevance is it? MR. for example. "Are you wearing glasses.A: Okay. "Was there a creator. "Well." and I'd have to say. possibly not. Do I accept 4(a)(1). THE COURT: It seems to me like you've got about as much out of that as you can. your Honor. possibly. Q Would you look at the definition is 4(b) of evolution science.

But then again. hang on. that he personally thinks is more correct is also consistent with his own religious beliefs. MR. Q Do you think that evolution is contrary to the religious beliefs of some students? 344 A: Yes. so I don't mind keeping going if we can find out what— MR. at least. 4(b)(4) and 4(b)(6). THE WITNESS: Your Honor. I mean. certainly. Q And a teacher should not have to teach only those courses which they agree with. as I say. it's my soul which is at stake. yes. Try that one against me again. for example. looking at Section 4(b) generally. WILLIAMS: Your Honor. isn't that correct? A: Now. the definition section. I teach a lot of things that I don't agree with. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q Doctor Ruse. those are consistent with your own religious beliefs? A: Oh. Q In teaching philosophy courses. THE COURT: Okay. . Q Do you think a teacher should teach only those things he or she agrees with? A: Well. certainly. in this witness' case. is it not true that when you talk about man coming from a common ancestor with apes and you talk about an inception of the earth several billion years ago. I think that I would want to say that." I mean. WILLIAMS: I think I'd like to try. it seems to me that a historian could certainly teach all about the rise of Hitler without being a Nazi themselves. But of course. Yes. that the theory or the part of the Act. I want to make sure that the record is clear that. so is a lot of science. do you ever teach theories or philosophies that you don't personally agree with? A: In a historical context. I do this in a historical context. you say "should only teach those things that they agree with.MR. If you can ever make that clear. for example.

an increasing number of scientists. I'm glad you made that point because. is Karl Popper. by the way. certainly in a historical context. 346 . I wrote it. now. And recently. I think. It was published in June. A: Certainly some people have thought that Darwinian evolution cannot be falsified. he's started to equivocate quite strongly on this and so are a number of his followers. certainly. most particularly. one can teach and deal with things that you don't agree with. In my opinion. Unfalsifiability of Darwinism. a growing number of evolutionists. isn't it? A: No. are you talking about Darwinism? Are you talking about punctuated equilibria? Are you talking about— Q Let's talk about Darwinian evolution. I don't think it is. Q Are there scientists that you would consider scientists who feel the theory of evolution cannot be falsified? A: Are there scientists that I would consider scientists— Well. I mean. what would you consider the theory of evolution? A: Well. Q in that article. Q As a matter of fact. you say the theory of evolution. "Although still a minority. in fact.Now. 345 A: (Continuing) What are you talking about? Q Well. one of the leading exponents of the book. it's a decreasing number of scientists. did you not state that. that's an increasing number of scientists. earlier this year. Q When did you write an article entitled "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science"? A: Well.

a number of important philosophers have certainly changed their minds. It's certainly the case that he himself in the early seventies was trying to come up with some theories which he thought would be falsifiable. of philosophers. Q Did he not state that evolutionary theory was not 347 Q (Continuing) falsifiable? A: Oh. I think the word "scientists" was used. I'm not a sociologist of science. Now. I certainly know that a number of important scientists. Q At some level? A: Yes. Q Has Popper changed his mind about that? A: I really don't know. you want to take a head count. or I'll put it this way. I think I said an increasing number. I could be right. you could be right. I think is a matter of some debate. Popper is an old man. you know. no. where Popper stood on evolutionary theories per se. that there was an increasing number? A: An increasing number. Who knows. I think Popper is getting to the point where mind changes aren't that important to him anymore. don't I. You know. In recent years it's certainly true to say that Popper has argued more strongly that at least at some level evolution theories can be falsified. or people with philosophical pretensions or something along those lines. Without being unkind. I'm not a sociologist of philosophies. .Q (Continuing) particularly academic philosophers. Certainly at one point. argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all"? A: I think that I'd probably say something along those lines Q So you did state in this article. Q I think the record will speak for itself as to what was said. did you not. Popper wanted to claim that Darwinism was not falsifiable. A: You know.

THE COURT: Why don't we take a ten minute recess. I'd be happy to argue that briefly at the present time. the relative scientific stature of these two models. And to the extent that they have been attacking the findings of fact in the Act. WILLIAMS: Not this particular line of questioning itself. and that evolution is religion. the Bill on its face raises this issue in some of the findings of fact. I think we are entitled to try to show that creation science is at least as scientific as evolution. Court was in recess from 11:40 a. I'd have to go back and check to see whether Popper ever said that all evolutionary theories are unfalsifiable or metaphysical. NOVIK: (Continuing) these proceedings. I think we are entitled to go into this to show one as against the other.) . Indeed. and I'd like to see the attorneys back in chambers. in fact. Evolution is not an issue in this case. to 11:50 a.Q But he also said.m. NOVIK: Excuse me. But in view of the Court's ruling on the motion in Limine. that evolutionary theory was. MR. THE COURT: Is that the purpose of the questioning. that it is appropriate to consider whether creation science is a scientific theory. 349 (Thereupon. We learned from the Attorney General yesterday in his opening argument that the State is interested in demonstrating that evolution is not science. Williams? Are you trying to establish that evolution is a form of religion? MR.m. if the Court desires. This line of questioning seems to go to that issue. a metaphysical research program? A: I think he said that Darwinism was. Mr. We have previously submitted to the Court a memorandum of law arguing this issue. and I would request the Court to direct defendants' counsel not to proceed along these lines on the grounds stated in that motion. The plaintiffs contend that that entire line of questioning as to both of those points are irrelevant to 348 MR. did he not. your Honor.

the State is not making the contention that evolution is not science. 350 THE WITNESS: Shall I try to explain this? THE COURT: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. according to this particular definition. WILLIAMS: That is it in part." In other words." something along those sort of lines. MR. for example. For example. we are not demonstrating that evolution is not science. just to put this in some perspective. in a sense of. A teleological explanation is often done in terms of design. Sort of things that were being talked about yesterday afternoon. what purpose or what end does this glass serve. MR. according to some experts. a teleological explanation. that creation science clearly would be as scientific in that neither could meet." In which case. you might say "What caused the book to fall to the floor. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q Doctor Ruse. For example. Williams.THE COURT: Mr. if I knocked a book on the floor. What is that word? MR. THE COURT: What is the definition? That's not one of those words that's in my vocabulary. WILLIAMS: Teleology. "Well. as I understand it. THE WITNESS: Well. T-e-l-e-o-l-o-g-y. Also. you are also talking about what happened that made it fall. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) . why is the glass here. your Honor. but that if you. what is the concept of teleology? A: Understanding in terms of ends rather than prior causes. just the point being to demonstrate that. THE COURT: Excuse me. The purpose of the questions is simply to demonstrate that some scientists do not think that evolution meets all the definitions of science as this witness has given a definition MR. the definition of a scientific theory. sir. one would contrast this with a regular causal explanation.

Q Is this word. Q Do you consider Thomas Coon's book. for example. yes. who says. nonreligious sense? A: I would think that's probably true. I mean. teleonomy. they are trying to set themselves up against their predecessors. the kind of understanding that evolutionists. but I personally like the word teleology. sometimes used as teleonomy. 351 A: (Continuing) A non-theological one would be the kind. In other words. there have been both concepts." In this case. they are trying to overcome a problem of semantics? A: Well.Q And is it possible to have both a religious and sort of theological concept of teleology and a nonreligious or nontheological concept? A: It's possible. I would say the theological one is where. Q Do they always use the term "teleology"? A: The philosophers or scientists? Q The philosophers in describing this concept? A: Not always. as it is because that's what God intended and that was God's end. they are looking at it as a product of natural selection and looking at its value in a sort of struggle for existence in selection. Scientists like to do this. Some certain philosophers think that biologists are teleologists. Q So some modern biologists do consider themselves to be teleologists? A: Let me put it this way. not impossible. for example. used to show that they are using the concept of teleology in its nontheological. "What end does the hand serve. the sorts of things I find in 4(a). The Structure of . Q In other words. I think. I mean. where one tries to understand why the world is. you explain the nature of the world in terms of God's design. Q How would you distinguish the two? A: Well. Darwinian evolutionists.

Q Again. you state that the modern synthesis theory of evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt. and punctuated equilibrium theory certainly wasn't one of those which was there to be considered when the book was written. that's a nice point. to my question. is not the punctuated equilibrium theory a rival. mutation. are true beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't personally think of it as such. 353 A: (Continuing) What I also said was that the importance of selection. they are all pretty independent types. What I was saying was things like the original Lamarckism. contrasting to the modern synthesis theory which you think has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? A: Well. I think some people would think of it as such. I would certainly say that Thomas Coon's book is considered a very important book. The Philosophy of Biology. Q And you further state that the falsity of its rivals is beyond a reasonable doubt? A: Right. I think it's a very important book. and I'm glad to find that a lot of evolutionists like Ayala doesn't think of it as such. to be recognized as an authority in either the history or philosophy of science? A: Well. Q Is not the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory a rival to some degree to the modern synthesis theory? A: I'm not sure that it's a rival in the sense that I was talking about it in the book. you know. Q In your book. are false beyond a reasonable doubt. do you not? A: Right. we don't have authorities in the philosophy of science. so on.352 Q (Continuing) Scientific Revolutions. Q Others do. You know. I dealt with a number of alternatives. quite honestly. It certainly holds to that. do they not? .

Q Do philosophers uniformly agree on what is science? A: I think that basically we would agree. that has absolutely no relevance to us here today. Of course. and more specifically to Act 590. as you view it. everybody is a Catholic.I mean. I think that for example. yes. we're still. in medieval Europe where. philosophers never agree entirely. you know.A: Well. in fact. We are talking just about causes. it falls to people acting as philosophers. Q They would not agree entirely. the punctuated equilibria theory is a very new theory. Q Do you think in a society with a commonly held religion that religion could properly be taught in the public schools? A: Yes. I see no reason not to teach it in the public schools. But. We're still working on the sort of conceptual links between it and the original theory. let me add that in no sense does this at any point throw any doubt upon evolution itself. Scientists can certainly act as philosophers. Q Is part of your opposition to creation science. quite often I think some of the people who put it up like to think of it as a rival. And I think it's going to take us awhile yet to decide whether we are dealing with rivals or complements or whatever. Q So is science a question of philosophy? A: It's a philosophical question. based on your belief that it's just a foot in the door. Do lawyers? Q Do you think that in the society with a commonly held religious belief that religion could properly be taught in the public schools? A: Try that one on me again. Q Is defining a science a task which falls to philosophers rather than to scientists themselves? 354 A: Well. would they? A: Well. We are talking about America and we are talking about Arkansas. But of course. for the fundamentalist religious groups? .

It's part of my belief. certainly. my point simply is that if you allow this. yes. Doctor Ruse. a biologist or biochemist. that Darwinism can accommodate any sort of evidence? A: But you are doing what we talked about this morning. I can see it as a thin end of a very big wedge. this is the thin end of the wedge. does it? A: Well. Q But isn't what Medawar is saying there is what we talked about this morning. dreadfully wrong. Lives in England. Q We are dealing here with the law. say. And is it not true that part of your reason for being against the law is what you think might happen in the future if this law should be upheld? A: Certainly. homosexuals. that does not mean in any sense that Medawar opposes evolutionary theory in the sense of general evolution per se. I think it's wrong. But of course. my opposition to 356 A: (Continuing) the law is independent in its own right. Q And you see it as some sort of wedge which includes attacks on homosexuality on women and on other races. for example. I mean. . You are confusing the causes with the fact of evolution. it is too difficult to imagine or envision an evolutionary episode which could not be explained by the formula of neo-Darwinism? A: Medawar as opposed to Darwinism. yes.355 A: Yes. I didn't say that it did. Who is Peter Medawar? A: I think he's a Nobel Prize winner. I mean. I think I would. don't you? A: Insofar as it spreads a very natural literalistic reading of the Bible. But certainly I do see it as a thin end of a very large wedge. But as I said earlier. yes. which as you know and I know certainly says some pretty strong things about. You don't talk about all the wedge when you are trying to shove the tip in. I think it's important to oppose Act 590 in its own right. Q But Act 590 has absolutely nothing to say on those subjects. Q Is it not true that he has stated and as you quote in your book that there are philosophical or methodological objection to evolutionary theory. Q I understand that.

Doctor Ruse? A: I don't think so. but my understanding is. I guess we are allowed to introduce this. sometimes. frankly.Yes. in England. I read it in the "New Scientist. Q That's your personal opinion? A: That certainly is. Q Do you consider the Natural History Branch of the British Museum to be a creation science organization? A: Of course. Q Is Medawar a creation scientist? A: I said to the best of my knowledge. ever denied evolution. too. I think it was a shocking thing to do. alas. no. in Canada and. I don't know where he stands today. this is hearsay. but Medawar was certainly uncomfortable with the mechanism of neo-Darwinism. a lot of work 358 Q (Continuing) in an area. Medawar has never." I've certainly been told about this. Medawar has never. yes. Q Do scientists. ever denied evolution. That it smells of problems. I know that Popper has drawn back. Q Is it true that this museum has had a display which portrays creation science as an alternative to Darwinism? A: Well. yes. of course. I think the problems can be objectively identified. let's put it that way. does it not. It goes to show that this is a real problem we've got in Arkansas. Q Whether it's a problem depends on one's perspective. 357 A: (Continuing) But to the best of my knowledge. become emotionally attached to a theory? . after doing a degree. Medawar was certainly uncomfortable. I don't.

personally. Q And then you write at some length. WILLIAMS: 55. I think it's a wonderful theory. you written that Darwinian evolutionary theory is something which you can love and cherish? A: Me. particularly as it is affected by evolutionary thought. Q Doctor Ruse. do you not. I mean.A: Scientists are human beings. that in many parts of the world there is a powerful new rival? A: Marxism. in an article entitled "Darwin's Legacy". some of my early stuff was done when I was a graduate student. of course. I mean. Q Had not. have you not advocated that the subject of creation science is a battle which you must fight? A: That is why I'm here. Q Also. I'm talking. very much the context of discovery there as opposed to the context of justification. I don't know whether you'd call that writing. in the context. Q And might they also be intellectually attached to a theory? A: Individual scientists. about Marxism. but the scientific community wasn't. certainly. quite frankly. But not necessarily the scientific community. MR. NOVIK: What page? MR. Louie Agassiz that we talked about earlier was emotionally attached to his position. first of all. did you state- 359 MR. yes. Q And how long have you been writing on Darwinism yourself? A: Oh. altogether. I mean. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q -did you state. as it affects that thought? A: Right. I do indeed. I'm sure they do. . that Christianity and other forms of theism and deism are not the only world religions today. fifteen years.

science is really not concerned. "But cutting right through to the present and quietly admittedly basing my comments solely on a small group of Marxist biologists working in the West. something like this. does the data fit the model? 360 A: Well. religion is one of these very difficult terms to define. what I'm saying is that certain scientists have tried to blend their position with Marxism. not because we are Pythagoreans and Sun worshipers. that evolutionary theory is Marxist. then. I would have said if you are going to define religion just in terms of belief in a creator. Gould. but because Copernicus' theory works a lot better than the Ptolemaic system does. do you not state. As I said. where a theory comes from or a model comes from? The more important question is. Q I understand that. of course. for example. and certainly extra scientific ideas have been importantly influential in leading people to certain scientific theories. as I said. what I want to point out here is that just like Christians. Copernicus was a Pythagorean. I refer 361 Q (Continuing) specifically to such work as is being done by the Marxist biologist. is a question of you get the ideas and then you put them in a public arena. Q Do you consider Marxism to be a religion? A: In a sense. Q In your article at page 57. We talked about this in the deposition. some sort of organization. Stephen J. particularly his paleontology hypothesis of punctuated equilibria introduced and briefly discussed early in this essay?" . but we accept Copernicus' theory. For example. and how do they fare. Back to the point you just mentioned. I'm happy to talk about Marxism as a religion.In other words. then obviously not. I am not at all saying. But if you are going to talk of religion in some sort of ultimate concern. to the scientist. we find that the Marxists try to modify and adapt Darwinism to their own ends and within their own patterns. more important to whom? Certainly. then. is it.

you could take Darwin. of course. I'm 362 A: (Continuing) saying. Q What you are saying is that these Marxist biologists are conforming their science to some degree to their politics or if you consider politics religion? A: No. I do not want to claim that punctuated equilibria is Marxist. for example. In fact. You know. In fact. incidentally. what I understand you are saying here. the co-founder who is sitting over there would be horrified to think that it is. we can go around on this all day. and just as Copernicus did. you know. in fact. what you state is. But as I say. I'm not. And you have previously equated Marxism with a religion. you know.if you want to call them religious beliefs. and there's nothing Marxist about that. You know. and I certainly don't want to claim that only and all Marxists could accept punctuated equilibria."here's a guy who has got strong philosophical" . And I see. I see nothing worrying about this. I don't like the word "conforming". goodness. from what I can read and what he has done. I don't like the word "conforming". here's a guy who."who certainly would like to see the aspects of these in the world. then. Is that not correct? A: No. you are going to be able to ask him tomorrow yourself ." certainly using his philosophy.A: I say those words. nothing strange about this. his religion to look at the world just as Darwin did.and. it's got to be evaluated and is indeed being evaluated by independent objective criteria. per se. my understanding is that a lot of Marxists don't like this. has probably been led to make certain hypotheses and claims which he finds certainly empathetic to his Marxism. What I am saying is that Gould as a Marxist. Q Please understand. I certainly do not in any sense imply that punctuated equilibria is a Marxist theory. "Look. to the best of my knowledge" . What I'm saying is that some of their ideas are important in their context of discovering plus for formulating their ideas. that he is strongly committed to an ideological commitment to Marxism in his science. Once you've got your theory. you are twisting my words here. for . with reference to Gould. I am prepared to do this .

Q Doctor Ruse.363 A: (Continuing) example. here we go again. you do."they" being the punctuated equilibrists . have they? Just merely the mechanism? A: Right. It doesn't mean to say that Gould is going to be a punctuated equilibrist because he's a Marxist. no doubt about it. See. It doesn't mean to say that Eldridge or anybody else is going to be a punctuated equilibrist because they are Marxists. People come up with ideas for all sorts of crazy reasons and all sorts of good reasons. within the scientific community. People discover things. doesn't it? A: Motivation. You see. Q But their challenge as you have stated in these writings states that it has come from a motivation based on Marxism which you have identified as religion. Copernicus pushed his ideas. but you have previously stated. Darwin was a deist. This is the sort of thing he likes. Of course. What it means is that probably Gould pushes these sorts of ideas. does punctuated equilibria lead to predictions that are predictions within the fossil record. Q And they are not challenged . for example. pushes his scientific positions for three Marxist related reasons? A: What he does is. as it were. Q Have you not said that Gould. and would agree that this idea of punctuated equilibria.have not challenged evolution over all. Copernicus was a Platonist. But once you've got them out. he pushes the ideas to get them out on the table. I mean. What is motivation? Q Is that correct? Is that what you have said? . the context of justification. do they lead to predictions. The only reason why Darwin became an evolutionist is because it fitted best with his religious ideas. again the context of discovery. I 364 Q (Continuing) think. You sharpen your ideas. then they've got to be accepted because of the way that they stand up. this debate that you see in the evolutionary community is a healthy debate? A: I do indeed.

What I mean is that I don't think as a scientific hypothesis that it will fly. you object to that. but you are deliberately refusing to understand what I'm saying. as you term it. often they have different sorts of motivations. I say it fails. and you are someone who is an adherent of Darwinian thought. because someone challenges evolution. We can argue that one. A: Well. But when I talk about its failing as a science. I do not mean it is now nonscientific. moving into the context of justification. and you feel they are doing it based on religious reasons. Gould thinks that he has. I personally don't accept it because I don't think they've made the case on the fossil record. but I don't think it's true or false because of Marxism. the theory of evolution itself. you simply. Is that not correct? A: Look. as science. if you read the passage. personal religion. 366 Q I'm merely referring you to- . But whether or not one is to accept punctuated equilibria has nothing at all to do with Gould's personal philosophy. Q You call it a healthy' debate. fails as science? Q This Marxist version of evolutionism. In that paper and other papers I'm talking about a context of discovery. you are twisting my words. The challenge is 365 A: (Continuing) being done on an evidentiary basis. that is. What I'm saying is that when scientists discover things. But what I'm saying is I don't think it's true. But as I say. Marxism is a red herring here. It's the fossil record. ThisA: What. I'm quite sure I said those words. It's what we find out there that counts. Q And then on the other hand.A: Well. Now. but you also state that this fails as science.

I think it's a wonderful statement. creation science isn't science. you've said that the Marxism version of evolution has failed as science. Marxist version of evolutionary theory. I do. Q The discovery basis you mentioned. you see. minus one. We are not talking about the context of discovery here. silencing somebody is different from not allowing the teaching of religion in the science classroom. right.A: What I was doing. had he had the power. but that's healthy. And as I say. That led him. should that not be advanced and then fail or succeed on its merits of scientific evidence? A: No. you are not a scientist yourself? A: No. But of course. But I don't think that punctuated equilibria theory is Marxist. "If all mankind. I'm prepared to do so. I'm a historian and philosopher of science which I would say encompasses a great deal of other areas in philosophy. would be justified in silencing mankind. one prominent evolutionist is a Marxist. But creation science fails as science and that's unhealthy? A: Well. Because we are not talking about scientific theory here. Yes. Q Do you agree with John Stuart Neill that. We are talking about religion. What I'm saying is. in any case. I think that encouraged him to try out certain ideas. the subject is so strange that. I'm not a scientist. is that correct? A: Right.You can't shout "Fire" in a loud crowded cinema. per se. if a creation scientist believes in a sudden creation. were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion. As a 367 A: (Continuing) philosopher I can distinguish between science and religion. . you are putting words into what you want me to say. Q Now. I certainly don't think the judgment is going to get into evidentiary level. Q Well. Q Teaching religion in the science classroom is your conclusion. mankind would be no more justified silencing that one person that. I was talking about the context of discovery." A: Well. And if you want to talk about that. It's religion. No.

It's The Origin of Species. and one of the kids asks you about. 368 MR. for example. 369 A: (Continuing) You said The Origin of the Species. Q Does not The Origin of the Species conclude with a reference to a creator and state that there is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers. just pedantic. Before we start on that. maybe we could wait until a break. I mean. THE WITNESS: Well." or something like that. having been originally breathed by the Creator . if you want to talk about this religion. let's be reasonable about this.Q And Marxism is a religion in your mind? A: I certainly would not want MarxismTHE COURT: Let's don't go through that again. Sure. if we're going to be at this for two weeks- . He is not going to admit what you want him to.into a few forms or into one? Does Darwin not call upon a creator in his book on The Origin of the Species? A: Listen. "Gosh. then. I might add . you know. could we get Darwin's book right. I mean. if you've got a biology class going. But I'd certainly say." No. say. I'm glad I've got one philosophical convert here. Wait until we get outside. before weQ Does he? A: Okay. "Look. I do. I wouldn't say.with a capital C. Q So that the Creator should not be interjected into the science classroom? A: Well. what's going on in Arkansas at the moment. don't talk about that. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q Do you feel that the concept of a creator is an inherently religious concept? A: Yes.

this book be appropriate for consideration. MR. "Look. your Honor. Novik? . It's one of the set books in my course. in a science classroom? A: I certainly wouldn't want to use The Origin of Species today in a science classroom. THE COURT: Mr.Q Does he call upon a creator? A: Darwin certainly says that. Yes. I'd certainly use it in a historical context. Darwin later on modified what he says and says. I'm talking metaphorically. But as I've said to you a couple of weeks ago. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions. I do indeed. Q Or History of Science? A: Surely." Q But would this subject.