BY MR.

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

307

A: (Continuing) experiment. Alternatively, what you might try to do is run some controlled experiments of your own. I mean, for example, you might try to set up some sort of model which you think in some respects is very similar, and then sort of run it and see whether this comes out. Today, obviously, you are going to be working with, say, computer simulated models and so on and so forth. I mean, 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. Q Why not? A: Well, because we don't have time machines. Q You can't do it? A: You can't do it. That doesn't mean to say that it's not scientific or that the scientists can't make any scientific claims about it. And of course, to continue, this is the sort of thing which is occurring today on the origins of life. This is the sort of work scientists are doing, running experiments, what they think would be closely analogous, these sorts of things, looking for evidences. Q Closely analogous? A: Closely analogous. What they think would be closely analogous.

308 Q How it might have happened? A: Well, yes. I mean, the point is, look, we were not there to see it happen. I mean, if we had been, I doubt if you and I would be arguing like well, we're not arguing talking like we are at the moment. But what the scientist is going to do is clear up some sort of hypothesis. For example, suggestion that maybe the earth originally had certain gases, certain sorts of compounds, certain sorts of electrical discharges and so on and so forth. Now, the hypothesis is that if you start with something like this, then possibly way down the road, 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. First of all, you are going to start with inorganic molecules, and then put these people together into, say, amino acids or certain more complex models, so on and so forth. And what the scientist

is going to do, what scientists, in fact, have done is say, "Okay, here's my hypothesis. Let's try running experiments to see if this works. Let's mix these various compounds together; let's put some electric sparks through; let's see if the sorts of things that I would like to see occur, my hypothesis predicts, do, in fact, attain."

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

got certain sorts of hypotheses, these sorts of things. Some things we know or we feel more reasonably assured about than others. And certainly if I've given the impression, for example, that, what shall I say, of beliefs about the origination of life here on earth, it's something that a scientist today would want to claim, "Now I know; now there's no doubt," then I'm sorry. I've certainly given a false impression because that's not so. This is the way that science works. You try out hypotheses. You throw them up, you work with them. If they seem to go for a while, then they enter as they were in the community of science for a while. If there seems to be things against them, then you put

311 A: (Continuing) them on the back shelf, so on and so forth. Q You've stated that since shortly after Origin of Species was published, evolution had never been questioned, is that correct? A: No, I didn't say that. What I said was shortly after the Origin of Species was published, credible scientists, certainly scientists working in the field at all interested in the topic I'm not talking, now, about creation scientists, obviously were won over almost completely to an evolutionary position. Now, certainly, there were one or two old men who died believing in sort of God's instantaneous creation. Adam Safley, for example. But my point and the point I certainly want to stand by is that the scientific community was won over incredibly rapidly, certainly, in Britain, which, of course, is what I've written about most, but also, I think, in North America to a great extent. Now, for example, there's one well-known American, Swiss American, Louie Agassiz, at Harvard who never became an evolutionist. I think he died about 1872, 1873. On the other hand, interestingly, his son, Alexander, became quite a fervent evolutionist. Q You stated, though, that in looking at Darwin's

312 Q (Continuing) Origin of the Species that all scientists don't agree on natural selection. Some would argue natural selection. Some would argue random factors such as genetic drift. Is that correct?

A: Well, no. Again, I didn't quite say that. 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. My feeling is, and I think I can go so far as to say that this is a very professional feeling, is that there weren't many evolutionists who denied natural selection role. I think increasingly they've allowed natural selection an important role. And I think I say even today I think today that this would be general consensus that natural selection is extremely important. People from Darwin on have always said that there are other causes, and there is quite a controversy today. But is what is not often known is that there was a great controversy at Darwin's time. For example, Darwin's supposedly great supporter, T. H. Huxley, who was well-known for getting up and debating with the Bishop of Oxford, in fact, always had quite severe doubts about the adequacy of selection. Q Also, are not some scientists today arguing something which is commonly termed the "punctuated equilibrium

313 Q (Continuing) theory of evolution"? A: They certainly are. In fact, I can see at least two or three of them right here today watching us. I hope they are enjoying themselves. Yes. 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. Because they believe it, I would say that they also believe that selection is important. I mean, what they are saying is selection is not everything. Q And is one of the people who you would identify with that group, in fact, one of the leading authorities on that Stephen J. Gould, one of the plaintiffs' other witnesses? A: Yes. And furthermore, I'd want to say one of the most important and stimulating evolutionist writing today, a man for whom I've got a great deal of admiration. Q You've talked about how the creation scientists quote evolutionists out of context, using one sentence. Yet, if an evolutionist should quote a creation scientist out of context, would that be any less dishonest, in your opinion?

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. Q And when you quote from some of the books you mentioned earlier, specifically, Doctor Gish's book, you didn't point out to the Court, did you, that Gish goes on to talk about how neither, under the pure definition as articulated by Karl Popper, 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, I didn't hear it. A: Well, if you didn't hear it, then I expect I probably didn't. But I, you know Let me add very strongly that I want to dispute the implication that I'm being dishonest at this point. My understanding was it wasn't evolution on trial here; that it was, if you like, creation. That's the first point. And secondly, as you know, I personally don't necessarily accept everything that Popper wants to say. So I've don't think that I've quoted Gish out of context at all. 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. Now, I'd be happy to reread it, but I think that's what I did, and I think I did it fairly.

315 Q Doctor Ruse, you and I can agree, can we not, 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, falsifiability and the other criteria, that neither creation science nor evolution science can be classified as a scientific theory? A: I think we can agree on that. 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, I don't think they are altogether consistent at times. I mean, for example, I've got a book by these people, what is it, Kofahl and Segraves, who talk about a scientific alternative to evolution.

Sort of on page one, on the cover, I'm told that it is scientific. And then, you know, later on we're told, well, neither is scientific. I mean, you know, to a certain extent, pay your money, take your choice. Q Don't the creation scientists make the claim that creation science is as scientific as evolution science? A: Well, you know, it's like Q Excuse me. Can you answer my question? Do they make that claim? A: What? That it's as scientific? Q Yes. A: No. They make so many different sort of fuzzy

316 A: (Continuing) claims. What they say is that, they quite often say that they are the same status. Now, sometimes they want to say they are both scientific; sometimes they want to say they are both philosophical; sometimes they want to say they are both religious, which is certainly true. And of course, this is one of the things I was talking about with Mr. Novik, that the creation scientists want to put evolutionary theory and creation theory on the same footing. My understanding, that's what the bill is all about. Q You also quoted some works, a book by Parker? A: Yes. Q That was by Gary Parker, is that right? A: That's right, yes Q It was not Larry Parker? A: No. It was Gary Parker, Creation: The Facts of Life. Q You testified on: direct examination that Section 4(a) of Act 590 as it, defines creation science is identical to Act 590 is identical to the creation science literature, the definition used. Is that correct?

A: Yes. In the sense that this is one paragraph, and creation science literature is, you know, there's an awful lot of it. Pretty Victorian in its length.

317 Q The creation science literature that you have read, some of it does rely upon religious writings, does it not? A: It does. Q And Act 590 specifically prohibits the use of any religious writing, does it not? A: Yes. But if you will remember, I was very careful to state and, furthermore, to keep the sorts of references I was dealing with to public school editions as much as I could. For example, Scientific Creationism, the book that I referred to, that comes in a Christian edition as well. And I deliberately didn't use that one. I wanted to use a nonreligious version. Q Within Act 590, is creation science ever identified or called a theory? A: Well, I don't see the word "theory" there, just as I said earlier. I see the whole passages as being written very carefully to avoid the use of the word theory. But as I went on to say, in my professional opinion, I don't think that one can read this without understanding "theory." And if you remember, I drew this particularly on the analysis of the first two sentences. In other words, 4(a), creation science means the scientific evidences for creation, et cetera. Evolution science means the

318 A: (Continuing) scientific evidences for evolution. And my point is, was, that it doesn't make any sense to talk about scientific evidences in isolation. I mean, scientific evidences mean, well, what? Scientific hypothesis, scientific theory. Q How about data, the facts? A: What about the facts? Q Cannot scientific evidences mean the scientific data? A: Not just a naked fact on its own, that's not scientific. I mean, it could just as well be religious or metaphysical or anything mathematical.

You see, the thing is, science is a body of knowledge which you try to bind together to lead to scientific understanding. Facts disembodied on their own are not part of science. It's only inasmuch as your bringing together within a sort of framework that you start to get science. 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. Q What is a model? A: In my opinion, 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.

319 A: (Continuing) For example, another of the witnesses, Doctor Ayala, has written a book called Evolving: The Theory and Processes of Evolution. And presumably, I assume what he's doing is, in the overall context, talking about a theory, 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. Q So a model is more narrow than a theory? A theory is broader? Is that generally A: Well, let me put it this way. That's the way which I would use it as a philosopher of science. 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, a scientific model is certainly something that you use in the context of scientific evidences, but certainly. Q You talked about the use of the word "kind". You said that's not an exact term? A: Yes. Q In taxonomy are the terms species in general and other classifications, are they fixed? Has there been no change in them? A: What do you mean by "fixed, has there been no

320

A: (Continuing) change in them"? Q Well, has the definition of the species or the particular classification of animals, for examples, into species, has that been unchanging through time? A: Well, you know, that's a very interesting question from a historical point of view. And certainly, I think one can see differences in emphasis. But I think it's very interesting, for example, that you talk about species that, in fact, you see a concept of species being used, say, in the early nineteenth century, before Darwin, which is very, very similar in many respects to the concept of species today. That's to say, a species is a group of organisms like human beings which breed between themselves, don't breed with others. And certainly this was a notion of species which certainly goes back, as I know it, a couple of hundred years. Certainly, again, genera and higher orders, perhaps higher orders are, as we all know, 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. Q Species, you said, though, are groups which interbreed and do not breed with other groups? A: Basically, yes.

321 Q For example, is a dog a different species than a wolf? A: I guess so. Q Do they interbreed, to your knowledge? A: Sometimes you get this. But of course, the point is, you see, you can't turn this one against me because I'm an evolutionist and I expect to find that. This is the whole point about the evolutionary theory. Q But the definition for species that you gave me breaks down in that one example, does it not? A: Oh, listen, that's the whole Any definition you give in biology, you are going to find conflicts. For example, what I'm doing is I'm giving you the point about biological concepts, is that they are not like triangles. If I give you a definition of triangle, then if it hasn't got three sides, it ain't a triangle. On the other hand, when you are dealing with concepts in the biological

world, then you are dealing with things which are a great deal fuzzier. Now, that doesn't mean to say we don't have paradigm cases. I mean, for example, humans don't breed with cabbages; we don't breed with horses; we are a good, you know, classification of the species. Now, of course, as an evolutionist, my belief is that

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

323 Q Now, did the peppered moths become dark colored? Did they change into dark colored moths? A: No. You mean, did the individual moth change?

Q Or the species changed? A: The species, yes. Certain races or groups, populations within the species did indeed, yes. Q Are you aware that in discussing that example in the introduction to the Origin of Species, L. Harrison Matthews stated that these experiments demonstrate natural selection in action, but they do not show evolution in progress? A: Am I aware of that passage? Q Yes. A: I have glanced through it. I am quite sure you are reading correctly, and I know those are the sorts of sentiments which he expresses in that introduction. Q Is L. Harrison Matthews, to your knowledge, a creation scientist? A: You certainly know perfectly well that I know that he isn't. Q Was any new species created excuse me evolved in that peppered moth example? A: To the best of my knowledge, no. Q So you had two species when you started and you had two species

324 A: No. You've got two forms within the same species. Q All right. Two forms. And there were still two forms, correct? A: Yes. Q Now, you mentioned that, in discussing the definition of creation science in the Act, that they "they" being the creation scientists talk about a relatively recent inception of the earth, and you take that to mean six to ten thousand years? A: Well, as I say, I interpret that against the scientific creationist literature. As I said, if you just look at the sentence right there, it could be anything from, well, let's say, a hundred million years to, as I said, a week last Friday. 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?

A: Yes, I think it could be. Q You also talked about the two model approach, which you say it polarizes. It's either/or? A: Right. Q And just looking at the origin of life and of man and the universe, can you think of any other options besides there was some sort of creator at some point and there was not?

325 A: Well, you know, I find that very difficult to answer because that's a sort of religious question or at least a metaphysical question. And I think one would have to specify a little more definitely what you meant by creator in that sort of context. I mean, now, if you say to me, "Well, by creator, I mean Yahweh of the Old Testament, then, yes, I would say that, for example, I could think of some sort of life force or world force, like, for example, Plato suggests in The Timaes. So I can think of lots of different notions of creator. And same of the others were talking about some of these yesterday, so I certainly think there are lots of options that are open. Q But if we talk about creator in the broad context of that word, can you think of any other options besides having a creator and not having a creator? A: I don't really think I can. But as I say, not having a creator, 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. I'm asking if you can think of any other options? A: Well, I'll tell you something, I'm not altogether

326 A: (Continuing) sure that I know what the disjunction means. So if I say no, I can't, I have to confess it's at least partly predicated on the fact that your question And I'm not trying to be clever, now. It's just so fuzzy that I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

Q If there are two approaches, two models, and if they should be mutually exclusive, would not evidence against one be evidence for the other if they are mutually exclusive? A: If they are, then, of course, I would agree with what you're saying. However, you've got the if in. Q I understand that. A: And if wishes came true, then beggars could ride. Q You also talked about the other theories on, as I understand, the creation of life or how life came about, let me put it that way. And you mentioned one that life was generated by some slow processes. And you mentioned a theory or hypothesis espoused by Crick. And then you mentioned one espoused by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. Do you consider those to be scientific hypotheses? A: Well, I'll tell you, I haven't read Crick's book, to be quite honest about it. I just saw a review of it in the New York Review of Books. I have read rather quickly Hoyle and Wickwhatever it is, book. 25

327 A: (Continuing) I thought, and this, was my opinion, that at least parts of it were acceptable as scientific hypotheses. Personally, I thought that they ignored an awful lot of evidence, but I thought parts of it. On the other hand, I think that finally there are parts of their book where they certainly seemed to me to slop over into religion. However, I would want to say that at least as far as life coming here on this earth is concerned, I would have thought that this is at least a form that science could be. I mean, it's not well confirmed science, as far as I know. Q Directing your attention to Act 590, again, 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. First of all, do you know whether there is any scientific evidence to support that portion of the definition? A: Well, I don't like the term "single organism" there. I don't know that there is any scientific evidence to suggest that it's a single organism or many organisms. And I'm not sure that anybody else does. Q All right. Let's look at the first part?

A: The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds. Yes.

328 A: (Continuing) I would have thought that, for example, there is good evidence to suggest that certain random processes are also extremely important. 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, yes. Of course, it doesn't necessarily I mean, part of the excitement is we don't know all of the laws. And if we knew all of the laws, 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, but we are working towards them. Q And science is a changing A: It's an ongoing process, yes. Q And when we look back now at some of the things which were considered to be scientific years ago, in light of our present-day knowledge, they don't seem very scientific, do they? A: You know, again, that's an interesting question. They certainly wouldn't be very scientific if we held them, and certainly there are some things that we would count out. We'd say today, for example, "Well, that's not scientific; that's obviously religious. On the other

329 A: (Continuing) hand, there are some things I think we'd want to say, well, no. Obviously we wouldn't hold them as scientific today, but they certainly were validly scientific by our own criteria in the past. I mean, for example, the Ptolemaic system belief that the earth was at the center, and in my opinion, was a perfectly good scientific theory. It made a lot of sense. Q As we, to the extent that we can, look into the future, 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, although it may have been today?

A: Do you know, that's a very interesting question. I hope I'm around two hundred years from now to answer that. I hope we are both around. But I'm not sure I agree with you there. I think in the last two, three hundred years the notion of science has started to solidify, and that, for example, at the time of Newton, people were getting to the point where they could have a good feel for what science was. Now, certainly, I think you are right to suggest that, say, a couple of hundred years from now people will look back at us and say, "Well, how could they have believed all those sorts of things?" And I, you know, I hope very

330 A: (Continuing) much that's the case. It's going to be a pretty boring future for our grandchildren, otherwise. Q If we are not, science will be A But I don't think they are going to say we are not scientists. MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, Mr. Williams on a number of occasions interrupted the witness' answer, and I would appreciate it if he could be instructed not to do that. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, my understanding is he's finished the answer. Also, the witness has interrupted me on a couple of occasions, too. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. You know, professors talk too much. MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q Now, looking back at the definition in 4(a) again, if you look at 4(a)(3), "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals," if we start looking at the degree of change, is that not something we can look at by resort to natural laws? A: That we can use That we can look at Now, I'm not quite sure I'm following you. Q (3) speaks of the degree of change that there is. A: We can certainly look, for example, at how much change has occurred since certain times in the past and

331

A: (Continuing) using laws, of course. Q Does that require miracles to study that? A: No, I certainly don't think it does, because evolutionists do this and they don't use miracles. Q And (4), looking at the ancestry for man and apes. It says "separate" there. But separate or not separate, did that require the implication of miracles to study that? A: No. But of course, it does require the willingness to be prepared to take counter-evidence to what you find. And as I pointed out earlier, I don't think creation scientists would be prepared to take counter-evidence. Again, for example, 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 Looking, then, at (5), explanation of the earth's geology, 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 And (6) "a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." There we are talking about the age of the earth and how long life has been on the earth. Can we look at that or resort to natural laws without looking at miracles? A: We can. However, what I do want to suggest is that

332 A: (Continuing) very frequently the creation scientists do not. They argue, for example, that the laws change or speeded up or grew in certain intensities and so on and so forth. So, certainly, I think one can study the age of the earth naturally by using laws and inferring back. I'm quite prepared to accept that. I'm not prepared to accept that creation scientists do do it. Q You said that something which can explain everything is not a scientific theory? A: Right. Q If that statement were true about the theory of evolution, it, therefore, would not be a scientific theory, would it? A: Well, it's another of your hypotheticals, Mr. Williams.

Q Well, I'm asking you if it were true? A: But I'm just saying, accepting the hypothetical that if it were the case, then your consequent follows. However, once again, we've got, "if it were the case." Now, what I'm saying and what I've said earlier is that "it's not the case", so I argue that the consequent doesn't follow. Q You also talked about creation science or about the

333 Q (Continuing) quality or attribute or criteria of science as being falsifiable. And you said that creation scientists, they start with the Bible and if it doesn't fit in there, we don't accept it? A: Right. Q As you look in Act 590, 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, the words are "scientific evidences." Q All right. Thank you. The books you have referred to, 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, I don't. Q Many of them, in fact, based upon your own knowledge, would not stand the scrutiny of this law because they do rely upon religious references, is that not true? A: That's the problem, Mr. Williams.

334 Q Excuse me. Could I get an answer to my question first?

A: Yes. The answer is yes. But of course, if I just finish by saying yes, I've only said half of what I want to say. Q I'm not trying to cut you off A: I've just said what you want me to say. Fine. Q And you state finally that creation science is not a science; it is a religion. And you base that in part upon your own experience in teaching the philosophy of religion. Is that correct? A: I do, yes. 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. It's a question. A: I would have thought so, yes. Q Do you recall that you told me in your deposition that you said, "I don't know," in answer to that question? A: Well, as I said, you don't I think it's a very general sort of question which is so general, I mean, you could put it at different levels. And in the context of

335 A: (Continuing) our discussion earlier, it could have been much more specific, in which case I would have said I don't know. Q Is creation science taught in the public schools of Canada? A: My understanding and again, please understand I do not speak as a professional educator at that level in Canada, but my understanding is that in some schools it is certainly taught and not simply in private schools, but in some of the public schools. I believe, for example, that in the Province of Alberta it is taught. Q Have you ever made any effort to find out how creation science is taught in Canada? A: Have I made any effort?

Q Yes. A: In fact, interestingly, since you took my deposition, I have certainly talked to some of the evolutionists on campus. I confess I haven't found out very much yet, but I intend to. Q Has the teaching of creation science ever been a matter of much great debate in Canada? A: It's growing debate. For example, like that of the event of welcoming Doctor Gish onto my campus in February, I think it is.

336 A: (Continuing) And certainly, for example, about two months, ago I debated with one of the creationists, in fact, one of the co-authors of Doctor Morris' book on the equivalent of public television. Q But in the past, 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, great controversy. I confess, you know, an awful lot of Canadian news tend to be about you folks, and you polarize things much more quickly than we do. That's not a criticism, by the way. Q When you teach your courses in philosophy, do you try to give some sort of balanced treatment to different is theories, different types of philosophy? A: I certain try to give a balance treatment to what I teach. 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. Q But you do teach some philosophies which might be conflicting or at least not consistent with each other? A: I certainly do, in a historical context. I mean, I teach Look, I teach creationism in a historical context. I mean, I teach history of science, I talk about creationism as it was up through the 1850's and this sort

337 A: (Continuing) of thing. So, I mean, of course, I'm teaching it in a historical context.

Q But you try to be fair in teaching these different philosophies, don't you? A: I certainly do. For example, I'd like to think that I'm being fair to the creationists, for example, in my book on The Darwinian Revolution. 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, you used that term "scientific evidence" again. I'm not prepared to accept scientific evidence without talking about the theory. If you say to me, do I have any objection to all theories which I hold as, what shall I say, which are held by the consensus of scientists being taught, I don't have any objection, with the proviso that, of course, at the high school level, at the university level, undergraduate level, you are certainly not going to try to teach everything. And in fact, as I see it, high school level and also at the university level, one is going to be teaching the basic, the fundamentals. Certainly, one is going to talk about some of the controversies, some of the ideas, this

338 A: (Continuing) sort of thing. But as far as, for example, teaching the latest thing in punctuated equilibria at the high school level, somebody said, "Oh, well, we are going to spend, say, six weeks on punctuated equilibria." I'd say, "Well now, listen, fellow, maybe you should be spending a bit more time on Mendel's laws." Q What you are saying, then, is because of a limited amount of time, choices do have to be made in curriculum? A: Not just because of a limited amount of time, but because of the whole general philosophy of proper education that educators must select. Education isn't sort of an indifferent THE COURT: Where are you going with that? MR. WILLIAMS: Pardon? THE COURT: What is the point of going into that? MR. WILLIAMS: The point of that is that in teaching all scientific evidence and that curriculum has to be, he will concede that you have to make some choice of curriculum.

THE COURT: That seems so obvious to me. MR. WILLIAMS:Well, to some degree. It's not obvious in the plaintiffs' pleadings, your Honor. They want to state that apparently the state has no right to make any choice of curriculum; that, it falls to the

339 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing.) individual teacher to teach what they want, when they want, how they want. THE COURT: I don't believe they make that contention, but let's go on to something else. MR. 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, perhaps, unmoved mover and agnosticism. In other words, don't really know. I mean, I'm a bit like Charles Darwin in this respect. Some days I get up and say, "You know, I'm sure there must be a cause." And then other days I say, "Well, maybe there isn't after all." Q There must be a cause? A: There must be something that There must have been something originally. Q The term "cause", 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. It doesn't necessarily mean cause in the sense of a physical cause. It could well be final cause or something like this. Q Is your conception of a God some sort of world

340 Q (Continuing) force? Is that one way you would describe it?

A: As I say, I don't say my conception of a God is some sort of world force. My conception is, perhaps, sometimes there is more to life than what we see here and now. Q But you did tell me in your deposition that your conception of God would be that there might be some sort of, quote, world force? A: There might be because, as I say, I'm not even an expert on my own beliefs in this respect. Q Do you have a personal belief as to whether a creator, in whatever form, had a hand, figuratively speaking, in creating the universe, the life or man? A: Not really. It's all so foggy to me. Q Do you feel a religious person can be a competent scientist, Doctor Ruse? A: Oh, certainly. Q As you look at the definition in the Act of creation science, Section 4(a)(1), "Sudden creation of life," et- cetera, is that consistent with your own religious beliefs? A: Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing. I, you know, to be perfectly honest, to me it's almost a meaningless question. You say, is it consistent. I think that one This sort of level, I prefer not to talk in terms of consistency.

341 A: (Continuing) As I say, the whole thing is simply, a mystery to me. And if I say, well, is this consistent, then already I'm starting to define what my position is more than I'm prepared to do. Q Well, you have earlier equated Section 4(a) to some sort of supernatural intervention by a creator? A: Right. 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. I don't think, on the other hand, that that's a very exciting part to me. I mean, quite frankly, what concerns me is not how did it all start, but how is all going to end. Q But did you not tell me in your deposition, Doctor Ruse, that that was I asked you the question, "Is that consistent with your religious beliefs," and you said, "No." I'm referring to page 52, lines 7 through

A: Okay. I'm prepared to say no. As I say, it's so, foggy that I'm no, yes. We're really getting to the borderline here where if you insist on an answer, I would have to say, "Well, I'll give you an answer if you want it, but it's, you know, it's not something I feel very confident about." I mean, if you ask me, "Are you wearing glasses," I can

342 A: (Continuing) say yes, and I'll stand by it. If you ask me, "Was there a creator," I'll have to say, "Well, possibly." And if you say, "Well, do you really think there is, are you not an atheist," and I'd have to say, "Well, no, I'm not an atheist." That's definite. Do I accept 4(a)(1), could I accept 4(a)(1), well, I guess possibly I could in some respects, but other respects, possibly not. Q Would you look at the definition is 4(b) of evolution science, 4(b)(1), for example. Would that be consistent with your religious beliefs? MR. NOVIK: Excuse me, your Honor. I've allowed the questioning to go an without objection because I thought the relevance would become apparent. To me, it has not. And I object on the grounds that this line is entirely irrelevant to these proceedings. THE COURT: What relevance is it? MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, if the plaintiffs want to stipulate that the religious beliefs of the witnesses on these matters are not relevant, we will stipulate to that, and I can go on to other matters. 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. I think they are relevant. I just wonder how relevant they are to go into

343 THE COURT: (Continuing) all this kind of exchange of words. It doesn't seem to get us any place. MR. NOVIK: That was precisely my point. THE COURT: It seems to me like you've got about as much out of that as you can. If you want to continue to beat it, that's fine with me.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I want to make sure that the record is clear that, for example, in this witness' case, that the theory or the part of the Act, the definition section, that he personally thinks is more correct is also consistent with his own religious beliefs. THE COURT: Okay. If you can ever make that clear. MR. WILLIAMS: I think I'd like to try, at least. THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's my soul which is at stake, so I don't mind keeping going if we can find out what MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q Doctor Ruse, looking at Section 4(b) generally, 4(b)(4) and 4(b)(6), 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, those are consistent with your own religious beliefs? A: Oh, certainly. Yes. Q Do you think that evolution is contrary to the religious beliefs of some students?

344 A: Yes. I think that I would want to say that, yes. But then again, so is a lot of science. Q In teaching philosophy courses, do you ever teach theories or philosophies that you don't personally agree with? A: In a historical context, certainly. Q And a teacher should not have to teach only those courses which they agree with, isn't that correct? A: Now, hang on. Try that one against me again. Q Do you think a teacher should teach only those things he or she agrees with? A: Well, you say "should only teach those things that they agree with." I mean, for example, I teach a lot of things that I don't agree with. But of course, as I say, I do this in a historical context. I mean, it seems to me that a historian could certainly teach all about the rise of Hitler without being a Nazi themselves.

Now, one can teach and deal with things that you don't agree with, certainly in a historical context. 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, now, you say the theory of evolution.

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

346

Q (Continuing) particularly academic philosophers, 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, did you not, that there was an increasing number? A: An increasing number. I think I said an increasing number, of philosophers, don't I, or people with philosophical pretensions or something along those lines. Q I think the record will speak for itself as to what was said. I think the word "scientists" was used. A: You know, I'm not a sociologist of science. I'm not a sociologist of philosophies. You know, you want to take a head count, you could be right, I could be right. Who knows. I certainly know that a number of important scientists, or I'll put it this way, a number of important philosophers have certainly changed their minds. Q Has Popper changed his mind about that? A: I really don't know. Popper is an old man, you know. Without being unkind, I think Popper is getting to the point where mind changes aren't that important to him anymore. Q Did he not state that evolutionary theory was not

347 Q (Continuing) falsifiable? A: Oh, no. Certainly at one point, Popper wanted to claim that Darwinism was not falsifiable. Now, where Popper stood on evolutionary theories per se, I think is a matter of some debate. 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. 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. Q At some level? A: Yes.

Q But he also said, did he not, that evolutionary theory was, in fact, a metaphysical research program? A: I think he said that Darwinism was. I'd have to go back and check to see whether Popper ever said that all evolutionary theories are unfalsifiable or metaphysical. MR. NOVIK: Excuse me, your Honor. We learned from the Attorney General yesterday in his opening argument that the State is interested in demonstrating that evolution is not science, and that evolution is religion. This line of questioning seems to go to that issue. The plaintiffs contend that that entire line of questioning as to both of those points are irrelevant to

348 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing) these proceedings. Evolution is not an issue in this case. 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. I'd be happy to argue that briefly at the present time, if the Court desires. THE COURT: Is that the purpose of the questioning, Mr. Williams? Are you trying to establish that evolution is a form of religion? MR. WILLIAMS: Not this particular line of questioning itself. But in view of the Court's ruling on the motion in Limine, that it is appropriate to consider whether creation science is a scientific theory, I think we are entitled to try to show that creation science is at least as scientific as evolution. Indeed, the Bill on its face raises this issue in some of the findings of fact. And to the extent that they have been attacking the findings of fact in the Act, I think we are entitled to go into this to show one as against the other, the relative scientific stature of these two models. THE COURT: Why don't we take a ten minute recess, and I'd like to see the attorneys back in chambers.

349 (Thereupon, Court was in recess from 11:40 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.)

THE COURT: Mr. Williams, just to put this in some perspective, as I understand it, the State is not making the contention that evolution is not science. 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. WILLIAMS: That is it in part, your Honor. Also, just the point being to demonstrate that, we are not demonstrating that evolution is not science, but that if you, according to this particular definition, that creation science clearly would be as scientific in that neither could meet, according to some experts, the definition of a scientific theory. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q Doctor Ruse, what is the concept of teleology? A: Understanding in terms of ends rather than prior causes. THE COURT: Excuse me. What is that word? MR. WILLIAMS: Teleology. T-e-l-e-o-l-o-g-y. THE COURT: What is the definition? That's not one of those words that's in my vocabulary.

350 THE WITNESS: Shall I try to explain this? THE COURT: Yes, sir. THE WITNESS: Well, a teleological explanation, for example, one would contrast this with a regular causal explanation. For example, if I knocked a book on the floor, you might say "What caused the book to fall to the floor." In which case, you are also talking about what happened that made it fall. A teleological explanation is often done in terms of design. For example, in a sense of, "Well, what purpose or what end does this glass serve." In other words, why is the glass here," something along those sort of lines. Sort of things that were being talked about yesterday afternoon. MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

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 mean, not impossible. I mean, there have been both concepts. Q How would you distinguish the two? A: Well, I would say the theological one is where, for example, you explain the nature of the world in terms of God's design, the sorts of things I find in 4(a), where one tries to understand why the world is, as it is because that's what God intended and that was God's end.

351 A: (Continuing) A non-theological one would be the kind, I think, the kind of understanding that evolutionists, Darwinian evolutionists, for example, who says, "What end does the hand serve." In this case, 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. Q So some modern biologists do consider themselves to be teleologists? A: Let me put it this way. Some certain philosophers think that biologists are teleologists. Q Do they always use the term "teleology"? A: The philosophers or scientists? Q The philosophers in describing this concept? A: Not always. In other words, sometimes used as teleonomy, but I personally like the word teleology. Q Is this word, teleonomy, used to show that they are using the concept of teleology in its nontheological, nonreligious sense? A: I would think that's probably true, yes. Q In other words, they are trying to overcome a problem of semantics? A: Well, they are trying to set themselves up against their predecessors. Scientists like to do this. Q Do you consider Thomas Coon's book, The Structure of

352 Q (Continuing) Scientific Revolutions, to be recognized as an authority in either the history or philosophy of science? A: Well, we don't have authorities in the philosophy of science. You know, they are all pretty independent types. I would certainly say that Thomas Coon's book is considered a very important book. I think it's a very important book. Q In your book, The Philosophy of Biology, you state that the modern synthesis theory of evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt, do you not? A: Right. Q And you further state that the falsity of its rivals is beyond a reasonable doubt? A: Right. 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, quite honestly. I dealt with a number of alternatives, and punctuated equilibrium theory certainly wasn't one of those which was there to be considered when the book was written. What I was saying was things like the original Lamarckism, you know, are false beyond a reasonable doubt. It certainly holds to that.

353 A: (Continuing) What I also said was that the importance of selection, mutation, so on, are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Q Again, to my question, is not the punctuated equilibrium theory a rival, contrasting to the modern synthesis theory which you think has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? A: Well, that's a nice point. I think some people would think of it as such. I don't personally think of it as such, and I'm glad to find that a lot of evolutionists like Ayala doesn't think of it as such. Q Others do, do they not?

A: Well, quite often I think some of the people who put it up like to think of it as a rival. But, you know, we're still- I mean, the punctuated equilibria theory is a very new theory. We're still working on the sort of conceptual links between it and the original theory. And I think it's going to take us awhile yet to decide whether we are dealing with rivals or complements or whatever. But of course, let me add that in no sense does this at any point throw any doubt upon evolution itself. We are talking just about causes. Q Is defining a science a task which falls to philosophers rather than to scientists themselves?

354 A: Well, it falls to people acting as philosophers. Scientists can certainly act as philosophers. Q So is science a question of philosophy? A: It's a philosophical question. Q Do philosophers uniformly agree on what is science? A: I think that basically we would agree, yes. Q They would not agree entirely, would they? A: Well, philosophers never agree entirely. 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 Do you think in a society with a commonly held religion that religion could properly be taught in the public schools? A: Yes. I think that for example, in medieval Europe where, in fact, everybody is a Catholic, I see no reason not to teach it in the public schools. Of course, that has absolutely no relevance to us here today. We are talking about America and we are talking about Arkansas. Q Is part of your opposition to creation science, and more specifically to Act 590, based on your belief that it's just a foot in the door, as you view it, for the fundamentalist religious groups?

355 A: Yes, I think I would. It's part of my belief. I mean, I think it's important to oppose Act 590 in its own right. I think it's wrong, dreadfully wrong. But certainly I do see it as a thin end of a very large wedge, yes. Q And you see it as some sort of wedge which includes attacks on homosexuality on women and on other races, don't you? A: Insofar as it spreads a very natural literalistic reading of the Bible, which as you know and I know certainly says some pretty strong things about, say, homosexuals, for example, certainly, yes, I can see it as a thin end of a very big wedge, yes. Q But Act 590 has absolutely nothing to say on those subjects, does it? A: Well, I didn't say that it did. I mean, my point simply is that if you allow this, this is the thin end of the wedge. You don't talk about all the wedge when you are trying to shove the tip in. Q We are dealing here with the law, Doctor Ruse. 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. But as I said earlier, my opposition to

356 A: (Continuing) the law is independent in its own right. Q I understand that. Who is Peter Medawar? A: I think he's a Nobel Prize winner, a biologist or biochemist. Lives in England. 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; 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. But of course, that does not mean in any sense that Medawar opposes evolutionary theory in the sense of general evolution per se. Q But isn't what Medawar is saying there is what we talked about this morning, that Darwinism can accommodate any sort of evidence? A: But you are doing what we talked about this morning. You are confusing the causes with the fact of evolution.

Yes, Medawar was certainly uncomfortable, let's put it that way. I don't know where he stands today. I know that Popper has drawn back, but Medawar was certainly uncomfortable with the mechanism of neo-Darwinism.

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

358 Q (Continuing) in an area, sometimes, become emotionally attached to a theory?

A: Scientists are human beings. I'm sure they do. Q And might they also be intellectually attached to a theory? A: Individual scientists, certainly. But not necessarily the scientific community. I mean, Louie Agassiz that we talked about earlier was emotionally attached to his position, but the scientific community wasn't. Q Had not, you written that Darwinian evolutionary theory is something which you can love and cherish? A: Me, personally, yes, I do indeed. I think it's a wonderful theory. Q Also, 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 And how long have you been writing on Darwinism yourself? A: Oh, altogether, fifteen years. I mean, quite frankly, some of my early stuff was done when I was a graduate student. I mean, I don't know whether you'd call that writing. Q Doctor Ruse, in an article entitled "Darwin's Legacy", did you state-

359 MR. NOVIK: What page? MR. WILLIAMS: 55. MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q -did you state, first of all, that Christianity and other forms of theism and deism are not the only world religions today; that in many parts of the world there is a powerful new rival? A: Marxism. Q And then you write at some length, do you not, about Marxism, particularly as it is affected by evolutionary thought, as it affects that thought? A: Right. I'm talking, of course, in the context, very much the context of discovery there as opposed to the context of justification.

In other words, what I'm saying is that certain scientists have tried to blend their position with Marxism, and certainly extra scientific ideas have been importantly influential in leading people to certain scientific theories. I am not at all saying, for example, that evolutionary theory is Marxist. Q I understand that. Back to the point you just mentioned, science is really not concerned, then, is it, where a theory comes from or a model comes from? The more important question is, does the data fit the model?

360 A: Well, more important to whom? Certainly, to the scientist, of course, is a question of you get the ideas and then you put them in a public arena, and how do they fare. For example, Copernicus was a Pythagorean, but we accept Copernicus' theory, not because we are Pythagoreans and Sun worshipers, but because Copernicus' theory works a lot better than the Ptolemaic system does. Q Do you consider Marxism to be a religion? A: In a sense. We talked about this in the deposition. As I said, religion is one of these very difficult terms to define. I would have said if you are going to define religion just in terms of belief in a creator, then obviously not. But if you are going to talk of religion in some sort of ultimate concern, some sort of organization, something like this, then, as I said, I'm happy to talk about Marxism as a religion. Q In your article at page 57, do you not state, "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, what I want to point out here is that just like Christians, we find that the Marxists try to modify and adapt Darwinism to their own ends and within their own patterns. I refer

361 Q (Continuing) specifically to such work as is being done by the Marxist biologist, Stephen J. Gould, particularly his paleontology hypothesis of punctuated equilibria introduced and briefly discussed early in this essay?"

A: I say those words. I certainly do not in any sense imply that punctuated equilibria is a Marxist theory. In fact, the co-founder who is sitting over there would be horrified to think that it is. What I am saying is that Gould as a Marxist, from what I can read and what he has done, has probably been led to make certain hypotheses and claims which he finds certainly empathetic to his Marxism. I do not want to claim that punctuated equilibria is Marxist, per se, and I certainly don't want to claim that only and all Marxists could accept punctuated equilibria. In fact, my understanding is that a lot of Marxists don't like this. Q Please understand, what I understand you are saying here, in fact, what you state is, for example, with reference to Gould, that he is strongly committed to an ideological commitment to Marxism in his science. And you have previously equated Marxism with a religion. Is that not correct? A: No. You know, you are twisting my words here. I'm

362 A: (Continuing) saying, "Look, here's a guy who, to the best of my knowledge" - and, goodness, you are going to be able to ask him tomorrow yourself - "here's a guy who has got strong philosophical" - if you want to call them religious beliefs, I am prepared to do this - "who certainly would like to see the aspects of these in the world," certainly using his philosophy, his religion to look at the world just as Darwin did, incidentally, and just as Copernicus did. And I see, you know, nothing strange about this. I see nothing worrying about this. Once you've got your theory, then, of course, it's got to be evaluated and is indeed being evaluated by independent objective criteria, and there's nothing Marxist about that. 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'm not. I don't like the word "conforming". You know, we can go around on this all day. I don't like the word "conforming". What I'm saying is that some of their ideas are important in their context of discovering plus for formulating their ideas. But as I say, you know, you could take Darwin, for

363 A: (Continuing) example. Darwin was a deist, no doubt about it. The only reason why Darwin became an evolutionist is because it fitted best with his religious ideas. Copernicus was a Platonist. Q Have you not said that Gould, for example, pushes his scientific positions for three Marxist related reasons? A: What he does is, he pushes the ideas to get them out on the table. This is the sort of thing he likes. Of course, you do. You sharpen your ideas. Copernicus pushed his ideas. It doesn't mean to say that Gould is going to be a punctuated equilibrist because he's a Marxist. It doesn't mean to say that Eldridge or anybody else is going to be a punctuated equilibrist because they are Marxists. What it means is that probably Gould pushes these sorts of ideas. You see, again the context of discovery, the context of justification. People discover things. People come up with ideas for all sorts of crazy reasons and all sorts of good reasons. But once you've got them out, as it were, within the scientific community, then they've got to be accepted because of the way that they stand up, do they lead to predictions. I mean, does punctuated equilibria lead to predictions that are predictions within the fossil record. Q Doctor Ruse, but you have previously stated, I

364 Q (Continuing) think, and would agree that this idea of punctuated equilibria, this debate that you see in the evolutionary community is a healthy debate? A: I do indeed. Q And they are not challenged - "they" being the punctuated equilibrists - have not challenged evolution over all, have they? Just merely the mechanism? A: Right. 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, doesn't it? A: Motivation. See, here we go again. What is motivation? Q Is that correct? Is that what you have said?

A: Well, if you read the passage, I'm quite sure I said those words, but you are deliberately refusing to understand what I'm saying. Q And then on the other hand, you simply, because someone challenges evolution, the theory of evolution itself, and you feel they are doing it based on religious reasons, and you are someone who is an adherent of Darwinian thought, you object to that. Is that not correct? A: Look, you are twisting my words. The challenge is

365 A: (Continuing) being done on an evidentiary basis, that is, moving into the context of justification. In that paper and other papers I'm talking about a context of discovery. What I'm saying is that when scientists discover things, often they have different sorts of motivations. But whether or not one is to accept punctuated equilibria has nothing at all to do with Gould's personal philosophy, personal religion. It's the fossil record. It's what we find out there that counts. Q You call it a healthy' debate, but you also state that this fails as science. ThisA: What, fails as science? Q This Marxist version of evolutionism, as you term it. A: Well, I say it fails, as science. But what I'm saying is I don't think it's true, but I don't think it's true or false because of Marxism. I personally don't accept it because I don't think they've made the case on the fossil record. Now, Gould thinks that he has. We can argue that one. But when I talk about its failing as a science, I do not mean it is now nonscientific. What I mean is that I don't think as a scientific hypothesis that it will fly. But as I say, Marxism is a red herring here.

366 Q I'm merely referring you to-

A: What I was doing, I was talking about the context of discovery. And if you want to talk about that, I'm prepared to do so. Q Well, you've said that the Marxism version of evolution has failed as science, but that's healthy. But creation science fails as science and that's unhealthy? A: Well, you see, you are putting words into what you want me to say. Marxist version of evolutionary theory. What I'm saying is, one prominent evolutionist is a Marxist. That led him, I think that encouraged him to try out certain ideas. But I don't think that punctuated equilibria theory is Marxist, per se. I certainly don't think the judgment is going to get into evidentiary level. Q Now, you are not a scientist yourself? A: No, I'm not a scientist. No. I'm a historian and philosopher of science which I would say encompasses a great deal of other areas in philosophy. Q The discovery basis you mentioned, if a creation scientist believes in a sudden creation, should that not be advanced and then fail or succeed on its merits of scientific evidence? A: No. Because we are not talking about scientific theory here. We are talking about religion. As a

367 A: (Continuing) philosopher I can distinguish between science and religion. We are not talking about the context of discovery here. And as I say, in any case, creation science isn't science. It's religion. Q Do you agree with John Stuart Neill that, "If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified silencing that one person that, had he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." A: Well, the subject is so strange that- You can't shout "Fire" in a loud crowded cinema. Yes, I do, right. I think it's a wonderful statement. But of course, silencing somebody is different from not allowing the teaching of religion in the science classroom. Q Teaching religion in the science classroom is your conclusion, is that correct? A: Right.

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. He is not going to admit what you want him to. THE WITNESS: Well, I'm glad I've got one philosophical convert here.

368 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Q Do you feel that the concept of a creator is an inherently religious concept? A: Yes, I do. Q So that the Creator should not be interjected into the science classroom? A: Well, I mean, let's be reasonable about this. I mean, for example, if you've got a biology class going, and one of the kids asks you about, say, what's going on in Arkansas at the moment, I wouldn't say, "Gosh, don't talk about that. Wait until we get outside." No. But I'd certainly say, "Look, if you want to talk about this religion, then, you know, maybe we could wait until a break," or something like that. Sure. 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, having been originally breathed by the Creator - with a capital C, I might add - 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, before weQ Does he? A: Okay. Before we start on that, just pedantic, could we get Darwin's book right. It's The Origin of Species.

369 A: (Continuing) You said The Origin of the Species, if we're going to be at this for two weeks-

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