THE COURT: Be seated, please. Good morning to all. We welcome you to Day 2, and we're going to continue with cross examination. Mr. Muise, you're prepared I assume?
MR. MUISE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
Q. Good morning, Dr. Miller.
A. Good morning, Mr. Muise.
Q. Sir, is evolution random and undirected?
A. I don't think that that is an appropriate scientific question. First of all, evolution most definitely is not random. There are elements of evolutionary change that are unpredictable, but the principal force driving evolution, which is natural selection is most definitely a non-random force, and then the second part of your question, undirected, that requires a conclusion about meaning and purpose that I think is beyond the realm of science. So my answer for different reasons to both parts of your question is no. Or excuse me, perhaps more aptly put, science cannot answer the second part of the question. I think that's a more accurate way to put it.
Q. Is a student believes that this was a scientific complaint -- let me strike that. If a student believes that this was a scientific claim, would that be a misconception?
A. If a student believed that it was a scientific claim that evolution was random and undirected, would that be a misconception? And I think my answer to that is yes, that would be a misconception of what science can state about evolution.
Q. Sir, in your 1995 edition of Biology, I believe it's the Elephant Book?
A. That's correct. It's generally known by that name.
Q. Did it not state in that book, "It is important to keep this concept in mind. Evolution is random and undirected," and the part "evolution is random and undirected" was in bold print?
A. To be perfectly honest, which of course I swore to be, I don't remember if it was in bold print or ordinary print, but I'm sure you have a copy of that book, and I'm sure that you'll show it to me and refresh my memory.
Q. You're very perceptive. May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. I hand you what's been previously marked as Defendant's Exhibit 210.
A. And in response to your question, sir, I note under Section 30-2 on the second page of the document you gave me, the complete sentence reads, "As we do so it's important to keep this concept in mind," and it is indeed in boldface, "Evolution is random and undirected," that's correct. So yes, sir, it does say that.
Q. Now, isn't it true when you write your textbook, a boldfaced sentence is a way of telling the students that this is a key idea?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Now, you testified previously that that's not a scientific concept, correct?
A. I did indeed, sir.
Q. Why was it in your book?
A. It was in my book because as I'm sure you've also looked at, that statement was not in the first edition of the book, it was not in the second edition, it was not in the fourth edition, it was not in the fifth edition. It was not --
Q. My question is why is it in this edition?
A. I'm trying to set the context so I can give a full and complete answer to your question. So the interesting thing is that this is the only edition of any of the books that we have published, and probably eleven different editions, that contains that statement, and the reason for that quite simply is that I work with a co-author whose name is Joseph Levine, and Joe and I work together on many of the chapters in the book, but many of them we write separately and individually, and this was a statement that Joe inserted when we did a rewrite of many sections of this book for the third edition.
I have to say that I missed the statement as I was going through Joe's chapters, and I feel very badly about that. When this was first pointed out to me, the third edition of this book was in print, I immediately went to Joe, I said Joe, I think this is a bad idea, I said I think this is a non-scientific statement, I think it will mislead students. Joe agreed. We immediately took it out of the book, and that's why I emphasized that it did not appear in subsequent editions. So what you're looking at, sir, is a mistake.
Q. Isn't it true that he put that in there because he was influenced by the writings of Steven J. Gould?
A. We had a conversation about that, and among the reasons that Joe cited was that he had read one of Steve Gould's books called "Wonderful Life" in which Gould emphasized what Gould regarded as the indeterminate character of evolution, and from that I think Joe made what I still think is a misinterpretation of Gould's central idea in "Wonderful Life," which is to say the indeterminate or the unpredictable nature of evolution Joe misinterpreted to say random and undirected, and I think Joe agreed that he had made a mistake, and that's one of the reasons why we changed it in the next edition, sir.
Q. Now, I believe you testified that about 35 percent of high schools in the United States use your textbook, one variation or version or another?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Is the 1995 elephant book still being used by high schools?
A. I'm sure you can find a few, but because the average book is used by a high school in the United States for about six to seven years, I think it's fair to say that very few school districts use the third edition of this book.
Q. Do you know if Prentice Hall is still selling this version as a science textbook?
A. I wouldn't be at all -- I wouldn't know that for a fact, sir. I wouldn't be at all surprised it's on what is called the back list so that people can buy additional copies of older editions. So I wouldn't be at all surprised that they are still selling.
Q. Do you receive royalties still for the old editions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe on direct you made a reference to Richard Dawkins in a statement that he made in The Blind Watchmaker, "Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Are you familiar with that quote?
A. I'm certainly familiar with that quote.
Q. And who is Richard Dawkins?
A. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a professor at Oxford University in England.
Q. He's considered a prominent scientist?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that claim that he made, the quote that I just read to you, is that a scientific claim?
A. No, sir, it's not.
Q. I understand that you were good friends with the late Steven J. Gould?
A. Yes, sir. Steve and I were personal friends. We were both, I was briefly on the faculty at Harvard and I got to know Steve there.
Q. And he was a paleontologist from Harvard?
A. Yes. Steven was actually a professor of geology, and his specialty was paleontology.
Q. Now, you have no difficulty believing that he would have made a comment such as, "Before Darwin we thought that a benevolent god had created us"?
A. You're giving me a statement and asking would I have trouble believing he said that. It would help me to know if in fact I'm being given a hypothetical quote or if this is an actual quote from an actual article or book of Dr. Gould.
Q. Well, I can represent to you it was from "Ever Since Darwin," but if you have a question you may want to refer to your deposition testimony at page 174.
A. Okay. I noticed that my answer in the deposition was pretty much identical to the answer I gave you now, which is you asked me if I was familiar with it, and I read, and I'm reading from my deposition, "Answer: No, I'm not. Do you know where that quote comes from?" And then you said, "I don't know if it was quoted out of The Blind Watchman, I may have been incorrect. Are you aware that he's made any statements similar to that?" So again I'm still asking where that quote might have come from.
Q. Okay, read the next answer.
A. Sure. "I'm perfectly willing to believe that Gould might have said that, but I don't know the context."
Q. Today are you perfectly willing to believe that Gould would have made that statement?
A. Would have and might have are actually different constructions, and what I will tell you is that I'm willing to believe that Gould might have made that statement, but I reiterate my quest to know the context for it.
Q. Is that statement a scientific statement?
A. No, I don't think so. I think it's an observation of -- it's an observation about history, and it's really a comment about society and popular imagination. It's certainly not a scientific statement.
Q. Do you know who the late George Gaylord Simpson was?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. And who was he?
A. George Gaylord Simpson was a very well known paleontologist and evolutionary biologist and evolutionary theorist.
Q. Now, I'll ask you do you think this quote that I'm about to state is something that you believe G.G. Simpson would have said, "Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have in mind he was not planned."
A. Now, I will once again ask you for the context of that statement, and that would help me to understand if G.G. Simpson might have said that.
Q. And again I represent to you it was from a book written called "The Meaning of Evolution." Again if you have a question I refer you to your deposition transcript at page 175.
A. Okay. Thank you for telling where the quote comes from. I certainly am willing to believe the George Gaylord Simpson might have said that. You asked me would I prefer to say he certainly might have said that.
Q. Is that a scientific claim?
A. No, sir, it is not.
Q. These three scientists that I just mentioned, Richard Dawkins, Steven J. Gould, and George Gaylord Simpson, are they considered prominent scientists?
A. Two of them certainly were when they were alive, and Richard Dawkins certainly is.
Q. In your direct testimony you gave a definition of intelligent design, and I want to make sure I'm clear on what your definition is, and I don't have exact recall from your direct testimony at this point.
A. Neither do I, counselor.
Q. But I can refer you to your answer in your deposition transcript, and I want to state what that answer is here and you can compare it on page 93 if you'd like to, and I want to see if that is the working definition that you are using for the purposes of this case.
A. The page was 93?
Q. Here's the definition, "Intelligent design is the proposition that the basic mechanism of evolution does not work and that the complexity of life, the changes that appear in living things and natural history, and the organization of living things are all best explained by the actions of an intelligent, creative force, acting outside, and you might say above, acting outside of the natural world, and that by definition that creative force lies outside of scientific explanation."
A. I believe that you've certainly read properly from the deposition. I believe that in my direct testimony yesterday, having thought a few months more about how to summarize things briefly so as not to tax the patience of the court, I used a more succinct definition, and I think the definition I used is intelligent design is the proposition that some aspects of living things are too complex to have been evolved and therefore must have been produced by an outside creative intelligence force acting outside the laws of nature, and I would suspect, sir, that both definitions are in agreement with each other, even one is a little more verbose.
Q. Isn't it true that you believe that there's a danger with attributing natural phenomena to supernatural causes, and that danger is that science will stop seeking natural explanations?
A. I'm not sure if I would put it in exactly those terms. I do think that the proposition that every unsolved problem in the natural world should be attributed to causes and forces which layout side the purview of science, outside the natural world, into what I would call the supernatural world, is a science stopper, and what I mean by that is that once one says the only way we can explain this or that or the other is by the actions of a creator or a designer working outside of nature there's no point to do any more research on these problems, and that's why I would characterize it as a science stopper.
Q. And to make this point in your deposition you used the example of the force that powers the sun which, according to your testimony, at one time was considered a supernatural phenomena. Is that accurate?
A. It may be an accurate reflection of the deposition, which I have not reread on that point, but the way I would phrase it if you asked me a similar question today is simply to point out --
Q. Sir, I asked you a question.
Q. And if you want to refer to your deposition testimony at 229, that might help you answer that question.
A. Sure, I appreciate that. Oh, well, now that I see the deposition my answer is no, I did not say that.
Q. Look at page 228 sir.
Q. You'll read from line 4 where it begins with "in other words"?
Q. Do you see that on line 4?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Then read until line 3 of page 229.
A. Sure. I'd be glad to. "In other words, they are advocating supernatural progressive creation as the default explanation for anything that cannot currently be explained by science, and I'll give you an example, because I think this is an important to make. If we were having a discussion in 1880 and we were talking about what is the force that powers the sun, where does sunlight, heat, warmth, and so forth from the sun come from, we can take the science at the time and we could rule out the notion that the sun was a big ball of flame made up of burning oil or burning wood or burning wax or any other known chemical reaction in 1880, and we could do that, because we could calculate the amount of energy the sun puts out, we could calculate over many years the fact that the sun's diameter, if it's decreasing it's decreasing only very slightly, and if the sun was made of any fuel that powered a known chemical reaction, it's diameter should be increasing much more quickly.
"Therefore in 1880 we could rule out the possibility," okay, I think I may have said a few things in this deposition that make no sense, "Therefore in 1880," oh, sorry, no, I didn't. "Therefore, in 1880 could we rule out the possibility that the sun's actions were due to some sort of divine intervention, the answer is absolutely no, we could not rule that out." Now, I'm sure the court reporter can correct my recollection of your question, but I think your question was did you state that in the 19th century the actions of the sun were attributed to divine intervention, and of course what I just read to you didn't say that. It said we couldn't rule out the possibility. That's not the same thing as saying they were attributed, and that's why I said no, sir, I did not say that in my deposition.
Q. Read on from page 229, from lines 4 through 16.
A. Gladly. "As you know, 25 years later there was a scientific explanation put forward for the power of the sun, and that turns out to be thermonuclear fusion, a force unsuspected by nature," and a strange way to put it. "So if at the time in 1880 science had simply thrown up its hands and said the explanation lies outside of nature, science would have stopped and we never would have done the investigatory work that was actually necessary to understand where the sun's power actually came from."
Q. Keep reading, sir.
A. Oh, sorry. "That's the danger of attributing natural phenomena to supernatural causes, or for that matter to design, which is essentially a call to say let's stop seeking natural explanations." Go on or --
Q. I believe that covers the point.
Q. You make that point in your deposition that by attributing something that you might not have an explanation for at the time to a supernatural cause, then we just may throw up our hands and then science will never have an explanation for these natural phenomena, is that correct?
A. That's exactly the point that I made there, yes, sir.
Q. And you used the example of the force that powers the sun to demonstrate that if science had just thrown up their hands, then we would have never come up with this notion of thermonuclear fusion.
A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
Q. But you also said thermonuclear fusion was a force that was unsuspected at the time by nature.
A. And as I read that I also said that's a very strange way to put it. I'm sure the court will understand the deposition went on for nine and one half hours, and I may once or twice have said something that doesn't quite make sense, and what I should have said in that exact context was a force that was unsuspected in nature, not by nature.
Q. So there could be a force that was unsuspected in nature at a time, through further scientific development may actually be a natural explanation such as thermonuclear fusion?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the fact back in 1880 that we didn't know about thermonuclear fusion didn't mean that science stopped?
A. It certainly did not mean that science stopped precisely because physicists around the world sought a natural explanation for the phenomenon rather than attributing to it a force outside of nature and beyond scientific investigation.
Q. So, sir, is your testimony and your opinions regarding intelligent design, is it based on your understanding that intelligent design does require the ruling out of all natural causes for design?
A. I'm sorry, not to parse these questions, because they're very carefully worded, and so I want to think about them carefully -- I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
Q. Is your testimony and your opinions based on your understanding of intelligent design is that intelligent design rules out all natural explanations for design?
A. The question you just asked is does intelligent design rule out all natural explanations? Well, the answer is of course not. What intelligent design presupposes, and I'll repeat the definition is that intelligent design argues that some aspects of living things are too complex to have been produced by evolution and therefore they must be the product of creative action by a designer acting outside of nature.
Q. So the design would have to be, in your understanding of intelligent design the design would have to be caused by a supernatural causation and no natural cause can be an explanation for design?
A. No, sir, I would disagree with that. You say no natural cause can be an explanation for design. I would point out that the snow flake, one of the most beautiful and intricately designed if you wish to say objects in the world, that any person who didn't know snow or understand snow would say it had a beautiful design to it, but I think any chemist, any physical chemist will tell you that the structure of a snow flake is due entirely to natural causes such as the interactions of water molecules through laws of chemistry and physics.
So I think you're lumping together certain propositions in what you're asking me to stay, and again I think I have clearly stated that my testimony is based on the definition that I understand of intelligent design as given in "Pandas and People," as explained by Dr. Behe, as explained by William Dembski, as explained by "The Discovery Institute, which is that some feature of living things are too complex to have been produced by evolution, and that means that they must have been the product of creative work by a natural, by an intelligent designer acting outside the laws of nature and beyond investigation. Snow flakes have what most of us would call a design, and they are the products of natural law.
Q. With regard to the theory of intelligent design, sir, not snow flakes, the theory of intelligent design, is it your testimony that it requires a supernatural intervention?
A. My testimony is that --
Q. Sir, I'm asking you a question.
A. And I'm trying to answer that question fully and completely, sir.
Q. It's a yes or no question. Is it your understanding of the theory of intelligent design that it requires the action of a supernatural power?
A. Okay. Again, intelligent design as I understand it presupposes that some features of living things are too complex to have been produced by evolution and therefore, and here's the answer to your question, they must be the product of an intelligent designer acting outside of nature, exercising a creative force to create the design.
Q. And in that answer then your view of intelligent design means that it requires the action of a super, it requires supernatural action?
A. Perhaps it would be useful in giving a direct answer to your question, which I'm trying very hard to do, to define what supernatural means. The word super means above. The word natural of course means natural. The actions of an intelligent designer, as they have been explained to me by the advocate of intelligent design, is the identity, the means of action, and even the time of action of that designer lies outside of scientific investigation. That means to me that it lies above, super, natural law, supernatural, and therefore that designer is supernatural in the ordinary understanding that actions that occur on nature, that occur from a force which is not natural, from a place which is outside of nature, and are not subject to investigation, must be supernatural. To help me frame my questions, because obviously you don't think I'm being entirely responsive to your questions, and I want very much to be responsive to them, perhaps you could explain to me how an intelligence designer could act undetectably, outside of nature, to create order that evolution and natural law cannot, and not be supernatural.
Q. That's your definition and your straw that you're creating on this definition. Here's my question for you with regards to what is considered supernatural. Do you know who Francis Crick is?
A. Yes, sir, I do know who Francis Crick is.
Q. And who is he?
A. Francis Crick is a British physicist and crystallographer who, together with James Watson and Rosalyn Franklin, is the co-discoverer of the double helical structure of DN A.
Q. And he received the Nobel prize?
A. Yes, I believe that he and Watson and Wilkins received the Nobel prize for biology or medicine in 1963.
Q. Now, he advanced a theory called directed panspermia, correct?
A. He wrote a book in which he suggested that the first appearance on life on earth might have been the result of the actions of beings from another planet, scattering life into our world, that's correct.
Q. And that was a hypothesis put forward by a Nobel laureate?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. Is that a scientific claim?
A. Well, the specifics that Dr. Crick made is a scientific claim, because although it's not immediately a testable claim, it is a potentially testable claim in terms of if we are able to explore larger and larger fractions of the known universe, we may eventually find out if there is life in other places that could have been directed towards us. So it's a scientific claim in the sense that it's potentially testable.
Q. Is it a supernatural claim?
A. That's an interesting point, and in this particular case no, I would not regard that as a supernatural claim.
Q. So the fact that life forms may have come from an intelligent being from another planet to this earth as I believe you have described, directed panspermia, that is not a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon?
A. It certainly is a farfetched claim in that many scientists would point out that there's no evidence for it, but as Crick framed it, it certainly would be a claim as I said that is potentially testable and therefore would accord to natural law.
Q. Are you familiar with a program that NASA has for, and I believe its acronym is SETI, Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence?
A. I'm familiar with it only as a lay observer who reads the papers and has heard about it.
Q. From what you have heard about it, is that a scientific exploration?
A. Certainly my understanding of how the work in SETI is being conducted is that it follows the scientific methods of explanation.
Q. Are they seeking a supernatural explanation?
A. No, sir, I don't think they are. I think that SETI is seeking evidence of life on other planets, other places in the universe.
Q. Would you agree with this proposition that because presently we may not have a plausible natural explanation is not the same thing as saying that we've ruled out all natural explanations?
Q. And the example of the power, the forces that power the sun would potentially be an example that fit that claim?
A. Yes, sir, I believe it would.
Q. Sir, intelligent design doesn't require adherence to the six day creation event described in the Book of Genesis, correct?
A. I certainly think that there are formulations of intelligent design that don't require adherence to a six-day creation event described in Genesis, that is correct.
Q. Intelligent design is not sectarian?
A. Can you help me, sir, by explaining what you mean by non-sectarian?
Q. Doesn't adhere to any particular religious dogma.
A. I believe that intelligent design does adhere to one particular religious dogma, and that is that life on earth can be attributed to the outside actions a designer whose actions are outside and above nature.
Q. Well, you need not be a fundamentalist Christian to be a proponent of intelligent design, correct?
A. I certainly think that one need not adhere to a particular religious point of view, but as intelligent design has been explained to me as it's described in "Pandas and People" and in the writings of the members of The Discovery Institute whom I've read and whom I regard as authoritative spokesmen for intelligent design, the common thread of intelligent design is attribution of the complex features of living organisms to the creative force of a being acting outside of nature, and that is definitely a theistic point of view.
Q. Again, sir, my question is you need not be a fundamentalist Christian to be a proponent of intelligent design?
A. That certainly is true.
Q. Dr. Behe for example has the same religion as you, correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. And Dr. Behe, an intelligent design proponent, does not adhere to the literal reading of Genesis? Is that your understanding?
A. Actually I have never discussed Dr. Behe's view of Genesis with him, so I'm not sure.
Q. Dr. Behe doesn't dispute the information from geology that the earth is very old, correct?
A. If I remember what -- and if I get this slightly wrong I'm sure you'll refresh my memory, I believe that Dr. Behe wrote in "Darwin's Black Box" that he has no particular reason to quarrel with the standard geological interpretation of the earth's history. Is that a fair phrasing, sir?
Q. Well, my question is to you, sir.
A. Well, my understanding then is the indirect quotation which I believe comes from "Darwin's Black Box" that he says he has no reason to argue or to quarrel with it. Now, to my standard of endorsement that's not a ringing endorsement, and it certainly, it certainly doesn't amount to an affirmative answer to your question.
Q. Sir, young earth creationists are completely unequivocal that the earth has to be between six to ten thousand years old, correct?
A. Most of the young earth creationists I have encountered have argued that the earth is less than ten thousand years old, that's correct, sir.
Q. And that's one of tenets of young earth creationism, correct?
A. As I understand them, sir, yes, that's correct.
Q. Dr. Behe, again an intelligent design proponent, does not adhere to the flood geology point of view advanced by creationists, is that correct?
A. I'm not sure whether Dr. Behe adheres to that or not. I haven't heard him state definitively. I have only read in "Darwin's Black Box" that he has no problem with the standard geological chronology.
Q. And from that statement would you infer that he then has no problem with the flood geology, or he has a problem with the flood geology based on that statement?
A. You know, I suppose you could infer that, but you could also infer that like most biochemists he doesn't care too much about geology.
Q. So that doesn't play into his scientific theories or arguments regarding intelligent design?
A. I have not seen Dr. Behe make an argument based on the geological ages in any of his writings or books, one way or another. And therefore I do not wish to presume what his view is of the young earth chronology, and I'm sure that if you bring him to the stand he'll be able to tell you himself.
Q. In terms of the arguments he's advancing he does not refer to the geological record?
A. That is correct, he does not refer to it, and as I said perhaps that's because like most biochemists he just doesn't read geology.
Q. And so for his arguments it's not necessary that the earth be six to ten thousand years old?
A. The arguments that Dr. Behe makes based on the actions of an intelligent designer, to assemble the complex structures within a cell would be consistent with young earth creationism or with special creationism spread over the billions of years of the geological ages. It would be consistent with either one.
Q. Again, sir, my question was does he rely on the age of the earth being six to ten thousand years old to make a scientific argument?
A. No, sir, he does not rely on it, and that's why it would be consistent with either one.
Q. So it's not a necessary component of his scientific arguments?
A. That's right, and that's why it would be consistent with either one.
Q. Do you know what Barry Palovitz is?
A. Yes, I think Barry is a plant geneticist or a plant physiologist at the University of Georgia.
Q. And he wrote an article which made reference to your book "Finding Darwin's God" that we discussed during your deposition? Do you remember that?
A. I do remember he wrote a review, and I will tell you that I try not to take reviews of a book too seriously.
Q. But do you recall that in the review he claims that one of ideas that you entertained in your book "Finding Darwin's God," which is the notion that the universe may have purpose, was also an idea that was embraced by what he called neocreationism?
A. I actually don't specifically remember Dr. Palovitz's review except to note that he didn't like my book much, and I believe he may have made comments like that. So I'm perfectly willing to believe that that's exactly what he said.
Q. If your look at your deposition, sir, on page 128?
A. Got it.
Q. If you could read, if you look at line 15, and after the sentence, "He calls it a pet rock," and it begins with "saying," could you read that sentence?
A. Sure. This I believe is a quotation from the Palovitz review.
Q. No, this is your answer, sir.
A. I'm sorry, which page and which line again?
Q. Page 128, line 15, starting with the word "saying"?
A. Okay, yes. This is my answer. I'm sorry, I was on the wrong page. "Saying the two schools of thought embrace a single idea does not mean that those two schools of thought are exactly the same thing."
Q. Is that a truthful statement that you made?
A. Yes, sir, of course.
Q. Sir, now, it's fair to say that one of the central arguments of intelligent design is that the evolutionary mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the origin of complex biological structures like the flagellum?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. Now, you have already testified that you wrote a book called "Finding Darwin's God."
A. Several times.
Q. And in that book you said, "If Darwinism cannot explain the interlocking complexity of biochemistry, then it is doomed." Do you recall making that statement?
A. I probably wrote something like that in the book, yes, sir.
Q. And you also quoted from Darwin in that book, who acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Correct?
A. That is correct, although it's a partial quotation, because the next sentence is, "But I can find no such case."
Q. Correct. And he wrote, and that was from "On the Origins," correct?
A. Yes, sir, that's a quotation, I gave a more complete quotation, but that's from "The Origin of the Species."
Q. And that was written in 18 when?
A. I believe, sir, 1859.
Q. I believe you already previously testified that the claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex is a scientific claim?
A. It is a, that is a scientific claim if irreducible complexity is precisely defined, and because Dr. Behe in "Darwin's Black Box" gave a very precise definition that made the claim of irreducible complexity a scientific claim, yes, sir.
Q. And if irreducible complexity could be demonstrated, that would present an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution, correct?
A. If irreducible complexity could be demonstrated in the exact way that Dr. Behe describes, it would present an argument, not a disproof, but an argument, because other scientists have argued that even if one finds truly irreducible complex structures, that does not rule out in principle an evolutionary pathway to them.
Q. Does it open a question?
A. Of course. It is phrased in the form of a question, and yep, it's a question.
Q. Now, we're referring to Richard Dawkins, and he made a statement, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Are you familiar with that quote?
A. Yes, I am familiar with that quote.
Q. Do you agree with it?
A. I wouldn't put it the same way that Dawkins did. I think biology is the study of a great deal more. I think Dawkins was using hyperbole, a figure of speech, exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis to make a very good point, and that is a first glance at many living organ systems, organisms, compounds, makes it look as though they have such a strong correlation of structure with function that in the human world we would say that they were designed, and that's the metaphorical point that I think Dawkins made, and I agree with that metaphorical point.
Q. And is that similar to the points which you described as a metaphor in your cross examination testimony yesterday about the cell being a collection of protein machines?
A. Yes. In that case it was a different metaphor by Dr. Bruce Albertson, and I think it's essentially the same point.
Q. Is part of the nature of the controversy that we're discussing in the course of this case is whether the design referred to by Dawkins is the apparent design that he describes or real design that intelligent design proponents advocate?
A. Well, to answer that question, sir, we're going to have to break down what we mean by the word design, and the word design is often used in biochemisty and protein structure to simply refer to in shorthand the correlation of structure and function. So for example if you remember I put a slide up on the screen yesterday showing the hemoglobin molecule, the oxygen carrying protein, the inner pocket of that hemoglobin is what physical chemists call hydrophobic, or water hating. It's kind of oily in ordinary terms.
That makes it an ideal binding site for an oxygen atom to slip in. The outside of the molecule is strongly hydrophilic. That means it's got a lot of charges on it, and if you will it makes it easy for it to dissolve in water. So a physical biochemist might look at the structure of the molecule and say let's talk about the design of the molecule, it is designed to be soluble in the solution of the blood, and it is designed to have four pockets in which you can tuck an oxygen atom to carry them to the tissue. What he really means by design is the exquisite correlation of the structure of that protein with its oxygen carrying function. So in that respect that design is similar.
Q. I'm going to give you a definition of irreducible complexity, which I believe is slightly different than the one that you used in "Darwin's Black Box" and I want to ask you if you will accept this definition, " A single system which is necessarily composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
A. I wouldn't agree with that, because that's actually not a complete definition of irreducible complexity. If I remember, the quote that I showed was pretty similar to that, except it went on basically to refine the definition, make it more precise, make it scientifically testable, and that was that one cannot produce an irreducibly complex machine by numerous successive slight modifications of a precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional, and I regard that as an essential element of the argument, of the term irreducible complexity, because without it irreducible complexity does not make a strong argument against evolution.
Q. In your explanation, or I guess reputation of the concept of irreducible complexity, is it true that you argue or you define it so that if a component were removed, the question is whether or not that component itself could still have an independent function?
A. I believe what I said was a little more complete than that, and that is rather than a component could be removed, a set of parts or components could be identified within the larger structure which had an independent function of its own, because the central argument that comes from the concept of irreducible complexity is that there are no stepping stones on the way to the evolution of a complex structure. In other words, they have to be fully assembled to have any function, and therefore if one can demonstrate that partial assemblies of the components in fact do have a selectable function, then the argument falls apart. And it does in every case that we examined, in every case we talked about yesterday I should say.
Q. So is it that a component of the part can have an independent function as opposed to the essential function, that it ceases function, the essential function of the main organism?
A. I'm going to ask you to repeat the question, because the question began "is it," and I'm not sure what "it" is.
Q. Let's break it apart then.
Q. Is your argument against irreducible complexity because if you remove a component from a system, that that component or a series of components may itself have an independent function, and therefore the system itself is not irreducibly complex, is that your understanding?
A. That certainly is my understanding, and again I would try to put it more completely, and that is that once a collection of parts is claimed to be irreducibly complex, the way in which one analyzes that claim is to see if there's any subset within this larger collection of parts that could have an independent function, and once you identify that you suddenly discover that structure is no longer irreducibly complex.
Q. And that can be any of the components of the system?
A. I would certainly think so, sir. In fact, I think a direct prediction of the argument made from irreducible complexity is that no components of the system should have independent functions. So once you find one, the argument is finished.
Q. Sir, is it not a standard scientific practice for scientists, and I'll use an example of Dr. Behe, and perhaps you might fit into this example as well, to point to the scientific literature, to point to observations and experiments that have been done by other people and other laboratories, have been peer reviewed, have been published, and to cite to that evidence, cite to those data, and cite to those experiments in their arguments?
A. Of course it is.
Q. And so the question then is not whether Dr. Behe or any other scientist has done experiments in their own laboratory that have produced evidence for a particular claim. The question is whether or not the inferences that they draw in their analysis from that data are supported. Is that true?
A. Yes, sir, I certainly think that that is true, and I agree with it, and the point that I would wish to make is that in my testimony yesterday I said that as far as I knew Dr. Behe had never done any work that directly implicated intelligent design. He certainly has written a number of papers ane made a number of arguments designed to support the inference of irreducible complexity.
Q. So there are natural phenomena that cannot be fully explained by materialistic observations, correct?
A. There are natural phenomena --
Q. I can give you some examples.
A. Please do. That would help a great deal.
Q. The origin of life.
A. Oh, okay. The answer to your question, sir, is no. And the reason for that is that the question was phrased is there are natural phenomena that cannot be explained, and the reason I said no to your question, I do not agree with that, is I would agree to a question that says there are natural phenomena that have not yet been explained by material or natural causes, and if you then said the origin of life is such a question which has not yet been explained, I would have said yes, sir, that is correct.
Q. I believe my question, sir, was there are natural phenomena that cannot be fully explained by materialistic observation.
A. And again I would still say no, because I hear "cannot be explained" or "cannot fully be explained" to be a claim that they will never be explained, that it's a problem that will never be solved because of some reason and principle, and all that I'm trying to do is to make sure that my answer is phrased in such a way in which it is clear that I, like most scientists, realize that science is filled with unsolved problems. The origin of life I'm quick to say is one of those problems. We do not yet have a complete natural explanation of that particular question.
Q. Sir, if you'd turn to your deposition, page 210?
Q. And reading from line 7, and to complete the answer for completeness read through to line 19?
A. Sure. "Are there natural phenomena that cannot be fully explained by materialistic observations? The answer is yes. You chose the origin of life. I would choose gravity, I would choose dark matter in the universe, and I would use the way in which the vertebrate body is constructed during the development of an embryo, because all of these are questions which cannot be completely answered by science, and to paraphrase an answer I gave earlier in the day, when we have complete explanations for all natural phenomena, people like me, research scientists, will be out of business, because science will be finished. We will have explained everything."
Q. Is that a correct answer?
A. It is a correct answer, but in order to complete the record for the court, may I read from my deposition a few lines further down, just a sentence or two? It's on page 211, and I'd like to start on line 4 if I may, sir.
Q. Was that a complete answer that you gave to the question that I had asked you during the deposition?
A. Sir, I just asked you. May I complete --
Q. Was that a complete --
A. Okay, fair enough. That was the complete answer I gave then.
Q. Thank you.
A. And I note for the record that in my deposition I clarified that --
Q. Thank you, sir.
A. -- the same way I've been doing here.
THE COURT: Wait, wait. Let him finish his answer. Finish your answer.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But that is not necessarily a license to go further than what the question was, but if you want to finish that particular answer that you gave, you may do so.
THE WITNESS: Okay, at the bottom of page 210 I was then asked, and this is the question, "And just to clarify, there has not been, at least I'll put it in terms of your satisfaction, a successful materialistic explanation for the origin of life? Answer: I would expand on that a little bit if you'll allow me to, and the answer, I'm sorry, the answer to that is yes. I regard the origin of life, as I think most scientists do, as an unsolved biological problem.
"Now, to say that the problem is unsolved does not say it's a problem about which we know nothing. In fact, we know a great deal, and we know for example that conditions similar to those might have existed on the primitive earth to allow the formation of, the undirected formation of very, very simple building blocks of compounds such as proteins and nucleic acids." That's all I wanted to read. Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Are those still scientific questions?
A. By "those" you mean what is the origin of life, what's the nature of gravity, how is the vertebrate body put together? Yes, sir, those are all scientific questions.
Q. Sir, critical thinking is a legitimate pedagogical goal, correct?
A. It's a legitimate and I would argue an essential pedagogical goal.
Q. And an important component of teaching science?
A. I think it's a very important component of teaching science.
Q. Do you agree that the purpose of high school science courses should not be to train scientists but to contribute to the liberal education of students?
A. I think that -- I agree with you, because I think contributing to the liberal education of students is a great way to train scientists.
Q. If a student believes that Darwin's theory of evolution was a fact, would that be a misconception?
A. It would certainly be a serious misconception as to the nature of the theory, because theories never become facts. If a student believed that atomic theory was atomic fact, that would be a misconception. Atomic theory is based on factual observations in the same way that evolutionary theory is based on factual observations.
Q. Is your answer to my question yes, sir?
A. The answer to the question is most definitely yes.
Q. If a student believed that science has answered all questions regarding evolution, would that be a misconception?
A. It would be a terrible misconception, sir.
Q. If a student believed that science has solved the origin of life question, would that be a misconception?
A. It would be a terrible misconception.
Q. You teach a biology course at Brown University, Biology 20, correct?
A. I believe I do, that's correct.
Q. And that's an introductory course?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I believe it's for concentrators and non-concentrators? Is that the term you use at Brown?
A. Yes, that is the term we use, and for the benefit of the court that means that students who are going to major in science, students who might be pre-med in their studies, or students who are thinking of going into some other field entirely will still take that course.
Q. Now, your description of the course, and I believe it's in the 2005 syllabus, you state, "In the same way that students of the sciences could not consider themselves fully educated without a knowledge of art, social theory, and literature, students in the humanities and social sciences should approach courses in the sciences as part of their overall educational experience." Is that an accurate statement?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. And in the syllabus you also state, "The intention of this course," meaning the Biology 20 course, "is to establish links between biology and other disciplines and to briefly explore some of the ways in which science is related to popular culture." Is that true of your course?
A. Yes, sir, it is true of my course, one of my goals.
Q. Now, in your biology course you provide supplemental materials for when you give lectures on evolution, is that correct?
A. When I teach the course I provide internet links of all sorts that will help students research questions in a variety of ways.
Q. And some of those internet links are to your web site with some of those articles, "The Flagellum Unspun," the biochemical, I believe there's one about the biochemical challenge to evolution?
A. I actually don't think that I, and I'm sure you'll refresh my memory if I'm wrong, I don't think I provided a direct link to those particular essays. I did provide a direct link to a web page that I have, "On Matters Evolution," and on that page there was then links to some articles that I had written about evolution, including the two that you mentioned.
Q. And those were articles regarding intelligent design?
A. Yes, sir, I believe they are articles critical of intelligent design, that's correct.
Q. And there was also a PBS film clip called "Why is Evolution Controversial?" that you list as supplemental material?
A. Yes. That one I think I did link directly from the web page in my course.
Q. And these supplemental materials allow students to explore supplemental information related to the lecture topic?
A. That's certainly my intent.
Q. And in this case it would be the lecture topic of evolution?
A. That's right. Students of course always want to know is it going to be on the test, and supplemental materials are not on the test. They're out there in case they get interested in something.
Q. And is it true you believe that these materials promote the goal of giving students an opportunity to explore other aspects of evolution and evolutionary theory?
A. The best way to answer your question is that I started doing this simply because so many students would say, I talk about RNA, could you give us some links to some other things in case we get interested here and there, and the links I put up on evolution fall into that general category of anticipating student questions.
Q. Does it also give them a better understanding of the way in which evolution is regarded in the larger society?
A. I hope so.
Q. If you look in your deposition, page 78, please?
Q. And the question I asked you beginning on line 22 was, "What goal does that promote?" And that's referring to your previous answer, "The way in which evolution is regarded in the larger society" for example was your answer, and then my question was, "What goal does that promote?" And then could you read us your answer starting at line 23 on page 78, continuing through line 7 on page 79?
A. Sure. Gladly. "I think I've already answered the question, which is to give students an opportunity to explore the implications of some of the material that we cover in lecture and, you know, the generalization that I would apply to any education is, the goal is not to define a set of material to be mastered, but to open a door. And this is one way to open the door and say if you want to walk through that door, take a look, there it is."
Q. Is that a truthful answer?
A. Oh, of course, it's a truthful answer, sir.
Q. I just want to be accurate that that web page on evolution you had at Brown University included the article "The Flagellum Unspun," correct?
A. Yes, sir, I believe it did.
Q. And the other article, I believe I misspoke, I believe the title of it is "Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design," is that correct?
A. Sounds right, yep.
Q. Now, your biology course consists of approximately 38 to 40 lectures, is that correct?
A. In some years a couple here, but that's in the neighborhood. We have a few exams as well.
Q. I believe you testified in your deposition approximately three out of those 38 to 40 lectures are specifically dedicated to evolution?
A. I think that's about right, yes. About 10 percent.
Q. I think we already established you're the co-author of "Biology" by Prentice Hall, and your co-other is Joseph Levine, is that correct?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. And it's your understanding that the Dover Area School District selected and purchased your 2004 edition of "biology" to be used as their textbook for the ninth grade biology crass?
A. That's my understanding, too.
Q. And you consider that to be a ringing endorsement of your book I believe is the term you used in your deposition, correct?
A. Did I?
Q. If you'd like to look, page 21 and 22.
Q. Line 24, starting on page --
A. Sorry, the clip is in the way. Yes, okay. I'll just rephrase it so I can explain the context to the court. "Question: I'm assuming you don't have any objections with the school board making that decision," which was to pick out book. Answer, my answer, "No, I was quite pleased. I considered it to be a ringing endorsement of our book," and I have to say that when I said that I was engaging in a bit of flip hyperbole, exaggeration for just the purpose of emphasis. I was very pleased.
Q. You think that was a good choice?
A good choice by to engage in flip hyperbole or for the Dover board of education?
Q. Probably the latter.
A. Okay. Yes, I think it was a good choice. Joe and I worked very hard on this book. We think we've written the best possible book. We regard our mission as to turn students on to science, and we think our book does that and we're very happy that the Dover board selected it for the students.
Q. Does your textbook provide comprehensive coverage of the theory of evolution?
A. Yes, sir, I believe it does.
Q. And you write your textbooks to comport with the academic standards for each of the states, correct?
A. Yes, sir, we do. The textbook used in Dover is a national edition, but we routinely consult the science education standards in the various states, including Pennsylvania, to make sure they fit those standards.
Q. Is it your understanding that your biology book, the 2004 version, comports with the Pennsylvania state academic standards?
A. Yes, sir, I believe it does.
Q. In your opinion does your textbook represent science in a manner that comports with good science pedagogue?
A. Yes, sir, I believe it does.
Q. And it presents science in a way that is proper for a ninth grade biology student?
A. Yes, I think that.
Q. Now, this book, the biology book, includes a section entitled "Strengths and Weaknesses of the Evolutionary Theory," correct?
A. Yes, it does include such a section.
Q. And this section has not appeared in your prior versions of the biology book, is that correct?
A. You know, the answer to that is -- not appeared in previous version. Not exactly. It's not exactly a yes or no. That particular heading is new, but some of the statements made under it do appear in earlier printings of the book. But certainly the section exactly as it appears in 2004 I do agree did not appear in the 2003 or the 2002 copyright.
Q. Did you have prior sections that were set out strengths and weaknesses that were under the section on evolution?
A. We certainly did describe the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory, but we had not placed them under a heading so they couldn't be missed.
Q. So this was the first time it was placed under that sort of a heading?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. If you can turn to page 386 in the biology book, and that's Exhibit 214, defendant's exhibit, could you read the paragraph that begins with "like," the second full paragraph?
A. Sure, I'd be glad to. "Like any scientific theory, evolutionary theory continues to change as new data are gathered and new ways of thinking arise. As we shall see shortly, researchers still debate such important questions as precisely how new species arise and why species become extinct. There is also uncertainty about how life began."
Q. And the caption of that where that section falls is Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory," correct?
A. It's actually a heading, but yeah, that's correct.
Q. And that statement, that paragraph that you just read, is that an accurate statement?
A. I certainly hope so. I believed it when Joe and I wrote it.
Q. Now, that section, that heading, "Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory" was added to your book because of the state requirements of the state of Texas, correct?
A. Yes, sir, it was.
Q. And those standards required students to analyze and critique specific scientific theories?
A. The curriculum guidelines in the state of Texas, which are known as the TEKS, which stands for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, have very specific wording in fifteen or twenty different curricular areas, and when we prepared our book for the Texas adoption we thought it best to use the exact wording that was used in the Texas standard in a variety of places so it couldn't be missed that we were conforming to Texas standard, and this is one of those places, that is correct.
Q. Now, is it true when you submitted your textbook to the state of Texas it was clear that there was only one scientific theory that any member of the state board of education was interested in, and that was the theory of evolution?
A. No, sir, it was not clear. Would you like me to explain why I gave --
Q. I want you to go to your deposition, sir, page 285 and 286.
Q. And if you start, the question begins on line 24 of page 285. If you could read that through your answer of page 286, line 19.
A. Sorry, you want me to start on 285?
Q. 285, line 24 is where the question begins.
A. Sure. "Question: What was the purpose for putting that in the 2004 version?" Answer --
Q. I'm sorry, let me -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that is that heading, that section that we were just --
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Continue with your answer, I'm sorry.
A. "The purpose for putting that in the 2004 version was the state requirements for the state of Texas specifically required students to analyze and critique the strengths of scientific theories and hypotheses. Now, that standard, which is known as TEKS 3- A in Texas, applied to scientific theories in general, but as we submitted our textbook to the state of Texas it was clear that there was only one scientific theory or hypothesis that any member of the state board of education was interested in, that was interested in seeing strengths and weaknesses for, and that one theory was the theory of evolution."
Now, the reason, sir, I said no to your question was, and I'm sure the court reporter can correct me if I got this wrong is because your question was, was that the only theory that any member of the state board was interested in, and the reason I said no is because many members of the state board were interested in many other aspect of the book. The deposition statement was it was the only theory that anyone was interested in seeing strengths and weaknesses for, and that's what I said in my deposition.
So my no answer is based on very carefully listening to your question and trying to say that no, I don't want to slur the entire board of education of the great state of Texas by saying that's the only theory they were interested in. It is true that that's the only theory that they wanted to hear strengths and weaknesses for. I hope that clarifies my answer in the court vis-a-vis the deposition.
Q. And so in that regard your deposition answer that you read is a correct answer?
A. My answer in court was correct, sir, based on your question, and my answer in the deposition was correct based on the question, which was different, that you asked me at the deposition.
Q. Sir, when you write your textbooks, and this is I guess a general post to textbook writing, is it true that when you use qualifying language such as "some biologists propose" that that is a way of conveying sort of a sense in the community that there might be a tentative nature or disagreement about the proposition?
A. I'd want to see the particular context you have in mind, but in general I think that's a fair statement.
Q. Sir, in the ordinary meaning of the word a creationist is simply any person who believes in an act of creation, correct?
A. Yes, I think I would also regard that as the ordinary meaning of the word creationist.
Q. And you believe that the universe was created by God?
A. I believe that God is the author of all things seen and unseen. So the answer to that, sir, is yes.
Q. In a sense that would make you a creationist using the definition --
A. In the, as I think you and I discussed during the deposition, in that sense any person who is a theist, any person who accepts a supreme being, is a creationist in the ordinary meaning of the word because they believe in some sort of a creation event.
Q. And that would include yourself?
A. That would certainly include me.
Q. And you believe that God coined the laws of physics and chemistry?
A. Well, I have to say that I'm not on the stand as you pointed out yourself, sir, as an expert witness in theology. I can certainly tell you what I believe. And that is as I said before, God is the author of all things seen and unseen, and that would certainly include the laws of physics and chemistry.
Q. And you believe that evolution is a way in which God can bring about His divine plan in this universe?
A. I certainly believe that evolution is a natural process that occurs in our universe, and as such it and all other natural processes fall in -- again I don't want to pretend to be a theologian, but I think it would fall under the purview of what a theologian would call divine providence.
Q. But in terms of your personal beliefs you believe that that is consistent with God's overall plan the way evolution operates?
A. I believe that God is the author of nature, and therefore I believe that things that happen in nature are consistent with God's overall plan, and evolution is a natural process.
Q. And you see evolution as being consistent with your religious beliefs?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Sir, you believe that faith and reason are compatible?
A. I believe not only that they are compatible, but they are complementary.
Q. You agree that if we apply faith and reason correctly as objective and reliable tools for the nature of the world around us, ultimately the conclusions of both should be compatible?
A. One would certainly hope is. If God exists, and both faith and reason are gifts from God, they should complement each other.
Q. You agree then that the rational world of science can be included in faith world of religion, that the two are entirely compatible?
A. Well, actually you phrased that question in sort of a contradictory way. You said, I think you said can one be included within the other, and then you said are they compatible. I'm not sure that neither faith or reason are included within each other. I do very much agree they are compatible.
Q. If you look at your deposition, page 201?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Beginning at the end you make reference to a document written by John Paul II, and I believe that was the encyclical Fides et Ratio, "Faith and Reason?
A. Sir, this is on page 201?
Q. If you read on to page 202, beginning of page 202.
A. Okay. No wonder I couldn't find it. Yes. Oh, okay. In the deposition, I'm not sure if you want me to read it, but I can paraphrase it --
Q. I'd like you to read it --
A. Sure. I'll simply begin on page 202 if that's all right with you.
A. "Guiding the relationships between these is pretty well exemplified in that document written by John Paul II that I mentioned earlier called Fides et Ratio, which is to say that the rational world of science can be included in faith world of religion, and that the two are entirely compatible," and I have to say that I don't quite like with the way that I put it in the deposition, which is one of the reasons that I rephrased it, and, you know, in terms of including when one world is included in another it carries the implication that one is subordinate to the other, and I regard as I said in the second part of that is the two as compatible, consistent, and complementary. I don't regard one as included with the other, and therefore I don't actually quite agree with what I said in the deposition. I hope I haven't caused you any trouble.
Q. So you don't ascribe to philosophical naturalism, correct?
A. As I understand philosophical naturalism, it is a doctrine that says that the physical world is all there is, and the only way we have of learning anything about the nature of existence is the scientific way, and if that is what philosophical naturalism means, no, sir, I am not a philosophical naturalist.
Q. Now, when you read the Book of Genesis, you take that to be a spiritually correct account of the origins of our species, correct?
A. I take all of the Bible, including the Book of Job, the Book of Psalms, New Testament, and Genesis to be spiritually correct.
Q. And you find repeatedly verses that say that God commanded the waters of the earth and the soil of the earth to bring forth life, and from an evolutionary point of view you believe that's exactly what happened?
A. Well, I just don't find them. They're there. And the way in which I look at Genesis is that Genesis as I read it, and unfortunately I don't read Hebrew, my co-author does, and he's frequently discussed Genesis with me, but as I read English translations of Genesis I see a series of commands of the Creator to the earth and its waters to bring forth life and, you know, without requiring, my church certainly doesn't, without requiring Genesis to be a literal history, you know, that's pretty much what happens, which is that the earth and its waters and so forth brought forth life.
Q. And that's consistent with evolutionary theory?
A. In the broad figurative poetic sense it is consistent with natural history, which underlies evolutionary theory.
Q. I believe you indicated in your direct testimony that you gave testimony down in Georgia in the Sellman vs. De Kalb County case?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes you may.
Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Defense Exhibit 211.
A. Thank you, sir.
Q. And you'll note from the label on the front cover it appears to be Exhibit 11 from your deposition. Do you recall seeing this in your deposition?
A. Yes, I do recall seeing it in my deposition.
Q. If you turn to page 138, please?
Q. And starting at line 3 the question was asked, "When you were writing material on evolution, did you add any information on creationism? And then you answer begins at line 5. Would you please read your answer from line 5 down to line 24, please?
A. Okay. "Answer: No, we did not, and the reason that once again is that there is no scientific evidence that supports the idea of creationism. Now, it's very important to define what one means by creationism. I'm a Roman Catholic for example, so I believe the universe was created, and you could always say that means you're a creationist. But in the modern usage of that language in the United States the word creationist means something quite different, other than a person who simply believes in a supreme being and thinks that there is meaning and order and purpose to the universe.
"In the current usage in the United States creationist is taken to mean someone who thinks that the earth is six to ten thousand years old, that all living organisms were simultaneously created during a very brief period of time, perhaps six days, and that the entire geologic record is an illusion, a column of flood deposition from the single forty day flood that has been misinterpreted for 250 years by the geological sciences as a series, a system of geological ages."
Q. When you gave that answer you were testifying under oath, sir?
A. Yes, sir, I was testifying under oath.
MR. MUISE: Your Honor, this might be a good time to take a break, I don't know, if the court is inclined to do so. I'm going to be moving into some new material, so it's sort of a natural break from my perspective.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't we take our morning break at this time, and we'll as yesterday break for at least twenty minutes to give everybody an opportunity to do what they need to do. We'll return in twenty minutes. We'll be in recess.