Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 5 (September 30), PM Session, Part 2
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Thompson, back to you.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. I just wanted to go back to William Dembski. You've mentioned him several times. Do you know anything about his background?
A. A little bit. I think he was a mathematician and then he went to Princeton to get a master's degree in theology.
Q. So that it is quite logical that at times, wearing his philosophical hat, he would wax eloquent philosophically. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there are also particular treatises that he has written as a mathematician. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes. I have never read any of them.
Q. There is one that's entitled, The Design Inference. Are you familiar with that?
A. I've read parts of it years ago.
Q. And that was published by Cambridge University?
MR. WILCOX: Press.
MR. THOMPSON: Or Press, excuse me.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember it.
Q. And do you know what William Dembski's view is mathematically on the theory of intelligent design?
A. The mathematics I don't know. I'm not a mathematician.
Q. Have you ever read about -- maybe not the book but read other articles about his idea that it is highly improbable for these complex structures to have intelligence even if you consider the earth four billion years old?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And he has done mathematical calculations to show it's virtually impossible for the complex structures that we have today to have developed based on natural selection. Isn't that true?
A. That's his view.
Q. Yes. But it's based on his background as a mathematician. Isn't that correct?
A. He uses mathematics in his reasoning, yes.
Q. Do you know what -- how would you define mind, m-i-n-d?
A. Mind? Mind is the capacity to experience, to ask questions about one's experience, and then to criticize the ideas that we come up with to explain our experience.
Q. Is mind a function of intelligence?
A. Well, there are different ways of understanding mind. You can understand it as a process or you can understand it as a concrete reality from which mental processes emerge.
Q. Is there a real distinction between the two that you just defined as far as being a part of mind?
A. Well, mind as a process unfolds in cognitional acts such as being attentive, being intelligent, being critical, and being responsible. Mind as the foundation of that, we call it the desire to know or you could call it the intellect.
Q. Both of those would require intelligence, though, the processing and the desire to know?
A. In order to explain their existence, you mean, the existence of mind?
Q. No, what mind is, the definition of mind.
A. They would entail what I would call intelligence, yes.
Q. Is mind a part of nature?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, you wrote in this book that was referenced by your counsel, Science and Religion, you talked about -- and I hope I get this right -- strong anthro -- strong anthro --
A. Anthropic.
Q. Anthropic principle, SAP?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you define what you mean by that?
A. Strong anthropic principle maintains that the universe that we live in, the big bang universe that we live in, has been set up, as it were -- "structured" would be a better term -- from the very first microsecond of the universe's existence in such an exquisitely sensitive way that were any of the conditions and constants that prevailed at the time of the big bang absent, then neither life nor mind would ever have arisen.
Q. And that is a scientific speculation -- I don't want to call it a theory right now, but is it a scientific theory or is it something less than a theory at this point?
A. It's not a scientific theory, it's a hare's breath from intelligent design argument.
Q. Are physicists discussing it?
A. Yes, they are, as philosophers --
Q. Credible physicists?
A. Yes. Physicists are more interested in the weak anthropic principle than the strong anthropic principle. The strong anthropic principle tendentiously moves toward the positing of a cosmic designer, whereas the weak anthropic principle is much less controversial. And that simply maintains that obviously the universe was set up for bringing about beings with minds because we're here.
Q. And do these physicists that belong -- that believe in the strong anthropic principle indicate that it requires the existence of a transcendent, orderly Providence with a capital P?
A. Some physicists jump to that conclusion as the theologians, but there are other physicists who do not make that conclusion. There are a wide variety of interpretations of the strong anthropic principle.
Q. And in your book, you indicate that this particular principle comes pretty close to the intelligent design theory?
A. In some interpretations, yes.
Q. Yes. But this is being discussed in the scientific world, is it not?
A. It's being discussed by scientists, but it's misleading to say it's being discussed necessarily as a scientific hypothesis. It is in some quarters, but not in others.
Q. Okay. And the basis of this is that mind basically developed from that big bang?
A. The basis of it is that the existence of mind depends physically upon the universe having certain properties.
Q. And these properties had to be, as you said, so elegant that complexity of our universe would not have occurred without that elegant mind or design. Is that correct?
A. To use the term "design" I think begs the question in a way, because the question is whether it's the consequence of design or whether it's the consequence of many, many, many universes, most of which would not be set up for bringing about consciousness. And the one that we live in, according to the multiverse theory of people like Martin Reese and many others, which is becoming an increasingly popular idea in science today, the existence of our universe with the properties that give rise to life for many scientists -- and this is necessary for scientists to do as scientists -- can be explained naturalistically without appealing to supernatural design.
Q. And as you indicated, theologians are interested in this principle?
A. Yes. Theologically, it's quite appropriate. And I, myself, strongly suspect that given the -- what I consider to be given the existence of a God who cares that consciousness come about, it would not be surprising that the universe is so constructed as to allow that to come about. But, see, that's a theological jump, not a scientific --
Q. Right, I understand that. That's why I wanted to say that. But also, aside from the theologians' interest, scientists are interested in it. Correct?
A. Yes, but scientists qua scientists or scientists qua persons who are curious about ultimate questions? There's a distinction that you have to make.
Q. Scientists qua scientists. Physicists that are talking in terms of physics, the laws of physics.
A. Oh, yes, physicists are the ones who gave us this new picture of the universe as endowed with the properties that are right for mind.
Q. And I don't recall where it's in the book, but I remember reading it, that you said if the universe was a trillionth off --
A. Yes.
Q. -- it would have collapsed on itself.
A. That's what Stephen Hawking says. Or he wouldn't put it that way. He would say if any of those values, like the expansion rate of the universe, the gravitational coupling constant, and other factors, ratio of electrons, proton mass, things like that, if those values had been off infinitesimally, then not only Hawking, but many, many astrophysicists agree that life would not have been able to evolve and mind would not have been able to evolve out of life.
Q. So would that be evidence, these physicists, the claims of these physicists, would that be evidence for a design?
A. It would be evidence for a very interesting fit between the physical conditions and parameters of the universe and the existence of mind. But that's not -- they would not use the term "design" in the sense of the product of some intelligence. That's for theology and philosophy to speculate about, not science.
Q. Well, that's a self-imposed arbitrary line, is it not, that's for theologists to talk about versus physicists?
A. Well, if you're saying that science imposes arbitrary lines in order to distinguish itself from other kinds of inquiry -- I think, as I said earlier in my testimony, science is a self-consciously, self-limiting discipline that leaves out any explanation of things in terms of intelligence, God, miracles, so forth.
Q. Are you saying then that only those physicists who believe in the intelligent design theory of Behe and Dembski are holding this anthropic principle?
A. No, I would never say anything like that.
Q. Okay. So there are physicists who aren't involved in the religious implications of the principle that are actually studying the principle?
A. As scientists or as philosophers?
Q. As scientists.
A. There are many physicists who are studying the physical conditions that make life and mind possible.
Q. And, in fact, in your book you also say it is such an infinitesimal chance that human beings were able to be created by this process, did you not?
A. Yes. Physicists themselves remark at what they call the remarkable precision with which the initial conditions and fundamental constants are given their mathematical values precisely such as to give rise to life and mind, but they don't explain how this precision came about. That's for theology and philosophy.
Q. Again, that's a self-imposed demarcation zone?
A. Well, in the sense that science deliberately distinguishes itself from theology and philosophy by limiting itself to efficient and material causal explanation.
Q. Are you telling me that if these physicists come with a theory that is accepted based on the evidence, that they would not be able to posit intelligent design because you say that's a theological question?
A. They would not, as scientists, use intelligent design as a scientific explanation.
Q. Based on the theory that we're talking about held by these physicists, they don't believe that this exquisite, elegant complex university that is responsible for human beings on this small planet happened by accident, do they?
A. Many of them don't. They make that judgment, though, not as scientists but as philosophers and theologically-inquisitive people.
Q. And they basically posit the theory that at the moment of the big bang, all of the laws of nature had to be in place. Is that true?
A. That's not how they would put it. They would say that the conditions and constants that give rise eventually to life and mind had to have been in place, yes.
Q. Has Darwin's theory of evolution explained how that happened?
A. Darwin's theory of evolution talks about the origin of life, not the universe.
Q. And has any evolutionist talked about how that could have happened by natural selection?
A. Yeah, there are, in fact, among cosmologists, there are those who have a kind of Darwinian frame of mind, and they would explain the existence of our universe, life giving -- life producing mind producing universe, as a naturally selected to survive phenomenon out of a whole background of lives that are universes which would not be able to give rise to life.
Q. And those scientists, I assume, believe in the multiple universes?
A. Yes, many of them do.
Q. Okay.
A. It's not so much belief, it's a scientific speculation.
Q. It's speculation, right. In fact, there is some lawyer that kind of developed that theory. Right?
A. A lawyer?
Q. A lawyer. Are you aware of that?
A. No.
Q. At least I read it in Time Magazine.
A. But I'm happy to hear that.
THE COURT: And, of course, you can't believe everything you read.
MR. THOMPSON: Thanks, Your Honor.
Q. You know, we were talking about the idea that some -- that matter is self-organizing, Stuart Kauffman's theory.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. There's another name for that. There's a name for that theory, right, the complexity theory?
A. It's a combination of complexity theory, chaos theory, yes. Autopoietic processes.
Q. And Kauffman speculates that intelligence is an emergent property of matter.
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't that true?
A. Yes. And he's not alone.
Q. Okay. And that matter, as it becomes more complex, develops more intelligence. Isn't that true?
A. Yes. And that's very close to the Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin's view that consciousness increases in the universe in direct proportion to the increase in ordered complexity of matter.
Q. And it's also close to the intelligent design theory, isn't it?
A. Not at all, because the way the scientists explain intelligence is by looking toward what is earlier and simpler in the process, whereas the way theology would interpret intelligence -- and I think it has every right to do so -- is in terms of final causes and divine causation, which is not detectable to scientific inquiry.
Q. But it's kind of astounding that matter itself, as it gets more complex, would develop its own intelligence. Would that be a fair statement?
A. Yes. That it would become alive is also remarkable.
Q. Right. You indicated that theology is -- you indicated theology is one prong of intelligent design.
A. That's what William Dembski says.
Q. Okay. Do you know what the other prong is?
A. The other prong, I suppose, for Dembski would be a more empirical and mathematical inquiry into intelligent design.
Q. Now, we were talking about, you know, this idea that many Darwinists conflate the theory, the scientific theory, with the philosophy or the religious implications. Is that true?
A. Well, they do so not as Darwinists but as philosophers.
Q. Well, they think they're acting as scientists though. Right?
A. They do, sometimes they do, unfortunately.
Q. Can you give me the name of some of them?
A. I think that Richard Dawkins, E. O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, they're scientists who carelessly, at times, conflate science with a materialist ideology. For example, if you read Richard Dawkins, sometimes on the same page he switches back and forth three or four times between philosophical statements and scientific statements without pointing this out to the reader.
Q. That's a good point. Isn't it true that a lot of times writers on evolution switch back and forth in their -- the definition of evolution that they're using in the same paragraph?
A. That's the whole point of my book Deeper Than Darwin, to point out this possibility.
Q. Now, there's one part of evolution that you would call a historical science. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there's this other part that is, I don't know, neo-Darwinism that is going on right now?
A. Metric.
Q. And in the historical science of Darwin, really we can't prove whether he was right or wrong, can we?
A. What do you mean by "proof"? That's a word that has many meanings.
Q. Well, we don't know, based upon the data that we have, whether Darwin was right in his postulation of life starting from one or two cells and developing through a series of macroevolution through natural selection?
A. We don't have present observational sensitivity or sense awareness of things that are no longer in the present, but you can make reasonable hypotheses. For example, nobody doubts that the Hawaiian Islands were brought about by volcanic action, most of which nobody ever saw but which nobody doubts takes place.
Similarly, evolutionists -- at least in principle, evolutionary science is, in principle, able to make reasonable conjectures -- or hypotheses, rather, about how certain events in the fossil record took place.
Q. We see the Hawaiian Islands, so we can at least now that they exist. We see fossil records, so we know that they exist. Will we ever see the first cell or couple of cells that Darwin postulates life began, from which life began?
A. Will we ever see them in the present?
Q. Yes.
A. No, by definition.
Q. In fact, this whole idea of man sharing common ancestors is up for debate. Is that correct?
A. I don't think so, no. The record of hominid evolution is among the strongest that we have from what I've been told by evolutionary biologists.
Q. Have we ever found or identified our common ancestor?
A. Not precisely.
Q. We don't even have an idea who that common ancestor would be, do we?
A. I think we're getting closer and closer by studying genetics, especially, to being able to make more and more reasonable inferences.
Q. Well, genetics is not going to tell us who the common ancestor is, is it?
A. Genetics is telling us more and more about the story of evolution because as we read the human genome, we can see almost chapter by chapter how evolution came about. Genetics is now one of the strongest -- you might say strongest pieces of evidence for evolutionary science.
Q. Well, let me give you an analogy. I have some nuts and bolts. I take some nuts and bolts and make a car.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay? That's a car. Then I take some other nuts and bolts and make an airplane. They have the same parts, but does that mean that the airplane came out of the car?
A. No.
Q. So that if there is a God, that God could use the same kind of genetic material making, you know, a monkey or an ape and making a human being. Isn't that a possibility?
A. It's a possibility. And God could also make a universe that makes itself.
Q. Correct. So that this idea that it's already definitely set as a scientific fact that we came from the same ancestors as the monkey or ape is conjecture at this point?
A. I wouldn't say -- I'm not a scientist, so I'm, perhaps, speaking out of turn here. But from what I've read, "conjecture" would be certainly the wrong term.
Q. Now, what is theology?
A. Theology is reflection upon religious experience which seeks to understand the point, the objective of what we call faith. We might even define theology as St. Anselm did as faith seeking understanding.
Q. Now, in theology -- excuse me. Does theology require the study of, say, a supernatural being?
A. Theology studies the divine as it's mediated through finite beings.
Q. So as a theologian, you are studying concepts of God in the Christian faith or in any one of the Abrahamic faiths?
A. Yes.
Q. Which? All of them?
A. Yes. I think all of them have something to teach each other, so a good theology would be inter-religious.
Q. And you're a -- I forgot what they call it, is it a process theologian?
A. I'm not a process theologian. People have called me that, but I've never identified myself as such. I use ideas from many, many different kinds of theology, including process theology.
Q. Do you consider yourself a Catholic theologian?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Have you ever taken the mandatum?
A. No.
Q. Isn't that required by the church?
A. The local bishop has discretion about that, and, fortunately, Theodore McCarrick has decided not to exercise it, very prudently.
Q. What I have in front of me is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Do you recognize at least the cover of it?
A. Yes.
Q. According to the Catechism of the -- the Catechism of the Catholic Church was developed by the heads of the Catholic Church. Is that correct?
A. It was supervised by, I guess, some office of the Vatican. I don't know which one.
Q. And it is an official teaching document of the church, is it not?
A. Yes. But official teaching documents have various grades of authority. Catechism would not be the highest.
Q. And you actually have a lot of problems with this book, do you not?
A. Well, the reason that the new Catechism was brought about was that people found the old Catechism was inadequate. And likewise, there are people today, including many theologians, who already find this Catechism inadequate, also.
Q. So your answer would be yes to my question?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you also have what I would consider, and I'm not a theologian, but I would consider an unusual concept of God. Would you agree with that?
A. What kind of concept?
Q. An unusual concept of God.
A. No, I thoroughly believe that my understanding of God is completely and thoroughly Christian.
Q. Do you believe God can be surprised?
A. I don't know.
Q. Didn't you say that in your deposition, God can be surprised?
A. It's possible.
Q. Well, if it's possible for you to have said that in a deposition --
A. It's possible that God can be surprised.
Q. Oh. Does God know everything?
A. Everything that can be known.
Q. What can't God know?
A. Things that can't be known.
Q. And what is that?
A. It's unable to be -- you can't specify it. It's in the region of the unknowable, so therefore the unspecifiable.
Q. So you put some limits on the ability of God to know everything?
A. No, I don't want to limit God.
Q. You believe that God started the universe and really doesn't know what's going to happen?
A. If you want me to get into the theology of this, I can. It's very complex, and it requires going back to some chapters in the history of theology where this question was debated between Dominicans and Jesuits to the point where the Pope told them both to keep still and stop talking about it. And for that reason, I don't think it's prudent for me to --
THE COURT: The logic there appeals to me.
MR. THOMPSON: I'll be very quick, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I thought I'd note that.
Q. Do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ?
A. What do you mean by "the virgin birth of Christ"?
Q. The fact that Christ was born from the Virgin Mary.
A. You have to put this in context to make this a real question. The stories of virgin births were the ways in which ancient religious communities tried to get across to their followers the specialness of the one who is being born. And so the attempt to be too literal about any of these teachings is, in my view, not to take them seriously. So that question is one that would lead only to a misunderstanding if I were to say yes or no.
Q. So isn't that a doctrine of the Catholic Church, virgin birth of Christ?
A. It's not in the creed. Well, yes, it is. But it's -- there are lots of doctrines in all religions that need to be interpreted in order to be taken seriously.
Q. Well, that's a pretty serious dogma of the church, is it not?
A. What the church said -- if you want to find out what the church said, read Leo the XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus published in 1893 in which he said Catholics should never look for scientific information in the biblical text. So if you're talking about the virgin birth as something that's scientifically true, Catholics, by instruction of Leo the XIII, do not have to go that way.
Q. And you choose not to go that way?
A. Right.
Q. What about Adam as the first man?
A. Even the Hebrew Bible uses the notion of Adam in the universal sense for mankind.
Q. Does the church believe that Adam was actually the first man?
A. The church believes in these ideas only in connection with the doctrine of original sin, and that means simply that all of us are born into a world that's pretty messed up and we are all contaminated by that and we need redemption from.
The key point of the whole virgin birth idea, Adam and Eve, is to emphasize, to make a place cognitionally to understand the meaning of what we call the Savior or theme of redemption.
Q. So they're just --
A. Everything is focussed in that way. So to ask atomistically questions like, do you believe in the virgin birth, do you believe in Adam and Eve, is to miss the whole point theologically.
Q. But the church believes that, does it not?
A. The church is primarily interested in communicating to people the salvific significance of the man Jesus. And throughout the ages it does this in many different ways, and sometimes it has to revive and revise catechisms in order to make that mission something that can be accomplished.
Q. What about Eve, do you believe there was a woman named Eve?
A. That's the same sort of question.
Q. So Adam and Eve to you are not individuals?
A. I don't look for scientific information. I don't look for scientifically factual information in a text which, by genre, fits in the category of what all biblical scholars today call myth rather than history.
Q. I didn't ask you for a scientific explanation. You're a theologian. As a matter of faith, do you believe --
A. You're asking a historical question, and the whole concept of history, as we understand it today, was in many ways fashioned by the scientific revolution with its concern for factual evidence. So history is not able to be disassociated from the whole scientific movement.
MR. THOMPSON: I've got one more question, Your Honor.
Q. In your deposition, you talked about the resurrection of Christ, and you indicated that when Christ appeared in the upper room after his resurrection, if we had a video camera going, we would never have captured Him.
A. Right.
Q. Captured His image.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you still believe that?
A. I believe this, and so does, for example, Cardinal Avery Dulles, who is one of the most conservative church people around. If you read his book, Apologetics and the Biblical Christ, he says just that, if people did not have faith, if his disciples did not have faith, they would not have seen anything.
Q. So it was really a matter of having faith and spiritual vision?
A. No, the faith was evoked by the presence of the sense that Jesus was alive.
Q. So it was not a fact, a historical fact that Christ appeared in the upper room?
A. Well, this goes back to what I said about Providentissimus Deus, don't look for simple historical, scientific facticity when there's something much deeper there to look for.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Thompson. We thank you. Mr. Wilcox, redirect.
MR. WILCOX: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Professor Haught, I'd like to just touch on a few points that were brought up in the cross-examination.
Do you regard intelligent design as religious because of the religious views of some of its proponents or because of the content of intelligent design?
A. It's inherently religious, but in the sense -- "religion" is a word that can encompass both spontaneous religion and theology. As I clarified, it's a theological concept, inherently theological. That means, a fortiori, that it's a religious concept, as well.
Q. You were asked whether Mr. Behe's notion of irreducible complexity is or is not testable. Whether or not irreducible complexity is testable, do you have a view as to whether intelligent design is testable?
A. Intelligent design is, in principle and forever, untestable.
Q. Mr. Thompson asked you several questions about the materialist views of some evolutionary biologists. Am I correct in understanding you that you don't want evolutionary biology being used to either prove or disprove the existence of God?
A. Precisely.
Q. Is the notion of a supernatural creator a religious notion?
A. Yes.
Q. I'd like to read from the book Pandas at Page 150, which is the glossary section. And the definition of "intelligent design" is given as follows: "Any theory that attributes an action, function, or the structure of an object to the creative mental capacities of a personal agent. In biology, the theory that biological organisms owe their origin to a preexistent intelligence." Is that a religious proposition?
A. In my view, it is.
Q. Mr. Thompson asked you what other prongs Mr. Dembski had in his essay that we referred to.
MR. WILCOX: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
THE WITNESS: A scientific and philosophical critique of naturalism where the scientific critique identifies the empirical inadequacies of naturalistic evolutionary theories and the philosophical critique demonstrates how naturalism subverts every area of inquiry that it touches.
Second, a positive scientific research program known as intelligent design for investigating the effects of intelligent causes.
Third, another prong, a cultural movement for systematically rethinking every field of inquiry that has been infected by naturalism, reconceptualizing it in terms of design.
And then fourth, the one that I mentioned, a sustained theological investigation that connects the intelligence inferred by intelligent design with the God of Scripture and therewith formulates a coherent theology of nature.
None of these are really scientific prongs, they're philosophical.
Q. Mr. Thompson asked you about whether scientists have found a common ancestor among primates. Have scientists stopped looking for our common ancestors?
A. Not at all.
Q. Should they?
A. That's a testable idea.
Q. Should they stop?
A. They should not stop.
MR. WILCOX: Thank you. No other questions.
THE COURT: Recross?
MR. THOMPSON: No other questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Professor, thank you very much. That concludes your testimony. And I understand, Counsel, that that will conclude our trial week. Is that correct?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We will then, with the completion of this witness -- and let's take the exhibits, Liz reminds me. We have the CV, which is P315. Obviously you're moving for the admission of the CV. Is that correct?
MR. WILCOX: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. THOMPSON: No objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's admitted. P340 is the book by Dembski, that is, Mere Creation; Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design. Are you moving for the admission of 340 in its entirety?
MR. WILCOX: In its entirety.
MR. THOMPSON: No objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That's admitted, as well. Any exhibits that I've missed?
MR. WILCOX: There was reference to P11, but that's already in.
THE COURT: That's in.
MR. WILCOX: And there was reference to his expert report, but we're not moving that.
THE COURT: No, I didn't think you were. And 11 is in in its entirety. Mr. Thompson, I don't think you referred to any exhibits on cross, to the best of my recollection.
MR. THOMPSON: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Our next trial day will be Wednesday, October 5th, that is next Wednesday, commencing at 9:00 a.m. I'll hear counsel if you have anything further before we recess for the week.
MR. THOMPSON: None, Your Honor.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Not from the plaintiffs, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I thank all counsel for their presentations and for keeping us moving this week. This trial will stand in recess until October 5th at 9:00 a.m. Thank you all.
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
