Browse Search Feedback Other Links Home Home The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 2


THE COURT: All right. Mr. Thompson, you may proceed with cross examination.

MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.



Q. Professor Forrest, we've met before, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. I took your deposition back in June of this year. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. I don't know exactly how long it was, but you spent a considerable amount of time today testifying about the Wedge document, have you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Are you -- do you know that each of the current Dover Area School Board members who voted for the curriculum change, which is a subject matter of this lawsuit, placed before this Court a declaration, an affidavit that they had neither seen nor heard of the Wedge document before the lawsuit was filed?

A. Yes, I know about that.

Q. Okay. And do you have one shred of evidence that any member of the Dover School Board had seen or heard of the Wedge document before this lawsuit was filed?

A. No.

Q. Okay. And you will agree, therefore, that there is no evidence that you are aware of that any member of the school board saw the Wedge document or read anything about the so-called Wedge Strategy?

A. I have no evidence of that.

Q. Now I want to go back into your relationship with some of the parties in this lawsuit. As you are aware, the American Civil Liberties Union is involved in proceeding with this lawsuit, are you aware of that?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. The ACLU is not a party to this lawsuit, they are counsel in this lawsuit.

MR. THOMPSON: I'll rephrase my question, Your Honor, if I may.

THE COURT: You should rephrase.


Q. You're aware the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, is counsel to the Plaintiffs, or at least some of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, are you aware of that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have been a member of the ACLU for many, many years, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. When did you become a card carrying member of the ACLU?

A. When?

Q. Yes.

A. 1979, I believe.

Q. Okay. And you've been a dues paying member since that?

A. I have.

Q. Okay. And why did you join the ACLU?

A. I joined the ACLU because I think it does very valuable work, and I support the cause of civil liberties.

Q. And in any particular area?

A. Especially as it concerns education and the separation of church and state.

Q. Do you support the mission of the ACLU in areas other than separation of church and state and civil liberties?

A. Generally speaking. Insofar as they defend the constitution, yes, I support that.

Q. Are you aware that they hold, the ACLU holds that all legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, including child pornography, are unconstitutional?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. This has absolutely no relevance to Dr. Forrest's testimony. This is not the issue in this case.

MR. THOMPSON: It's as much as relevant as a lot of stuff that you put on in this case that had no connection at all with my clients.

THE COURT: First of all, Mr. Thompson, if you're going to argue the objection, you argue it to me, not Mr. Rothschild.

MR. THOMPSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He not making a ruling. Second of all, I don't think it's relevant, and I'm going to sustain the objection. A cognizable reason for the question is not a tit for a tat. It's whether or not it's admissible. It's not on the grounds of relevancy. Now we're going to get a feel.

The Court is familiar with the ACLU. She's testified that she's a member of the ACLU for a period of time. I think questions that relate to her bias or motivation on the First Amendment issue, of which you asked her, I think, are fair game, and you can elaborate on that, but we're hot going to go into -- we could be here for days if we get into other activities of the ACLU and whether she's familiar or not as to bias. So I'm going to sustain the objection.


Q. You've also been a member of the board of directors of the Louisiana ACLU, have you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And for what years?

A. I believe it was 1995 to 1997. It was a two-year term.

Q. And what were your responsibilities as a member of the board of directors?

A. To attend the board meetings and to help with fund raising.

Q. And what did you do as a member of the board?

A. We considered cases that were referred to us by the legal committee and decided on whether to pursue those cases or not.

Q. And what kind of cases were they?

A. When I was on the Board, it seems like they were mostly cases involving the rights of prisoners. There was one, I remember, it was a free speech rights of a gentleman on a radio station or something like that.

Q. Did you ever, during your involvement as a member of the ACLU, ask for help?

A. I'm sorry. While I was on the Board?

Q. As a member?

A. As a member of the ACLU?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what were the circumstances for your request for assistance from the ACLU?

A. I notified the ACLU of an occasion when, in about 1994, in the parish, Livingston Parish, where I reside, where my children were in school, a group of creationists attempted to have a creationist curriculum guide adopted in my children's school system to be used in the science classes.

Q. And what year was that again?

A. I believe that was 1994.

Q. And what kind of assistance did you request?

A. I just alerted them to this. I called them and indicated that this was happening. And at the time I didn't -- I don't think I requested anything specific. I just wanted them to know about this in case I did need help.

Q. Did you oppose the creation insertion into the curriculum at that time?

A. I did.

Q. So you've been involved in issues relating to creationism since at least 1994, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Before then at all?

A. Only one time. I made a brief presentation in 1981 at my university on a panel discussion. That was the year the Louisiana Balance Treatment Act was passed.

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the history of the ACLU and the so-called Scopes trial?

A. Yes, I'm familiar with that, that the ACLU was involved, yes.

Q. Have you read any reports on that at all?

A. ACLU reports?

Q. No, any reports on the ACLU involved in the Scopes trial regardless of whether the ACLU --

A. Oh, there's been a good deal published about that. I've seen references to that quite frequently.

Q. Have you read any books on it?

A. Nothing on the Scopes trial per se, not specifically on that.

Q. Now since I took your deposition back in June 2005, is there anything else you've done in preparation for your testimony today?

A. Since my deposition?

Q. Yes.

A. I wrote the supplementary report.

Q. Anything else?

A. Studied a good deal.

Q. Studied what?

A. The materials that I would have to use or I might have to refer to.

Q. Okay. Did you read any trial transcripts of the case as it's been going on?

A. I haven't read the transcripts of the trial since it started, no.

Q. Okay.

A. Last week, no.

Q. You're also a member of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, are you not?

A. I am.

Q. You're also aware that that organization is representing one or more Plaintiffs in this case?

A. I am.

Q. How long have you been a member of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State?

A. That, I can't tell you, sir. I don't remember the year I joined that. It been a number of years, but I don't know the year I joined that.

Q. More than 10?

A. Probably, probably.

Q. More than 15?

A. I doubt more than 15.

Q. Okay. So between 10 and 15 years?

A. That's probably about right. I can't give you a specific number of years on that.

Q. And are you also a dues paying member of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State?

A. I am.

Q. And how long have you been a dues paying member?

A. I'm sorry. When you asked me the question previously, I thought you meant a dues paying member. That's what I can't remember. I've been on the National Advisory Council for several years, although, maybe since 2001.

Q. You've been on the National Advisory Council since 2001?

A. That's about right.

Q. What does the National Advisory Council do?

A. As far as I've been on it, we haven't done anything.

Q. Good.

A. It's been inactive since -- there are meetings, but they're all at times when I cannot go. The only thing that I've actually done as a member of the National Advisory Council is, a couple of times, the ACLU wrote letters to state officials in Louisiana and I would cosign the letters. Other than that, it's actually their board that does all the work.

Q. Okay. And what is the responsibility of an advisory council member?

A. Actually to support the organization's task of protecting the constitutional separation of church and state. And one of the ways we are nominated for positions on the advisory council is when we have helped to promote the constitutional separation of church and states.

Q. Are you also a member of People for the American Way?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is that organization?

A. That is another civil liberties organization.

Q. And what is their mission?

A. It's about the same as the ACLU's mission, to protect the constitutional civil liberties.

Q. Are they, what I'd call, a public interest law firm or are they a political action organization?

A. They do have a legal section. They do a good deal of research on issues. And they also, of course, are advocates for their positions.

Q. Have you been involved in any capacity with that organization such as a board of directors member?

A. No, I'm just a dues paying member.

Q. Have you been involved in any kind of activity on behalf of that organization?

A. No.

Q. Are there any other organizations that you belong to?

A. Yes, I belong to the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association.

Q. Would you tell us what that organization's mission is?

A. That is a very small organization which exists to provide opportunities for people who have the humanist point of view to gather together to meet together. They have meetings.

Q. They do have some principles that members abide by, is that correct?

A. Yes, there is a statement of principles, yes.

Q. Would you tell us what those principles are?

A. I don't have them memorized, sir. In fact, I'm not even sure how NOSHA has worded theirs. Generally, it's in line with the statement of principles by the Council for Secular Humanism with which they are affiliated.

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, may I approach the witness? I want to give her a copy.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. THOMPSON: Let me give you my copy here.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, I just need to know what the exhibit number is so I can follow along.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, is he getting it?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm not sure. Give us a moment, Your Honor. I think we can find it.

THE COURT: All right. Take your time.

MR. THOMPSON: I apologize for the delay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's all right.


Q. Dr. Forrest, I've handed you some documents. First one is entitled Forrest Deposition No. 3. It's the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. Do you have that in front of you?

A. Yes.

Q. You may refresh your memory about the statements of principle, and I will just ask you just some of the principles that are located on that document?

A. Sure.

Q. First, under the first paragraph under, about us?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Would you read that paragraph, please?

A. Quote, The New Orleans Secular Humanist Association is dedicated to raising the awareness of people of the Gulf Coast region to the ideals and values of secular humanism. We are an affiliate of the Council for Secular Humanism, a member of the Alliance of Secular Humanist Societies, Associate of the American Humanist Association, an affiliate of American Atheists, and member of the Atheist Alliance International.

Q. Thank you. And that under statement of principles, please read the first sentence?

A. Quote, We reject efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation, end quote.

Q. Do you subscribe to that principle that you just read?

A. Yes.

Q. The document after that, what is that document?

A. Exhibit No. 4, Council for Secular Humanism?

Q. Yes.

A. I have it.

Q. Okay. And would you read what's in that document, starting from the top line?

A. Starting from the top. Read all of it?

Q. Yes.

A. This is the mission statement of the Council for Secular Humanism. And it begins this way. Quote, The Council for Secular Humanism cultivates rational inquiry, ethical values, and human development through the advancement of secular humanism.

To carry out its mission, the Council for Secular Humanism sponsors publications, programs, and organizes meetings and other group activities. The council's specific objectives are to promote secular humanist principles to the public, media, and policy makers; to provide secular humanist activities and communities to serve the needs of non-religious people and to foster human enrichment; to demonstrate the viability of the secular humanism eupraxophy as an alternative naturalistic life-stance; to engage in research relating to the critical examination of religious and supernatural claims and the humanist outlook; to conduct educational programs for all age levels, end quote.

Q. Now what is your definition of movement as you have used it when you talked about the intelligent design movement?

A. It's an organized program that carries out the goal of the program. That's the way I understand it here.

Q. Now would you agree that the material that you just read would qualify the Council for Secular Humanism as a movement?

A. There is such a thing as the humanist movement, yes. I've seen reference to that, sure.

Q. And based upon what you read, they are doing some of the same things as you claim the intelligent design movement is doing but for their own ideological goals, is that right?

A. No, sir, I don't think they're doing the same thing here. They are not promoting a religious view as science. They're not doing that.

Q. They are promoting common objectives?

A. They exist to offer an alternative to people who are like-minded and they promote that alternative.

Q. And they are educating the public?

A. They have publications which the public are free to read, yes.

Q. Yes. There is also a document that is entitled, What is Secular Humanism? Do you have that in front of you?

A. Is it a separate exhibit?

Q. It's Forrest Exhibit No. 5.

MR. THOMPSON: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't have 5. Thank you.


Q. I just handed you a document that is entitled, What is Secular Humanism?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you read that document, please?

A. All of it?

Q. Let's start the first page?

A. Okay. It's entitled, What is Secular Humanism? Quote, Secular humanism is a term which has come into use in the last 30 years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

The first one is a conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

The constant search for objective truth with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual social, and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. Shall I continue to the second page?

Q. The second page, please?

A. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Q. Thank you. You have described yourself as a secular humanist?

A. My thinking is in line with secular humanism. I typically don't label myself really as much of anything, but my thinking is in line with this, yes, sir.

Q. And you don't believe in the supernatural, do you?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. And you don't believe in the immortality of the soul?

THE COURT: Hang on. Wendy, are you all right?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection.

THE COURT: Are you objecting to the question or the beep?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I would never take on a court reporter.

THE COURT: In the case of the latter, there's nothing I can do.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I think we have to be really careful with where we're going with this because I think we're reaching the point where Mr. Thompson is trying to impeach Dr. Forrest and her credibility based on religious views, and that is specifically proscribed by Rule 610 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

I think that's where we're -- you know, I understand Mr. Thompson has a point to make equating Dr. Forrest's views which what she's testified about intelligent design, but as we're talking -- the kind of questions he just asked are going beyond that, and I think simply asking her religious belief in order to address her credibility. I can't see what else they go to.

THE COURT: Mr. Thompson.

MR. THOMPSON: They do go to the fact that this is a religious doctrine that she is espousing and why she is testifying today.

THE COURT: Well, I'll note that Rule 610 does say, Rule 610 does not -- or the commentary, I should say, to Rule 610 says that it does not preclude the admission of evidence of religious beliefs when the evident is relevant in a manner other than to show that the witness's trustworthness is enhanced or diminished by virtue of the belief.

And the rule does not prevent evidence tending to demonstrate bias or interest in the part of the witness. So we've got an expert witness, and colorably it goes to bias. I'm not sure if it's a blanket prohibition in the case of this witness that you read it to be.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Your Honor, I just want to be careful here because I do understand that this is a case about religion and it may be relevant in some areas, including to this exert. But I think the questions that Mr. Thompson just asked, does she believe in the immortality of the soul, I can't imagine how that connects to any issue relating to her testimony.

I think it just is questioning her about her religious beliefs, and I think we need to be careful that we're not violating this rule here.

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, I understand that is sensitive. I only have a few more questions in this area. And it goes really to the idea that she has attacked the Defendants' position based upon the fact they're Christians.

THE COURT: Well, it goes to bias is what you're saying.


THE COURT: Was there a question on the floor that you objected to?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I object to that characterization because that's not the nature of her testimony at all.

THE COURT: I understand that. And you can argue that. That's something that I'll have to decide. But was there -- you'll have to tell me, was there a question on the floor? Were you objecting to the line of questions?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: There was a question, and I won't repeat it exactly, and maybe it should be read back, but it asked her whether she believes in the immortality of the soul. And I --

THE COURT: Let's go back, Wendy, and look at the question that was on the floor and take the objection as specific to that question.

(Whereupon, the court reporter read back a question.)

THE COURT: That's the question now. Do you have an objection?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I don't have an objection to that. I think it was the next question. Maybe I cut it off so it wasn't transcribed.

THE COURT: All right. Let's get a question on the floor then.


Q. You -- do you believe that nature is all there is?

A. That is my own personal understanding of the cosmos, yes, sir. I cannot prove that that's all there is, but that is my considered view.

Q. And, therefore, any definition of what science is that excludes the supernatural is consistent with your view that nature is all there is, is that correct?

A. You're referring to the methodology of science?

Q. Yes.

A. The methodology of science is consistent with a great many views, not only with my view.

Q. So your answer is, yes?

A. It is consistent with my view as well as many others.

Q. Now I want to go to your book, Creationism's Trojan Horse. Do you have a copy of that?

A. I do. I have a copy here.

Q. Now how would you describe this book in general terms?

A. This book documents the manner in which the Center for Science and Culture is executing the Wedge Strategy. It looks at how the phases of that strategy are being executed, the activities that are part of that execution.

My co-author has analyzed the purportedly scientific claims made by intelligent design proponents. We have also documented the fact that they are a religious movement, but that they are creationists. And we explain the significance of this information to the readers.

Q. You started the book with some comments that, to me anyway, reflect your attitude about the creationist movement. And I want to read from page 8. You can follow me.

A. I'm sorry. Eight?

Q. Eight.

A. Um-hum.

Q. Subtitled The Wedge's Hammers?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And you have, Under cover of advanced degrees, including a few in science obtained in some of the major universities, the Wedge's workers have been carving out a -- out a habitable and expanding niche within higher education, cultivating cells of followers. Is that a political statement?

A. No, that's a descriptive statement. Cells meaning small groups.

Q. Is that what you meant to convey, that this is just small groups?

A. Yes, they are cultivating followers on university campuses. They are certainly not a large majority. They are small groups. Keep in mind, I have a co-author, and sometimes these are his words as well.

Q. They're pretty -- you would agree that that is pretty polemic, isn't it?

A. Depending on how you read it. It's not intended to be inflammatory. It's intended to be descriptive.

Q. Well, later on in the same paragraph, you have, armed with a potentially huge base of popular support that includes most of the religious right, wielding a new legal strategy with which it hopes to win in the litigation certain to follow, insertion of ID into public schools science anywhere, and lawyers ready to go to work when it does. The wedge of ID creationism is indeed intelligently designed.

Is that sentence there to alert people to the dangers of intelligent design?

A. Yes, it is there to alert people to what we think they are doing.

Q. Before you even started this book, you already had come to the conclusion that intelligent design was a danger, had you not?

A. I believe that intelligent design is harmful to the process of educating children, and I believe that it's harmful to the separation of church and state if it is inserted into a public school as science.

Q. And it was, in your view, a dangerous thing?

A. To the constitution and to the education of children.

Q. And you started with that idea before you did your research for the book?

A. I had some understanding of what the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was about, and at that point when the -- the understanding I had at the time, yes, it was not something I agreed with.

Q. And then on page 11 of that book, down about two-thirds of the way, you state, quote, We also believe that its ultimate goal --

A. I'm sorry. I have to find that.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry. It's page 11?

A. I'm on 11.

Q. Okay, down about two-thirds of the way.

A. In the middle paragraph?

Q. In the middle paragraph.

A. Okay. Oh, it's not the beginning of the sentence, I'm sorry. I've got it.

Q. Okay. We also believe that its ultimate goal is to create a theocratic state. Do you believe that?

A. Yes, I do. I think the Wedge document indicates that that is the goal. It's stated in the Wedge Strategy.

Q. And so your belief is that this Wedge strategy, which you have outlined in detail during your direct examination, is there to create a theocratic state?

A. I think if the goals of the Wedge Strategy were fulfilled, that is what we would have. The Wedge Strategy makes very strong statements that what they hope to do is to overturn the culture that has been degraded by scientific materialism and moral relativism. They hope to reestablish it or renew it on a foundation based on their own religious beliefs.

Q. Well, in your deposition, you also indicated that you felt that that statement meant they were taking over all three branches of government?

A. No, I did not say they were taking over all three branches of government. I indicated that one understanding of theocracy is when people in government are put into positions of political authority, and those positions are determined or their position there is determined by their religious beliefs.

Q. That becomes a theocratic state?

A. If the government is controlled by people who are in position in order to act on their own religious beliefs, yes, that would be a theocratic state, to fashion policies around those religious preferences.

Q. And, as you know, there are three branches of government, correct?

A. There are.

Q. And one individual or one branch of government does not have absolute power as to what's going to happen in this country, isn't that correct?

A. It's not supposed to.

Q. Well, you have the legislative branch of government that may make a law, which the judicial branch of government says is unconstitutional, is that correct?

A. Under the constitution, we have a system of checks and balances. The constitution sets that up.

Q. And before a theocratic state could be implemented, it would mean that all three branches of government would have to cooperate with the Wedge Strategy, is that correct?

A. In its totality, yes. There are areas, of course, on a smaller scale in which people in positions of authority could be acting on their own political preferences. So I would say that you would have degrees of that. It's not a matter of all or nothing.

Q. But the reason you wrote this book was your concern for the implementation of a theocratic state by the Wedge Strategy?

A. I'm concerned about the statement by the Wedge Strategy, the people who are promoting it, that what they hope to do is completely overturn what they consider a materialistic culture. Those are their statements.

Q. That could be political action, could it not?

A. I think they have in mind political action, among other things. That's what the statement says. It uses the word political.

Q. That could be education, correct?

A. Education insofar as it is an area of public policy.

Q. That could be attempts to persuade a majority of the people that their view on morality is the appropriate view, correct?

A. Not just an attempt to persuade. It depends on how they would go about implementing that.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Insofar as they might attempt to have a particular view implemented as public policy, I think there might be some particular problem, if you're talking about an about a religious view. Simple attempts to persuade are not a problem.

Q. Are you familiar with the Santorum Amendment?

A. I am.

Q. And what does that amendment state?

A. That is a two-paragraph statement that was written by Phillip Johnson. It was inserted by Senator Rick Santorum into the No Child Left Behind Act the day before the Senate voted on it. It was eventually removed and placed into the legislative history of the bill after some very slight rewording.

Q. And it was contained in the final conference report?

A. It's in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference, which accompanies the conference report?

Q. And just paraphrase what the Santorum Amendment is?

A. The Santorum Amendment, in paraphrase, says that, generally students should be taught the difference between the testable ideas of science and philosophical or religious ideas that are presented in the name of science, and that whenever controversial subjects such as evolution are taught, children should be instructed as to why those issues are controversial. It specifically mentions biological evolution.

Q. Doesn't it basically say that, whenever biological evolution is taught, students should be made aware of the controversy?

A. That students should be made aware of why that is a controversial issue.

Q. Is there a difference between what you and I just said?

A. It depends on how you're using the controversy. If you're talking about, if they should be made aware of a controversy within science about the status of evolution, that would not be correct. So depends on how you intend controversy to be understood. Maybe you need to explain it to me.

Q. Well, I'm just trying to find out what Senator Santorum meant by this.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, that's not a question. So there's nothing to object to. That's a statement by Mr. Thompson. So let's have a question.


Q. You, in fact, in your book, stated that Senator Santorum's Amendment was the first step in establishing a theocracy, did you not?

A. I don't believe I said it was the first step in establishing a theocracy.

Q. What did you say?

A. Would you like to point to something I said? Could you show me in the book, please?

Q. I can. You don't remember making any statement about --

A. Could you please just show me what I said?

Q. Would you turn to page -- we'll start with page 240, entitled, subtitled The Santorum Amendment?

A. 240?

Q. Um-hum.

A. Um-hum.

Q. And I'll have you read a few sentences in that section, starting with the first sentence under there. Under the subtitle The Santorum Amendment?

A. Yes. Quote, The May 2000 briefing was clearly the beginning of the Wedge's plan to influence science and science education policy at the national level. The events of June 2001 confirmed this assessment. On June 13th, 2001, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum introduced Amendment No. 7992S1, The Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, along with its House companion, HR1, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

This piece of legislation was a major revision of the elementary and secondary education act overhauling federal education programs. Santorum added his amendment to the bill only one day before the Senate was to hold a final vote after six weeks of debate.

Recognized on the floor at the U.S. Senate by Senator Edward Kennedy, Santorum rose to explain his amendment. Quote, I rise to talk about my amendment, which is a sense of the Senate that deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science in the classroom in primary and secondary education.

It is the sense of the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody. Quite the contrary. It says, there should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to discuss.

It is simply two sentences. Frankly, two rather innocuous sentences that, hopefully, this Senate will embrace. This is a quote of the sentences. Quote, It is the sense of the Senate that, one, good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and, two, where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject. Shall I continue?

Q. That's fine. You objected to the Santorum Amendment, did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you, in fact, wrote a letter to members of the House of Representatives and to the Senate opposing the Santorum Amendment?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. In what capacity did you write that letter?

A. At the time, I was the head of a small group called Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education. I believe that's when I wrote the letter.

Q. And who started that organization?

A. It was a group of people, including myself, that were, that had met in Kansas, people from around the country, to discuss the issue of the problem of intelligent design in science education.

Q. And what was the gist of your letter, if you recall?

A. Do you have a copy?

Q. I do have a copy.

A. Because it's been several years since I wrote it.

Q. I thought I did. I'll have to find it. I'll withdraw that question for the time being. Now your objections to the biology curriculum change, I believe, is that it infiltrates religion into the science classroom?

A. I'm sorry. Are you referring to a change generally or in this specific biology curriculum?

Q. The biology curriculum of the Dover Area School Board that included the one-minute statement?

A. And you're asking if I object to --

Q. Because it injected religion into the classroom?

A. Insofar as it presents intelligent design as an alternative theory, it is presenting a religious belief as an alternative scientific theory. That is my objection.

Q. And if it were shown to you that intelligent design does not require a supernatural creator, would you change your mind?

A. Intelligent design, as it is espoused by the proponents of intelligent design, the movement, does involve a supernatural creator. Intelligent design, in a non-controversial sense, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about --

Q. If a scientist such as Michael Behe testifies that intelligent design does not require a supernatural creator, will you then withdraw your objections to intelligent design being mentioned in that one-minute statement?

A. I would want to have some positive sense what he meant by that. I would want to know more than just, does it require a supernatural creator. I would want to know the sense in which he was using it.

Q. That's what I want to find out. What is your objections to intelligent design? You are not a scientist. But what are your objections to intelligent design if it does not include the concept of a supernatural creator?

A. Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural.

Q. Well, a lot of the evolutionists also have philosophical or religious statements attached to their theory, is that correct?

A. Outside the -- their capacity as scientists, of course, they do.

Q. And you would object to that as well, would you not?

A. I would object to what specifically, sir?

Q. If they attach a philosophical or religious component to the theory of evolution?

A. It's not within my purview to object to anybody attaching a philosophical view to their understanding of evolution. But I don't believe that your -- I'm not sure, are you referring just to their personal decision to attach a philosophical view to their understanding of evolution? Anyone has the right to do that. I don't object to that.

Q. And if intelligent design advocates or theorists happen to attach a religious component or, excuse me, a religious explanation for their theory, would you object to that?

A. That isn't what they're doing. They're not attaching a religious component. Intelligent design is, in essence, a religious belief. It is not a scientific belief with a religious component attached to it.

Q. Well, that's one of the issues that we are going to have the experts testify to. But you will admit, will you not, that many prominent evolutionists have philosophical claims based on their understanding of the theory of evolution?

A. As is their right to do.

Q. And so that you have the late Gaylord Simpson who said, man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. End quote. Are you aware of that claim that he made?

A. Yes, I've read his book.

Q. Did you agree with the claim?

A. Evolution, as a natural process, is not something that you can interpret as having a particular purpose or goal. That idea simply is not a scientific one. Now you might incorporate the idea of evolution into a larger philosophical understanding. And it is my estimation that that's what Gaylord Simpson was doing.

Q. Well, you quote, you have a section in your book on the first -- let me start. Do you know who Steven Wineberg is?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is he?

A. He's a Nobel Prize winning scientist.

Q. And as I recall, you had a quote from him in your book, is that correct?

A. Yes. It's on page 3.

Q. Okay. And so what was the reason for putting that quote in your book?

A. My co-author chose that.

Q. Okay. Now are you aware of this comment by Professor Wineberg? Quote, I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that. One of the things that, in fact, has driven me in my life is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science--to free people from superstition, end quote. Are you aware of that statement that Professor Wineberg --

A. Yes, I'm aware of that.

Q. Do you agree with Dr. Wineberg's claim?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Do you disagree with his claim?

A. If he is saying that -- I'm sorry. If you're asking -- are you asking me if I were aware of it? Yes. If you want to know whether I agree or disagree with it, I would ask you to please read it to me again.

Q. Sure. Quote, I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that. One of the things that, in fact, has driven me in my life is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science--to free people from superstition, end quote.

A. No, I don't share that belief.

Q. Now would you have taken away his status as a Nobel laureate because he got involved with religious and philosophical comments about -- regarding science?

A. No.

Q. Okay. I know you're aware of Eugenia Scott.

A. I'm on her board of directors. I forgot to mention that organization, by the way. I'm on the board of directors for the National Center for Science Education.

Q. And Ms. Scott is noted as a notable scientist of the Manifesto 3, do you know that?

A. No. I didn't know that.

Q. The manifesto makes broad philosophical claims such as, humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change, and that humanists recognize nature as self-existing. Do you agree with those claims?

A. I do.

Q. Are they scientific claims?

A. No, that's a philosophical statement. It goes beyond what science can establish.

Q. Okay. And basically, she is in charge, head of the National Center for Science Education, is that correct?

A. She's the director.

Q. But she is making philosophical and, I believe, religious claims in the area of science, would you agree with that?

A. She signed that statement as a personal act on her part. That is not what she does as the director of the National Center for Science Education. She does not promote her personal preferences as head of that organization. She promotes the principles of good science education.

Q. But she is a very outspoken person with regard to teaching of Darwinism, is she not?

A. She's a very forceful defender of teaching science as it should be taught.

Q. And she does everything she can as the director to prevent intelligent design from being included in the science education?

A. She does.

Q. Based on the comments that Eugenia Scott has made and Dr. Wineberg, would you conclude that evolution is not a scientific theory?

A. Based on what specific comments, sir?

Q. The comments that I just read?

A. The comments that --

Q. By Steven Wineberg, the first comment I read?

A. Those are Steven Wineberg's comments not Eugenia Scott's.

Q. No, I said, and Eugenia Scott's comments. Do you believe that Darwinism should not be a part of the educational curriculum?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection. I'm not sure there are any Eugenia Scott comments that have been presented to the witness.

MR. THOMPSON: Quote, humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change and that, quote, humanists recognize nature as self-existing, end quote.

THE COURT: You withdraw the objection?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I don't think those are comments Eugenia Scott made.

MR. THOMPSON: Well, I just put quotes around the phrases.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm not sure that changes that they're not things -- she didn't make comments to that effect. I mean, I think the issue, just for clarity, is that those are words from, I think, the humans manifesto, which apparently she had signed onto. The witness doesn't even know that is so.

THE COURT: So you're saying they're mischaracterized as direct quotes?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: It's very unclear. I think the witness was confused about what comments are being referred to, and I'm not --

MR. THOMPSON: I understand. I think I understand.

THE COURT: Well, here's what I perceive, and that is that, the objection likely caused the question to be issued in two parts. So why don't you restate the question?

MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That will be clear to the witness, I'm sure.


Q. I earlier read to you the comments by Nobel laureate Steven Wineberg. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Based on the comments that he made regarding the philosophical and quasi-religious, I guess, nature of evolution and modern science, do you believe that that would exclude Darwinism as a scientific theory?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm just going to object to the characterization, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Overruled. You can answer the question.

THE WITNESS: If I understand you correctly, you are linking the comments that he made with the status of Darwinism as an evolutionary theory.


Q. Correct.

A. I don't think the comments that he made, his personal statements about science have that much to do with the status of evolutionary theory. And, I'm sorry, I don't see the connection that you're trying to make.

Q. Okay. I think you answered my question. And then regarding Eugenia Scott, you know she's the director of the National Center for Science Education, and she is a notable signer of the humanist Manifesto 3. To accurately characterize that, the humanist manifesto makes proceed philosophical statements such as, quote, Humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change. And then further again, the manifesto --

A. Um-hum.

Q. -- claims that humanists recognize nature as self-existing, end quote. Do you agree with the claims that the humanist manifesto makes?

A. I understand those claims, and I generally agree with them.

Q. Okay. And Eugenia Scott is an outspoken advocate of teaching Darwin's theory?

A. She is an outspoken advocate of teaching evolutionary theory in public science class, yes.

Q. Based upon the methodology you used in excluding statements -- excuse me. Withdraw that. Based upon the methodology you use to conclude that statements made by Dembski or Steven Myers or Jonathan Wells should exclude intelligent design from public education, why would that same methodology not be used to exclude Darwinism from public education?

A. If you will permit me, sir, let me please make a distinction in what I think these people are doing. And I don't think you're representing Eugenia Scott's position accurately. Eugenia Scott's signed the humanist manifesto as a personal act on her part. She is quite cognizant, and she has expressed this many times, of the difference between what she can assert as a scientist and what she can assert as a citizen with philosophical preferences.

She has many times expressed that distinction. She is quite aware of it. In fact, she does not use her position as director of the National Center for Science Education to promote her particular personal viewpoints. She is adamantly against doing that.

In fact, she was the most important person in persuading the National Association of Biology Teachers to take language of that sort out of their statement. She is quite aware that there are many personal viewpoints people can take, and she has stated many times that one must recognize a distinction between what one can say as a scientist and what one says as a private citizen expressing a philosophical preference.

She does not do the same thing that, I believe, Dr. Dembski and his intelligent design associates are doing.

Q. I guess then, what methodology do you use to exclude the same kind of consideration from Dr. Dembski and others that you used to exclude Eugenia Scott's philosophical and religious comments?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, I'll allow the question. The objection is overruled.

THE WITNESS: In Dr. Dembski's case, it is not a matter of his having a scientific viewpoint which can be defended and a philosophical viewpoint attached to that. His viewpoint regarding intelligent design is at its core, in its essence, a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one.

What I object to is his presenting that as a scientific theory that should be offered to students in a science class. I don't think there is any analogy at all between what he is doing and what Eugenia Scott does. And part of my job as a philosopher is to make those distinctionss clear.


Q. Well, I think you've already indicated that you are not a scientist, correct?

A. I'm not a scientist, but I am an educated person who understands the way science works. That's not hard to understand.

Q. And you are not -- you are not an expert in science to the extent that you can evaluate Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, are you?

A. I have never claimed to be a scientific expert evaluating Dr. Behe's statements about irreducible complexity. That is not within my expertise.

Q. Okay. And so you continue to say that intelligent design is not science without you personally being able to evaluate the scientific claims of Dr. Michael Behe, is that correct?

A. My understanding of intelligent design as science is a position that I can defend without having to address the particular scientific claims. Those have been very well addressed by Professor Miller. What I know about intelligent design is that it is defined by its own leaders in religious terms. And any idea that is defined by its own leaders in religious terms as requiring a supernatural creator is not a scientific idea. That's simply basic elementary science.

Q. That's what I'm getting at. You excuse Eugenia Scott and Steve Wineberg when they talked about their scientific theories and religious and philosophical terms, but you will not give the same benefit to those in the intelligent design movement, is that true?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection. Mischaracterizes the statements that Mr. Thompson has just been quoting.

THE COURT: Well, he has her on cross. And I think it's a fair question on cross. I'll overrule the objection. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Would you repeat it, please, the one that you just asked?

(Whereupon, the court reporter read back the question.)

THE WITNESS: They're not doing the same thing, sir. Eugenia Scott is not advocating that her personal philosophical preferences be taught to school children in a public school science class as science. She insists that the evolutionary biology that has withstood scientific testing now for 150 years be taught.

Dr. Dembski and his associates in the intelligent design movement are asking that their view, which is, at its essence, a religious view, be offered to children as science. So that is not what Eugenia Scott is doing.


Q. Well, I don't want to keep on going around as to whether intelligent design is a religious view or a scientific theory. But you will agree, will you not, that any analysis must clearly make distinctions between religious motivations of the ID proponents and the religious implications of intelligent design theory?

A. What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own.

Q. Well, didn't the president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State also use the Logos theology by saying, God could have said, evolve?

A. You're talking about the director, Barry Lynn?

Q. Yes.

A. Barry Lynn said this in a jovial way. He was certainly -- he certainly recognizes the difference between science and religion. I know Barry. And he was making a jovial comment.

Q. Were you there when he made that statement?

A. I was -- I was not present when he made the statement.

Q. Do you agree with Dr. Ken Miller's testimony that not everything a scientist says is science?

A. Scientists say many, many things. They talk about lots of things in addition to science.

Q. And that could also be true of the intelligent design theorists, is that correct?

A. I would ask that you give me something specific to evaluate, but I'm sure they talk about lots of different things, too.

Q. They may talk about their personal religion, correct?

A. Yes, they do quite a bit.

Q. Their philosophy of life, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And they understand that when they're talking about that, they're not talking about science?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. It calls for speculation.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained to that question. She couldn't know that. So it's sustained.


Q. Well, you're aware that Dr. Dembski earned a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that he has a Master's of Divinity from Princeton Theology Seminary?

A. Yes.

Q. He's got a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So at one point, he may be talking about theology, is that correct?

A. He could be talking about theology on an occasion, certainly.

Q. And at another time, he could be talking about mathematics, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. He could be expounding on his theory of probabilities and the inference design, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. And you would not take statements that he made from his theology background and say, because he's made those statements, that that now impunes or destroys everything he is saying from his mathematical background?

A. It would depend on what he is specifically saying, sir. He says many things in which he expresses theological views, and those are part of the definition of intelligent design as he has given it. He doesn't seem to make the distinction.

Q. Does he always have to make a distinction?

A. If he had some real science to present, yes, he should.

Q. So when he is talking to the magazine Touchstone, which is a Christian, a religious magazine, he has to say to the reporters, now I'm going to be talking about my religious beliefs?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. I'm not sure what Mr. Thompson is referring to.

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, there were several exhibits that had Touchstone magazine articles in them, and they were referring to religious statements. And my point is that because Mr. -- Dr. Dembski is a theologian as well as a scientist, he may be talking in religious terms because of the context and the venue of the commentary.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm just asking for some clarity. There's articles. There's interviews. At least to the testimony, we focused on articles of Mr. Dembski. I just wanted some clarity on what exactly we're talking about.

THE COURT: Well, I think the question went to the various writings of Mr. Dembski that you put up, and I'll -- go ahead.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I mean, he talked about responding to reporters. I just think we need some clarity. I'm not saying he hasn't talked to reporters. But the specific statements by Dr. Dembski that Dr. Forrest discussed were, in fact, articles. I just think, for Dr. Forrest's benefit, there should be some clarity. Are we talking about articles? Are we talking about interviews?

MR. THOMPSON: I can clarify it, Your Honor. She's the one that saw the articles and commented on them.

THE COURT: Well, do you want to hone your question or can you hone your question to the responses that Mr. Dembski gave to reporters or would it relate to his scholarly writings?

MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I think that's the issue.

MR. THOMPSON: I'll hone it to this.


Q. You referred to several articles during your direct examination that were written by Professor Dembski in Touchstone magazine, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's a religious publication, is it not?

A. It is.

Q. You expect that Dr. Dembski would have to say that, I'm now going to be talking about philosophy or religion, when he's published that article in a religious magazine versus, you know, his scientific views?

A. First of all, Dr. Dembski is not a scientist. He has no formal credentials in science. You mischaracterized him a minute ago as a scientist, which he is not. When he explains intelligent design in terms -- when he defines it in a religious sense, that indicates to me that he's not speaking scientifically at all.

If intelligent design were a scientific theory, he would never have to use religion to explain it. But he does that quite often. In fact, in his book, Intelligent Design, The Bridge Between Science and Theology, he explains intelligent design to the lay audience, to the non-scientific audience. And in that book, that book is pervasive overtly religious and he explains it as an overtly religious idea.

Q. Let's correct the characterization of Dr. Dembski as a scientist. You don't believe he's a scientist. He's a mathematician though, isn't he?

A. He's not a scientist. He's a mathematician, a philosopher, and a Christian apologest.

Q. He wears several hats then?

A. He has quite a few degrees.

Q. Right. And so he could be discussing intelligent design wearing his theologian's hat, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Or he could be discussing intelligent design wearing his mathematician's hat, correct?

A. If he's discussing intelligent design wearing his mathematician's, then he's discussing a religious idea wearing his mathematician's hat because intelligent design, as he has defined it, is a religious idea. It's not a mathematical idea. It's not a biological idea.

Q. Again, that's a question that we will address as to whether it is science or not. But right now, what I'm trying to discover is the methodology you use for excusing Darwinists who use philosophical terms and make philosophical statements based upon their science and the methodology you use for not excusing intelligent design theorists when they make philosophical statements and religious comments?

A. My methodology is to simply make a very careful distinction between people who are not doing the same thing. And that is part of what we call critical analysis, to clarify ideas and to make careful distinctions. That's the methodology I'm using.

Q. Is there a formula that we can look at?

A. It's part of critical thinking. It's part of recognizing the difference between science and religion. It's part of recognizing the difference between a true statement and a false statement.

Q. You mentioned critical thinking. And I believe you say you've taught a course on critical thinking?

A. I teach it regularly.

Q. Yes. What is a logical fallacy?

A. A logical fallacy is a mistake in one's reasoning.

Q. And there are several different concepts under logical fallacy, like lists of logical fallacies, is that correct?

A. There's scores of logical fallacies.

Q. What is a logical fallacy of ad hominem?

A. The ad hominem fallacy is when you dismiss a person's argument and instead attack a person's character.

Q. What is the logical fallacies of straw man?

A. Straw man fallacy is when you intentionally misrepresent or weaken a person's argument in an effort to make it easy to refute.

Q. And what is the fallacy of, the genetic fallacy?

A. It is a fallacy of dismissing another person's position based on where it came from, the origin of it.

Q. So when you attack someone as a creationist or -- excuse me, when you say someone is a creationist, it could very well be a straw man's argument, is that correct?

A. Not as I'm doing it, no, sir. Only if I misrepresented a person's position. And I'm not attacking, I am describing. I am simply stating the facts of the case.

Q. Is Dr. Ken Miller a creationist?

A. Dr. Ken Miller is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Catholic.

Q. Would you consider him a creationist?

A. Not in the sense, no, I would not.

Q. Well, Dr. Miller testified in this case that, quote, God is the author of all things seen and unseen, and that would certainly include the laws of physics and chemistry, end quote. Is that a creationist talking?

A. In his own personal viewpoints, I understand Dr. Miller to be a theistic evolutionist. And that is a position that intelligent design proponents vehemently object to. They do not recognize it as a valid position.

Q. When you say, intelligent design advocates object to it, are you talking about all intelligent design advocates object to that?

A. Specifically, Dr. William Dembski has stated that, design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution. And that is a sentiment shared by at least the major figures in the intelligent design movement that are the subjects of my research.

Q. Michael Behe, is he one of them?

A. Michael Behe, as I understand him, is a creationist.

Q. And he would attack Ken Miller's viewpoint that God is the author of all things, seen and unseen?

A. I'm not sure what Professor Behe would say about Professor Miller's viewpoints. I'm sorry. I don't have a specific comment by which to judge.

Q. Would Darwinists consider Professor Miller a creationist?

A. Could you explain to me what you mean by a Darwinist?

Q. Those people who advocate the theory of evolution or Darwin's theory of evolution?

A. The people who accept the science of evolutionary biology?

Q. Yes.

A. And you're asking me if those people would consider Ken Miller a creationist?

Q. Yes.

A. Again, I would have to see a specific comment. I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement.

Q. Well, you've --

A. Dr. Miller, as I understand him, is not a creationist. He certainly believes in God. He has been very open and up front about that. But his view about the science is that he accepts evolutionary biology, and he finds no inconsistency between his understandings as a scientist and his viewpoints as a Roman Catholic.

Q. Well, using your methodology then and accepting what Dr. Miller has said about God, the creator of all things seen and unseen, should you disregard anything that Ken Miller says as unscientific?

A. It would depend, sir, on a specific statement. I can't make that assessment based on simply a hypothetical, very general question of the kind that you're giving me.

Q. What other information do you need?

A. Could you give me a specific statement?

Q. Well, Dr. Miller testified, quote, God is the author of all things seen and unseen, and that would certainly include the laws of physics and chemistry.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection.

MR. THOMPSON: And he's also testified, quote, 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.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.

MR. THOMPSON: End quote.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Mr. Thompson refers to a particular testimony. I suspect there's quite a great deal of context.

MR. THOMPSON: Page 64 of this transcript.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Which transcript? Of the deposition or the --

MR. THOMPSON: Of his testimony.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Could we make that available to the witness and allow counsel to look at it?

MR. THOMPSON: Well, Your Honor, I've asked the question, and it's based on those facts.

THE COURT: Well, at the very least, you should let Mr. Rothschild see if you took it out of context whether we let the witness see it or not. So go to the page, Mr. Rothschild, take a look at it, and see if the question was taken out of context.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Do you have a page of the transcript we can look at, Mr. Thompson?

MR. THOMPSON: I think it's page 65, I believe it was.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Your Honor I apologize. We don't have our transcripts here.

MR. THOMPSON: Page 64.

THE COURT: Well, look at his.

MR. THOMPSON: I just got a question here with the page on it.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, this is -- do you have the transcript?

MR. THOMPSON: I don't have it here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Do you have a lot more for this witness?

MR. THOMPSON: Pardon me, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Do you have a lot more for this witness?


THE COURT: That's what I thought. We're probably reaching a point where you could wrap it up for today, if you want to save that, withdraw the question for now, get the transcript, then you can do it. We have a couple minutes now. You can pursue something else. But if it is an appropriate break point --

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, I think it is a good time to quit.

THE COURT: I would point out, you had referred to some documents, and Mr. Muise did as well, during his voir dire questioning, but they were not assigned exhibit numbers. Now I don't know if it's your intention to put them in, but you might want to give some attention to that and think about that after we conclude the witness's testimony tomorrow, and we'll take the exhibits at that time. All right.

This is an appropriate time then for us to end the trial day. We will stand in recess, unless counsel, you have anything further for today?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll stand in recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. We'll reconvene at that time.

(Whereupon, the proceeding adjourned for the day at 4:30 p.m.)


Home Browse Search Feedback Other Links The FAQ Must-Read Files Index Evolution Creationism Age of the Earth Flood Geology Catastrophism Debates
Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links
The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates