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

Kansas Evolution Hearings

Part 10


DR. ABRAMS: Will you take your seats, please? Please take your seat. (Pause.) Mr. Calvert, are you ready?


DR. ABRAMS: Mr. Calvert, please proceed.

MR. CALVERT: Okay. I would like to present my next witness, Dr. Michael Behe, who is, I believe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania.


Q. Dr. Behe, would you please give us a bit on your background?

A. Yes. I received bachelor's of science degree in chemistry from Drexel University in 1974. I then went on to the University of Pennsylvania, where I reserved a Natural Research Service Award predoctoral fellowship. I received my

Ph.D. in 1978 with a dissertation on sickle-cell hemoglobin. I then did post doctoral work at the National Institutes of Health, where I was a Jane Kauffman fellow there. My research concerned nucleic acid structure. My first position was at Queens College in New York City, where I was an Assistant Professor in the Chemistry Department and continued my work on nucleic acid structure and nucleic acid protein interactions. In 1985 I moved to Lehigh University, where I'm currently a Professor in the Biology Department.

Q. I believe you're also the author of a book that was published in 1996 called "Darwin's Black Box," and my understanding is that that book posed a question or a challenge to natural selection to explain what you referred to as irreducibly complex systems. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct. The argument of the book is that what science has discovered in the cell in the past 50 years is poorly explained by a gradual theory such as Darwin's. And if you look at it, the evidence suggests that, in fact, many systems in the cell show signs of purposeful Intelligent Design.

Q. The-- your claim of irreducible complexity or your argument of irreducible complexity-- and again, I guess the argument is that there is yet to be shown to you, or to science, a detailed explanation of how natural selection can assemble such a system. And in your book, I believe you make very specific arguments against it. Since it was published in 1996, there have been a number of scientists that have criticized the theory. Can you comment briefly on the criticism and the current status of the debate about that in the scientific community?

A. Yes. The book from the beginning was very controversial, and from its inception, some scientists, particularly Darwinian biologists, offered arguments against it. And I have responded to their arguments in a number of book chapters, a number of articles in "Philosophy of Science" journals. And briefly, I argue that their counter arguments are themselves mistaken, and I think they don't really get to the heart of the argument, and so I think my theory has stood up.

Q. And so is it fair to say that the scientific community is still wrestling with that claim, and there is yet to be a scientific consensus, sir, as to an outcome on that?

A. Well, it's true that, you know, some people still make arguments against it, and some papers in the literature are-- seem to be written with this concern in mind. So, yes, I think it's safe to say that, certainly, some members of the scientific community are still wrestling with the concept.

MR. CALVERT: I would-- do we have the PowerPoint fixed?

MS. POSNY: No, sorry. I know, I know, I know.

Q. (By Mr. Calvert) (Pause.) While we fiddle with the PowerPoint, why don't we-- I'm going to direct your attention-- do you have another copy?

A. Was the problem that my first slide was blank? Was that it?

MS. DEBACKER: This is looking better, so just give us a chance.

MS. POSNY: At least we have this now.

MS. DEBACKER: It should be coming on.

Q. (By Mr. Calvert) Dr. Behe, while we fiddle with the-- we're going to talk about page 15 and 16 of the Minority Report. There we go. Okay, you have those two pages on your slide. And I've asked you to comment particularly in your talk today about the proposed change that appears on page 16, which would introduce students to this concept, whether macro- evolution can be extrapolated to explain-- excuse me-- whether microevolution can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex is controversial. Would you agree with that statement?

A. Yes, I would. I certainly think it's correct.

Q. Would you also agree with the next sentence, that these kinds of macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct observation and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence?

A. Yes, I think that's correct as well.

Q. Is this something you think students should be made aware of in a complete understanding of biological evolution?

A. Yes, I think so.

Q. Would you please go ahead, and I believe you have some-- a presentation that addresses the specific issue, and I ask you to proceed with that.

A. Sure. I would like to start by saying that it's not just myself, not even just ID people-- Intelligent Design people-- but a number of scientists have been skeptical that micro- evolutionary processes, Darwinian processes, can explain larger patterns in biology and especially-- and the molecular biology itself. For example, Stewart Kauffman, who's a professor at the University of Calgary right now, wrote in a book in 1993 that "It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth. Regarding the answer to the sources of the order we see all around us, it overwhelmingly appeals to a singular force, natural selection. It is this single force view which I believe to be inadequate, for it fails to notice, fails to stress, fails to incorporate the possibility that simple and complex systems exhibit order spontaneously. And this was published by Oxford University Press, an academic publishing house.

Why do people-- why are some scientists skeptical that Darwinian processes can account for what they see, especially at the molecular level of life? Because in the past 50 years, science has discovered much to their surprise, and which was completely unknown at the time of Darwin, that the cell, the basis of life, is composed of machines, literally machines made out of molecules.

This illustration up here is a cover from the journal "Cell" which was published in 1998, a special review issue on the topic of molecular machines. And you see in the lower left-hand corner a kind of a stop watch to suggest the sorts of machines that people have found in a cell. And inside on the table of contents there are listed a number of articles such as "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines," "(not understood) in the Replisome," "Machines Within Machines," "Mechanical Devices of the (not understood)," "Nature's Clocks, Springs and Things."

And the editor of this special issue was a man named Bruce Alberts, who was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, and in his introduction he states, "We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly, we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960's. The chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."

Now, why is this a difficulty for Darwin's theory? Well, because in 1959 in his seminal book, "On the Origin of Species," Darwin saw a weakness or a difficulty for his theory. He wrote that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," adding, "but I can find out no such case." Here he was insisting that his was a gradual theory. Natural selection had to improve things slowly, in many steps, over a long period of time. He knew that if things improved too quickly, it would look like something other than random processes were involved.

Well, that sort of a system can't be explained, or is very difficult to explain, by numerous, successive, slight modifications, one which is irreducibly complex or has the property of irreducible complexity. This is a fancy phrase. It just means that we've got a system with a number of different components that interact with each other to produce a function beyond the system-- or beyond the components itself. And an example I cited in my book, "Darwin's Black Box," on this from our everyday life is a mousetrap. A mousetrap has a number of different components such as a spring, holding bar, catch, and so on, and it needs all these components to work. If you take away the catch, if you take away the spring, if you take away the holding bar, it's not that it works half as well as it used to, it's broken, it doesn't work at all.

Now, things like this are a problem for a gradual theory like Darwin's because the function of an irreducibly complex system only appears, essentially, when the system is complete. In intermediate stages, there's nothing for natural selection to select. And after it's finished, there's not a whole lot for natural selection to do. So things like this are challenges to Darwin's theory of gradual evolution.

So are there any such irreducibly complex systems in the cell? And I argue that there are many of them, yes. They're all over the place. For example, here's a molecular machine called the bacterial flagellum. And I guess I should add that most machines that we know of are irreducibly complex. And the cell is chock full of molecular machines like this one. This is the bacterial flagellum. It is quite literally an outboard motor. That bacteria can swim. It's got a number of different components like a propeller which actually pushes against the water, pushes the bacterium forward as the rotor spins. There's a hook region which acts as a universal joint to attach the propeller to the drive shaft. The drive shaft is attached to a rotor, which uses a flow of acid from the outside to the inside of the cell. There's a part that act as a stator to keep it clamped onto the cell membrane, just like an outboard motor has to be clamped onto a boat as the propeller turns. And there are many other components as well. Now, let's see. Where am I?

I made this argument in my book, "Darwin's Black Box," in 1996. And since then, the book itself has been pretty widely reviewed, for example, in "New York Times," "Nature," a prominent science journal "Philosophy of Science," the "Philosophy Journal Quarterly Review of Biology," and so on. What have other scientists had to say about my claim that these things so far are unexplained by Darwinian processes? Well, they have had a lot of things to say, and Richard Restak (spelled phonetically), writing for "Brain Work," liked the book. Just let me say that right up front.

James Shreeves, a science writer, writes in the "New York Times" that "Mr. Behe may be right that given our current state of knowledge, good old Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin of blood clotting or cellular transport." A man named James Shapiro, who is a professor of microbiology at the University of Chicago wrote, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Jerry Coyne, who's a professor of evolutionary biology at Chicago University wrote, "There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex and their evolution will be hard to unravel. We may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways." Andrew Pomiankowski, a British scientist, writes in "New Scientist," "Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these, and you will be lucky to find anything other than, quote, evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological function, close quote."

So the point is that many reviewers of my book have agreed that these complex molecular machines so far are unexplained within the Darwinian framework. But some scientists claim that such explanations are out there somewhere, and a man named David Griffin, who is a professor of the philosophy of religion at Claremont College in California, nonetheless, wanted to track down those explanations.

And in his book, "Religion and Scientific Naturalism," he said that "The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred." And he continues, "When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist."

And I think the most succinct summary of many reviewers of my book is contained in a book called "The Way of the Cell," written by a man named Franklin Harold, who is emeritus professor of biochemistry at Colorado State University, which was published by Oxford University Press a couple years ago. And Franklin Harold wrote the following. He said, "We should reject as a matter of principle the substitution of Intelligent Design for the dialog of chance and necessity," and he cites my book, "but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Wishful speculations is oftentimes kind of a word which actually means something called "Just So Stories," which is a phrase oftentimes heard in biology, like the children's stories written by Rudyard Kipling a century ago, you know, "How the Tiger Got Its Stripes," "How the Rhinoceros Got Its Horn," how the bacterium got its flagella. And it's kind of funny if you think about it. If you think about it further, it's astonishing that a theory which has the allegiance of a fair number of biologists has been so utterly fruitless at explaining the molecular foundation of life, and it leaves people like myself to believe that perhaps a different theory might be called for.

Well, I want to say that this isn't the only problem for Darwinian theory. It goes much deeper. Here's a drawing of the bacterial flagellum which occurs in a biology textbook by Voet & Voet, but this is just a little cartoon of the flagellum and it leaves out many, many problems that would have to be overcome for something like this to be produced. For example: How is such a thing put together? How do the parts interact with each other? An outboard motor in our everyday life is assembled by an intelligent agent, but materials in a cell have to assemble themselves. How do they do that? Well, the components of the bacterial flagellum in reality aren't these nice little spheres and oval shapes and disks and so on. Rather, they're composed of proteins which have very complex shapes such as this, and proteins binding each other specifically by having surfaces which are both geometrically complementary as well as chemically complementary. It shows two micromolecules binding each other, and you can see the physical shape's complementary, but also on the surface there's a little cartoon taken from Voet & Voet's book.

This shows that the chemical properties of the surface also have to be complementary to each other. Where there's a positive charge on one, there has to be a negative charge on the other. Or if there's an oily spot, a hydrophobic amino acid side chain, there has to be a hydrophobic spot on the other one, and so on. Where there's a hydrogen bonding donor, there has to be a hydrogen bonding acceptor, and so on.

Well, the question that I have become interested in is: How do things such as this develop? You'll notice that in the interaction of these two proteins-- and there are 30 to 40 different proteins which participate in making the flagellum-- in each pair there are multiple interactions which hold the things apart. How do those things develop? Recently, about six months ago, myself and David Snoke at the University of Pittsburgh published a paper which tries to address this question, which asks: How easy would it be to develop a specific interaction between two proteins that did not have this interaction before, as evolution would be expected to have to do?

And our paper, now, presents a mathematical model which can be simplified in the following way. Up at the top you see that little array of boxes. We can represent that as the amino acid sequence of a protein. And when the little plus comes along, that means that it has accumulated a mutation which potentially could interact with another protein if it had another few mutations which comprised a set which allowed the interaction to be stable. The red X shows a deleterious mutation which has accumulated in the protein. And the problem would be to accumulate sufficient beneficial mutations before you accumulate even one deleterious mutation.

And, again, you could model this mathematically. This looks a little more complex than it really is. All you have to do is consider the number of organisms in the population and the number of sites that would have to change, the point mutation rate, and other such factors. And what we did was calculate what we expected the number of generations to be to have just a protein binding site appear between two proteins if you needed multiple amino acid changes before such an interaction would occur. And what we calculated was that even for getting just two proteins to interact, it would take a very, very large number of generations, on the order of 10 to the 20th.

I didn't explain the axes here, but the top axis would be population size, the bottom axis is the number of growth sites that would have to change, and the Y axis is the number of generations that it would take to fix this mutation in the population.

And it should be said that most proteins in the cell exist as complexes not two or by themselves, but complexes of six or more. And so the question is: Could those be assembled by Darwinian process? And I have reason to be skeptical that that's the case. Other evidence that shows that micro- evolution does not necessarily lead to macro- evolution has come about recently in a paper by a man named Barry Hall at the University of Rochester. And I think this shows the benefit of not assuming that microevolution does lead to macroevolution. He was worried about the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Antibiotic resistance is often put forward as an example of Darwinian evolution, and many times it is. But when scientists search for antibiotics, they're searching for the limits of Darwinian evolution. They're searching for antibiotics which will be beyond the capacity of bacteria to evolve resistance to, and that's what Barry Hall was trying to do.

I won't read his abstract, just a couple of key sentences. He says with what I think is a very commendable attitude, instead of assuming that this particular protein will evolve rapidly and, therefore, confer immunity to antibiotics on a particular bacterium, "It would be highly desirable to accurately predict this evolution in response to a certain antibiotic selection."

And when he did that by in vitro mutation in the laboratory, he concluded that-- in vitro evolution was used to predict whether the protein has the potential to evolve an increased ability to confer resistance to this antibiotic, and he says, "The results predict with greater than 99.9 percent confidence that even under intense selection, the protein will not evolve to confer increased resistance to the antibiotic." So he's saying that he has found the limits, at least of this protein, to Darwinian evolution, at least in the foreseeable future. So the point is that not all things can occur by tiny, tiny changes and selectable intermediates leading to more complex systems. And that's been what I have thought in my consideration of these things.

So I think I agree with this statement in the Minority Report that I don't think I am an example of a person who disagrees that micro- evolution, at least in biochemistry, where I'm an expert, can be extrapolated to explain new-- completely new systems. And I would be glad to respond to any questions now, Mr. Calvert.

Q. Dr. Behe, thank you so much for your presentation. I guess I would have one question. In the first paper that you did with Dr. Snoke, what was the bottom-line conclusion of that? Could you sort of simplify that?

A. The bottom line was that a process called gene duplication, where a gene coded for a particular protein is duplicated and is free to accumulate mutations, is unlikely to lead to new protein features which require more than a couple amino acid changes to produce them. Once you go beyond just one change to lead to the new feature and you need two or three or four, which is the case if you need to develop a new specific interaction between two proteins, then the expected amount of time that that would take in reasonable population times starts to become prohibitive over a hundred million generations.

Q. And how many members of the population in that hundred million generations?

A. Well, again, it depends on the number of loci, but if you consider about six, which is roughly the number of amino acids involved in a specific interaction between two proteins, it would take on the order of 10 to the 21st or so, which would be prohibitive for virtually any organism except a single celled organism.

Q. Well, 10 to the 21st?

A. Yes.

Q. That's a big number. And that's just-- and you're saying for the protein to interact, and that's for a binding site?

A. That's right. That's not considering the function of the proteins. It's just as if you had, for example, that spring in the mousetrap and you wanted it to attach to, say, the catch, and you didn't want an intelligent agent to put it together, how likely would it be if it mutated in a way similar to the way proteins do in the cell? In order to do that, you need a long time and a very large population size-- prohibitively large-- just to get those two things together, not even worrying whether their shapes were the right shapes for the purpose-- just to get them to stick specifically to each other. It's a problem which I think is very much underappreciated not only by the general public, which doesn't know much about it, but also by the scientific community, which generally doesn't spend much time thinking about it.

MR. CALVERT: Thank you very much for your time to testify. I believe I don't have any further questions. Mr. Irigonegaray, your witness.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Thank you very much.

DR. ABRAMS: Fifteen minutes, sir.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Thank you, sir.


Q. Sir, I have a few questions for the record for you. What is your opinion as to the age of the earth?

A. I think it's what physicists, geologists say, about 4.6 billion years.

Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life is biologically related to the beginning of life?

A. My position is similar to Professor Nord's, one or two ago, that depending on what you mean by common descent, I do believe in biological continuity of organisms, yes.

Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors?

A. With that exception in mind, depends on what you mean by common descent, yes, I do.

Q. It is true, is it not, that nowhere in the Kansas Standards does it say that natural selection is the only mechanism for evolution?

A. I have not read through the entire Kansas Standards. I was concentrating specifically on that one paragraph that I showed on the first slide. So I couldn't tell you for sure.

Q. You have not been provided with Draft 2 of the Majority-- you were not provided with Draft 2 of the writing standards?

A. Of the Minority Report?

Q. No, no, no. The Majority Report, Draft 2.

A. No, I have not received that.

Q. And to be fair to you, you said that at least as far as the Minority Report, you focussed on a paragraph?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you regard Mr. Phillip Johnson as a respected leader of the intelligence-- this Intelligent Design community?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Let me read a quote to you by Mr. Johnson, and I would like for you to tell me whether or not you agree with it. "I can say this. You often find the greatest enemies of Christ in the church, even in high positions. There's a kind of person who may be sincere in a way but is double minded, who goes into church in order to save it from itself by bringing it into concert with evolutionary naturalism, for example. These are dangerous people. They're more dangerous than an outside atheist like Richard Dawkins, who at least flies his own flag. So I'm not impressed that somebody says that he's a Christian of a traditional sort and believes that evolution is our Creator. This is at the very least a person whose mind is going in two directions. Such people often do a great deal of harm-- of damage within the church." Do you agree with that statement?

A. I disagree with it. I think I have met many people who believe in Darwinian evolution and who are quite religious and think that it was God's way to produce life. As a matter of fact, I myself used to think that before I became skeptical.

Q. Another quote by Mr. Johnson, "Liberal Christians, those that accept evolution, are worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism behind a veneer of religion." Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

A. The same. I disagree with that statement.

Q. Therefore, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Johnson's portrayal of Christians who fully accept evolution and reject Intelligent Design?

A. Not at all. I sympathize with them. I used to be one of them until I changed my mind based on the scientific evidence.

Q. You would agree with me, would you not, sir, that throughout the history of humanity, we have from time to time been confronted with observations for which we did not have an explanation?

A. Sure.

Q. And you would agree with me, would you not, sir, that it is important for the progress of humanity that whenever we find questions that we do not understand, that we do our best to understand those questions following the scientific process?

A. Sure.

Q. And you would further agree with me, would you not, sir, that just because something appears to be extremely complex, that doesn't necessarily mean that we must attach to it a supernatural explanation?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you would agree with me, would you not, sir, that an appropriate place for the discussion of the supernatural may be theology classes, philosophy, et cetera?

A. That's correct.

Q. You would agree with me, would you not, sir, that history has taught us that we at times-- for example, in studying astronomy-- looked at the complexity surrounding our universe and assumed erroneously that it was set up with the earth at the center of the universe and that that was the religious view which could not be challenged?

A. Well, I kind of disagree with that characterization. That was the scientific view at that age because, by observation, scientists saw that the stars and the sun went around the earth. That was actually the scientific observation. And it gets a little bit dicy on occasion when you introduce new ideas because you may know-- you probably do know-- that Isaac Newton's theory of gravity was received with great suspicion during his time because at that point it was considered to be a supernatural explanation because it posited bodies interacting over space without physical interaction. That kind of smacked of Aristotelian type of science.

Q. And as a result, it is important to keep science and religion separated. Correct?

A. No. I-- no. It's a very complex business. By that example, I was trying to say that what some people think to be religion at the time may turn out to be understandable later on. But if you rule out an explanation which seems to describe the data pretty well because it seems to have unwelcome philosophical or religious overtones, then I think that does science a disservice.

Q. (Pause.) As I sat through these hearings, there's a question that keeps coming back to me, sir, and perhaps-- perhaps you could help me. If a scientist wanted to do research to challenge the hypotheses of an intelligent designer, how could he or she go about it?

A. Well, it's actually pretty straightforward, surprisingly enough. Many people think Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, but it turns out it isn't. And since my book has come out, many scientists have been attempting to falsify it. They point to a number of experiments in the literature which they say argue against it.

One in particular was done by a man named Russell Doolittle, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who worked on the blood clotting cascade for 40 years or so, and he advanced an argument against my idea of irreducible complexity with respect to the blood clotting system. And it turns out his argument was incorrect because he had simply misread the paper that he thought supported his ideas. But if he had read it correctly, he thought-- and I would agree with him-- that if things had developed the way he thought, it would have been a problem, because the point is that Intelligent Design, as I see it, makes this claim. It says, "There is no unintelligent process which could produce the complexity that we see in the cell." So if a Darwinian biologist or somebody else who was skeptical of that went into their lab and showed that there was, in fact, some such process-- which they already think there is-- but if they demonstrated that, then my claim would be falsified.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: I have nothing further of you, sir.


Q. So you're suggesting that empirical science-- and I have talked about it regularly as being observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable-- is something that is of great value in the science-- in the research that you do?

A. Sure. Yes. I'm a biochemist. I'm trying-- what I'm trying to do is explain the biochemistry that I see in the cell or what has been discovered in the cell. And the only data I'm using to come to my conclusions is the physical structure of the biochemical systems that we've discovered plus normal logic such as inductive reasoning, which is a common scientific way of thinking. Yes. So that's correct.

Q. How would you describe the difference-- or is there a difference-- let me start there first-- is there a difference between Neo-Darwinian evolution and biological evolution? Are they used interchangeably?

A. Well, it's-- no. There is a distinction. Evolution is often-- it has many definitions, as I'm sure you're aware. Oftentimes it means deceptive modification. Darwinian and now Neo-Darwinian evolution is a proposed answer to the $64,000 question of: If that can happen, how did it happen? What caused this incredible, you know, sophisticated machinery undergirding life? And Darwinian theory says it was by random mutation and natural selection. Other people like Stewart Kauffman say, "You're full of bologna. It's complexity theory."

I think both of them are wrong. I think intelligence was involved. But Darwinian theory offers this specific answer to the question of how. Just generic evolution, I think, is just common descent.

Q. What I was saying, I was saying biological evolution.

A. Yes, biological evolution.

Q. Is just common descent, is that what you're saying?

A. That's the way I understand it, yes.

Q. Okay, that's what I'm asking. Regarding your comment about microevolution versus macro- evolution, can microevolution be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes, and you said-- and it also further stated that that's a rather controversial topic. Is that something that is in the literature, that it is being fully explored?

A. Is what being fully explored, sir?

Q. The idea between microevolution and macro- evolution, microevolution leading to macro- evolution?

A. Well, there are certainly biologists who are interested specifically in that. They're a subset of people interested in evolution. But, yes, there are papers in the literature which make the distinction, and some which wonder, and there's a recent article by a biologist named Sean Carroll at the University of Wisconsin a year or so ago saying that it looks like it does, because we don't have any evidence of any other process besides micro- evolution that could lead to it. But they did not consider other processes such as complexity theory or Design, so it was kind of ruled out by default-- or ruled in by default.

DR. ABRAMS: Thank you, Dr. Behe. Mr. Calvert.

JOHN CALVERT, called as a witness on behalf of the Minority, testified as follows:


MR. CALVERT: (Pause.) Dr. Abrams, members of the Committee, my friend Mr. Irigonegaray, members of the public, I present my next witness, and guess who. Yours truly. I had planned to have-- to speak to you about the legal issues today, and I plan to do that in a brief form. We had expected to call Mr. Joel Oster to give his opinion, but due to that not being possible, I have stepped into his shoes. The remarks that I will give today are general in nature. We plan to file a rather extensive legal brief along with our proposed suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that will be handed to the Committee following the hearings.

Before I get to the legal issues, I would like to discuss a couple of-- a few exhibits that I believe would be helpful to the record. One exhibit was handed to the committee yesterday in connection with Mr. DeHart's testimony, and during the examination we didn't have an opportunity to get to that exhibit, and I will just discuss it briefly. The exhibit is a memorandum that documents an instance in which I helped a National Public Radio producer arrange a nationally broadcast debate between Mr. DeHart and Robert Dennison, a Texas biology teacher and one of the-- one of the individuals that filed peer reviews with respect to the Minority Report.

And the essence of Mr. Dennison's comments were that the Minority Report was unacceptable because it would serve only to weaken the theory of evolution. And I thought that it was appropriate for Mr. DeHart to comment on this particular incident because what happened, and what the memorandum reflects, is that I arranged for a nationally broadcast debate between Mr. DeHart and Mr. Dennison on specifically the issue that we're dealing with today. The NPR published-- published the menu for the program, showing that Mr. DeHart would indeed debate Mr. Dennison and that he would be interviewed by the producer prior to the debate. During that interview, Mr. DeHart and the NPR producer had an exchange about a number of the issues which we're discussing here, and the producer said, "Well, I'm sorry. I'm an atheist, and that perspective is not consistent with my view." And Mr. DeHart said, "Well, shouldn't your listeners be introduced to the two different perspectives?" And she said, "Well, I have to think about that."

The next day, in the morning, it was still publicized that Mr. DeHart would be on the program. Just a few hours prior to the broadcast, Mr. DeHart got a memo explaining that he would not be on the program because they had run out of time. Anyway, the memo documents a scenario indicating that there was more than sufficient time to have included Mr. DeHart's view in that, quote, debate. As it was, the Science Friday program presented only one side of the scientific controversy about evolution, and that's documented in that memorandum.

The second document that I would like to introduce into the record is an email dialog that I recently had with a scientist that is explicitly using Design theory to understand how the genome works. And I'm going to show, hopefully, the exchange here if I can find it. There it is. In this dialog, Albert de Roos, a European scientist who works on trying to understand the genome, published a paper in which he used software engineering design concepts to understand how the genome works. I read the paper, and it struck me that what he was using in his work was not methodological naturalism, but rather it was methodological Design.

And so I sent him this email, and I said, "Albert, it is my contention that bio scientists actually use Design-type thinking in trying to understand the genome. That is not a metaphysical construct, rather a methodological construct. Is that correct?" And Mr. De Roos replied, "Dear John, Most scientists indeed do use, quote, Design, as a practical approach or methodology. The teleological approach works very fine in deciphering systems like the brain, the eye. However, as soon as you touch on the subject of the evolution, it is forbidden to talk about Design. I have not come across real Design thinking in trying to understand genome evolution. On the contrary, with the advent of Neo-Darwinism, evolution has, in my opinion, become a magical thing that arose by chance without any goal-direction. This basic lack of understanding evolution has led to the current posture (sic) evolutionary science has gotten into: No logical explanations about evolution before the Cambrian explosion, comprising 90 percent of evolution, and speculative theories about the last part. My article is the first, from a methodological approach, to show how Design thinking can give new insight into evolution."

The reason for introducing that into evidence is that-- for a couple reasons. We've heard a lot of publicity about how the adoption of these standards which would suggest to students that just exactly the kind of thinking that is portrayed in that slide, students would come to understand and appreciate, and that is the kind of thinking that is used to really understand biosystems. And here two weeks before these proceedings, there is a huge hoopla about how the proposals in the Minority Report will drive bioscience out of the state. It seems, in my mind, rather absurd. The third document that I would like to introduce is a collection of polls. (Pause.) The collection of polls is in a memorandum that we put together in March, and it collects polls from around the country in a number of different states, national polls, polls in Ohio, New Mexico, and so forth. I wanted in particular to show you the results of a poll that I think is highly credible. It was conducted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer in Ohio in the big controversy in Ohio over science standards in June of 2002.

And I think that the poll had a number of different questions which were responded to, but the key question was the one I'm showing on the screen. It says, "Currently, the Ohio Board of Education is debating new academic standards for public school science classes, including what to teach students about the development of life on earth. What (sic) position do you support?"

The first option was teaching only evolution. Only eight percent opted for that particular paradigm, and I submit that the Majority Report essentially is a teaching only evolution position. It reflects methodological naturalism. The second response was teach only Intelligent Design, and that's eight percent. And in my mind, that particular option is as bad as simply teaching only evolution. That's not what we want. We're looking for an objective approach that looks at both sides. And that seemed to be consistent with the next response, which was 59 percent for teaching both. And then teaching the evidence both for and against evolution, but not necessarily Intelligent Design, is 15 percent. Now, when you combine the 15 percent with the 59 percent, you get roughly 76 percent.

There is another interesting option here, which is teach nothing about human development. That's nine percent. And I'll comment later on about that particular option in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, in which a state adopted a statute which effectively excised the teaching of evolution, and in that statute essentially would mandate something like the second choice, teach only Intelligent Design. And the Court, in striking down that statute-- and I think properly so-- it struck down that statute because it was a biased formula. The Court said that if the statute had eliminated all theories of origins and just taken the subject off the table completely, that would have been a religiously neutral posture, and it would have been permissible.

And so the nine percent position would be one way for the State of Kansas to receive-- to achieve religious neutrality. However, the kids need to know about evolution. They need to be taught about origins because that, in fact, is a focus of much of a segment of science, and so science education needs to teach that subject. And so the question is: Well, how do you teach it in a scientifically satisfactory way that is religiously neutral? And I submit that it is either teach both, or at least the fourth option, which is teach the evidence both for and against evolution, but not necessarily Intelligent Design. And that essentially reflects the Minority Report position.

All the other polls in this document essentially reflect, you know, these same percentages with a little bit more or less. Generally, the public very much wants an objective approach to teaching origin science.

The third document-- or the next document I would want to introduce is an analysis of public comment of the four public hearings that were held about the Minority Report and the Majority Report. I attended all those hearings, and I was interested in what an analysis would show, as a general proposition, the comments of those opposing the Minority Report and a general summary of the comments of those that were for the Minority Report. And I'd like to mention Ken Carlson and Mark Matthews, who labored at length-- oops. (Pause.) Okay. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Matthews spent an enormous amount of time analyzing the public testimony, and these were their conclusions. And I believe that we do have a hard copy of their analysis, but we've had difficulty getting it printed out, but we will add it to the record at a later time and, of course, these slides will be produced. Those opposing the Minority Report opposed it generally on the reason that they did not want Intelligent Design, creation science, or religion in the science classroom. That represented 61 percent of the negative comments. Others were opposed to the Minority Report because they wanted evolution only. They said evolution is accepted science, evolution is a fact, and that was-- reflects eight percent. That's an interesting number. It reminds me of the results in the Ohio poll.

And others argued that Intelligent Design has not proved itself, i.e., is bad science, six percent. I would probably lump that up in the 67 percent. And then there were those favoring the Minority Report, critical analysis of-- well, let me comment further on this particular slide.

I think that this is really significant evidence favoring the Minority Report, and the reason is that none of these arguments are consistent with that report. As we have repeated over and over again, it's clear the Minority Report does not contemplate or urge the State to put Intelligent Design, creation science, or religion into the science classroom. It simply-- or into the Science Standards. It actually seeks to take the religious problem out of the Standards that adheres in the Standards now, as has been testified to by numerous witnesses today.

And so I think that those who-- and the other thing that it indicates, which is really sort of interesting, is that none of those witnesses, we must assume, read the Minority Report. Now, our witnesses have been criticized all day long for not reading the Majority Report, but it is very obvious that these witnesses had not read it, because all of their arguments against it were not consistent with its content.

Those favoring the Minority Report, 57 percent, again, is really consistent with the Ohio poll, teach both sides. And others, ten percent, evolution is not proven and is not a fact. Evolution is religion, naturalism philosophy, eight percent. I don't believe evolution is a religion, and I don't believe, as a theoretical concept, it is a philosophy or an ideology. The problem, as testified by Dr. Menuge and Dr. Nord, is that when you combine a theory with a philosophy that does not allow the theory to be criticized, it elevates the theory to a dogma or an ideology that happens to support non theistic religion.

Teach Intelligent Design and or creation science, only seven percent of those wanted Intelligent Design or creation science taught, which is, again, consistent with the Minority Report. We're not asking for it to be taught, only permitted, not outlawed. If you outlaw it, then you're promoting an ideology.

The conclusions of the-- of this analysis is that a vast majority opposing the Minority Report believe that Intelligent Design, creation science, religion are promoted by the Minority Report, and the testimony has shown that's not the case. The vast majority of those favoring the Minority Report want critical analysis of evolution, teach both sides, examine all evidence, very rational and legitimate concerns.

My last exhibit that I want to introduce-- which I believe we do have documented, and the document has been passed out-- is an analysis of biology textbooks regarding the definition of science. And the purpose of my analysis, when I got interested in this-- in this issue-- in fact, it was what prompted-- what prompts me to be here today, it's not necessarily a lack of evidence for evolution, it was my-- it was my becoming aware that science had stacked the deck about origins with the use of methodological naturalism.

And you've heard a number of witnesses testify about that stacking of the deck. Evolution is essentially propped up by a methodological or philosophical construct, and I recognized this in the mid 1980's. And what got me into this debate was when in 1999 somebody asked me to look at the Standards, and I saw that the State of Kansas was being asked to embrace that crutch that held Darwin up. And it's a philosophic bias that bothers me more than anything else, because it takes information off the table.

And most of my career as a lawyer has been focused on the securities industry and making sure that stocks were sold honestly. And whenever you hand anything to the SEC for their acceptance of your offering statement, they ask you not necessarily what you have put in it, but they ask you: What have you omitted? What have you left out of the document? What really creates a problem in information is when you selectively hold out information. And it was my impression that it was this rule, methodological naturalism, that essentially selectively holds out information that got me interested in this.

And I recognized it-- that it creates two issues. First, a scientific issue. How can we scientifically know, you know, whether the evolutionary account is valid if relevant evidence, evidence relevant to that theory, is not allowed to be considered? And then that also creates a constitutional issue, because origins, as we have heard testified over and over again, and undeniably, impacts religion. And so when you enter a religious sphere, it is the obligation of the State to be neutral.

And I'm sorry that I don't think I agree with Mr. Irigonegaray's definition of neutrality. Neutrality does not mean that the State is to favor non theistic religions over theistic religions. And I believe that his idea and concept of neutrality is not really neutral at all. And we'll get to that later on.

But I was interested in this issue, because I was wondering what the textbooks did. Were the textbooks disclosing this philosophical bias? Were they using-- were they explaining the bias so that at least the students would know the purpose and effect of it? And the analysis we conducted shows that the definition usually covered in the introductory chapter of the biology textbooks we reviewed simply discussed the scientific method and did not discuss any methodological or naturalistic exception to that method.

Some texts included statements that restrict science to natural phenomena, but that's okay. That's what the study of science is. However, when they couple that with "many people believe that a supernatural force or creative deity created life," that's true, but that does not justify the exclusion of scientifically valid evidence that can be detected scientifically that happens to support the belief in a deity, and that's exactly what methodological naturalism does. If the textbook was honest and candid, it would explain exactly that, that this book excludes evidence that is indeed relevant to the origins controversy, and we're not showing it to you.

A few texts have a direct statement that science seeks natural causes for natural phenomena, but I would doubt that an eighth grader or even a senior in high school would understand the significance of that. Again, the issue is: Are we fully disclosing the assumptions that we're using and talking about the evidentiary basis for them? Others are less direct or infer it by saying that scientists consider the whole universe a system in which basic rules apply to all events, small and large. Scientists assume that those rules can be discovered through scientific inquiry. Again, although in some areas of science that's true, but the effect of that assumption is not discussed.

The other thing we were interested in was how the textbooks covered the origin of life, and indeed, all the textbooks we examined did cover the origin of life, but it's only restricted to a naturalistic explanation, little if any critique of origin of life hypotheses are included in the text. The emphasis is on stories or plausible evidence about the unobserved past, little or no inference of the unobserved past based on observations in the present.

This is a-- my understanding of the picture in the textbooks is that evolution is really, in many respects, propped up by this philosophy of naturalism. That's what holds it up. Naturalism rules out Design-- the evidence of Design, which actually is the counter argument to evolution's core claim of no Design. So when that counter argument is ruled out in historical science, the only competitor is disallowed. That essentially winds up being a violation of the scientific method. It is this infrastructure which is not disclosed, which is actually used, as we've heard testified today.

Now, what happens is that none of this is really effectively described in the textbook, and so the textbook it's almost like a tablecloth has been put over this pedestal, and the only thing the students see is: We use the scientific method, we develop all our explanations using empirical science. And so the students are led to believe that this is really supported by empiricism rather than naturalism.

What we propose is that instead of using naturalism or religion, we use the scientific method. The Minority Report does not require that this evidence be shown, but at least it requires students to understand criticisms of that. (Pause.)

Now, if I could talk briefly about the legal issues. How much time do I have left?

MS. POSNY: About 20 minutes.

MR. CALVERT: Okay. I think that in our-- what we-- what Dr. Harris said we proposed to do in these hearings was to show that there is a genuine scientific controversy about origins. And I don't see how anybody can deny that, given the testimony that you've heard during the past three days. There is a clear and undeniable scientific controversy about the origin of life.

We heard one witness say: I just don't see that it's possible that-- a physical chemist-- that it's even possible that you could ever get life started in a random, self-assembling process. Of course, there may be explanations. It's in historical science, and it may be, you know, five years from now we will actually discover that, and then that evidence goes in the scales, and the scales are constantly moving up and down. But we have shown that there is a scientific controversy about origins.

Secondly, we have shown that the controversy unavoidably impacts religion. The side of the controversy that supports the idea that man is the product of an unguided evolutionary process, that side which is the evolutionary biology, supports but does not require one kind of religious belief and conflicts with theistic religious beliefs. So we saw an example of that, in spades, in the Humanist Manifesto. The secular humanism was decided in the Schempp case in, I believe, 1987. It was a fascinating case. It involved books in a school that were charged to be promoting secular humanism. By the way, none of the books involved science books or biology textbooks.

And so the Court had to make a decision: Is secular humanism a religion? Because if it wasn't, then, there wouldn't be an issue regarding the books. And the Court took an enormous amount of testimony and concluded ultimately that secular humanism is a religion. It found that it was a religion because the tenets of secular humanism is that there is no reason to believe in the existence of a Creator. Well, why is there no reason to believe in the existence of a Creator? It's because an evolution unguided process is perfectly capable of producing life as we see it, and so there's no reason for us to even imagine one. Given the lack of any reason to believe in a Creator, we can ignore traditional religion, and we use human reason to decide our ethics and morals.

And the very last portion of the description of secular humanism that the Court decided on explained that the entire basis of secular humanism is grounded on the principles of modern naturalism and physical science. So you see that naturalism is an important ingredient in the philosophy, in the religion of secular humanism. Of course, there are others, atheism, agnosticism, and scientism.

So one side of this origin controversy supports those types of non theistic beliefs. The evidence of Design, which is essentially the opposite of evolution's core claim of no design, that idea and the evidence that supports it does not require-- so long as it's kept theoretical-- does not require but certainly supports theistic beliefs. And so you have-- and what we've shown is that there's a controversy over those issues.

Now, what the Minority Report seeks to do with respect to that religious controversy is to-- is to use what science calls for at its core, and which is particularly necessary in origin science and historical science, is a good measure of scientific objectivity. And when you are objective, you allow students to show evidence that supports and that does not support a particular theory.

It is important that we're talking about objectivity at the institutional level. Every scientist is going to have his own bias. It's just like when we go to a courtroom, we're looking for an unbiased adjudicator of the particular result. And so when we go into a science classroom, it's essentially the job of the public school and the job of the teacher to put behind themselves, to put aside, their own personal philosophical, religious biases and simply do good science. Let the evidence-- the scientific evidence dictate what is shown to the students on both sides of that issue. And that's precisely what the Minority Report does. That achieves not only the best science, but the best science education.

What is so fascinating about that approach is that when you do an objective approach, what you do is you take the bias out. You take a bias out. Whenever you have a bias in a religious discussion, you're not going to have neutrality, and that's essentially what the Constitution calls for is a-- when the State decides to embark upon-- enter an arena which touches the religious sphere, when the State chooses to do that, you trigger Establishment Clause responsibilities.

If we were talking about gravity and there was a controversy over it, or if we were talking about string theory and there was a controversy over it, that wouldn't implicate an Establishment Clause. But when we're talking about origins, where do we come from, then you have gotten into a religious discussion. And so the question is: How are you going to discuss that, and how are you going to conduct that discussion consistent with your Establishment Clause obligations?

I believe there are two cases which are particularly important and essentially control the outcome, and-- but they're very, very misunderstood. The first case I've mentioned is Epperson v. Arkansas, and that was a Supreme Court case that was decided in the late '60's, and it related to the State of Arkansas that adopted a statute that would essentially suppress one theory of origins. So, you know, what is the origin of life? You have evolution over here, and then you have theory that criticism-- criticizes that. You have scientific criticisms, and then you have the idea of Design.

Well, what happened in Epperson was the State of Arkansas said that when you enter into a classroom and you're going to talk about origins, when you go in there, you have to take the evidence in this hand-- this is the evolution hand-- and put it behind your back. And the Court said, "No, you can't do that. You're in a religious sphere. You're favoring one kind of view over another." The Court said, essentially, if you were going to discuss origins, the only neutral way you could do it is to show both or put both hands behind your back. And practically, it doesn't work to put both hands behind your back. So I think Epperson is essentially our case. In our case, instead of the State doing this, the State is doing that (indicating) when it embraces methodological naturalism, and that is Epperson v. Arkansas in spades.

Now, a subsequent case of Edwards v. Aguillard was a bit different situation, but it wasn't-- but the mechanism in the Louisiana statute was to say, "You can teach this evolution, but only if you bring into the classroom creation science, which is science designed to validate the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis." And the Court said this idea essentially ties into a religious text. This is religious. If you have to do-- if you do this, you have to do this (indicating), then you're actually infringing upon academic freedom of teachers to teach this, and that, in effect, has a suppressing effect and is being done for religious purposes, and so that's not appropriate.

The most interesting quote in the Edwards case is a description of what the Court said should have happened. And I don't have my reference here, but essentially what the Court said, that if the Louisiana legislature had really wanted to do effective science education, to maximize the effectiveness of science education, it would have simply permitted teachers to teach all theories relating to the origins of humankind. It essentially was, you know, teach both sides.

That was the-- you know-- so in my mind, Edwards is a similar instance of the State taking some action that would actually suppress the mix of information that would be given to students about this concept, a mix of scientific data and information. And so I think both Epperson and Edwards are consistent with the idea that to teach origin science constitutionally, you must try to teach it-- you must do it comprehensively, limited to scientific explanations, scientific data.

And I think you heard all the witnesses testify today that that is precisely what the Minority Report does. It limits the discussion to scientific discussion, but within that limit, it opens up the discussion immensely. And when you open up that discussion, and you allow the evidence to come in, you remove fear from the classroom. You remove the tension from the classroom. Students can raise their hands and ask questions, because they're being shown both sides, they're being encouraged to critically analyze this issue.

You won't have Jill Gonzales coming in here in a mass of worry about the impact of her testimony on her career. You won't have-- I get calls from teachers all the time. I had a teacher call, she said, "I showed 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' in my scientific issues class, and the next day the department head of Biology in our high school went to the library and said, 'Remove that video from the library.' He'd never even seen it." And I submit that anybody who's seen that video would acknowledge that it's purely scientific, purely legitimate, there's absolutely no reason for that to happen.

But what happens is that the other science teachers in that classroom see what happened to Ms. Gonzales, and you wind up freezing the discussion in its entirety. And that winds up-- and essentially, it winds up with teachers not really teaching evolution effectively, because they're afraid to teach it. If they teach it per the textbook, the students and the parents are going to get upset. If they teach criticism, their peers are going to lean on them, and they will be guilty of, quote, doing something that weakens evolutionary theory, you know, a breach of the rules. That just can't happen.

Rodney LaVey, science teacher in Minnesota, he has a master's in biology, and he was reassigned from a biology class because all he wanted to do was teach evolution honestly. And there is a real problem when teachers can't be honest in a biology classroom. So the-- I think the Establishment Clause is-- I want to show-- okay, how much time do I have left?

MS. POSNY: About five minutes.

MR. CALVERT: Okay. I want to show the NAGB policy. Okay. When No Child Left Behind was enacted, there were added-- oops-- when No Child Left Behind was enacted, in addition to the report of the conferees which contains the language that Dr. Abrams has been reading and that's contained in the Minority Report, the provisions of No Child Left Behind contain a clause in many of its provisions that require that services and materials delivered by educational agencies be secular, neutral, and non ideological. And you see this language here. The provision-- one of the provisions provides that if a child is left behind under those-- the matrix of the guidelines by a school, the parents of the child can then select an outside provider from the public school system to provide supplemental services. Now, for the provider to require-- to meet the requirements necessary for delivery of these outside it services, the provider must certify that it's services it will deliver are secular, neutral, and non ideological, and the second requirement is that they be consistent with State Standards, State Educational Standards.

Now, the implicit effect of that two-pronged requirement is to require that the State Standards themselves be secular, neutral, and non ideological, and that only makes sense, because the phrase "secular, neutral, and non ideological" essentially reflects much of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on the issue of public education.

MS. POSNY: Two minutes.

MR. CALVERT: Well, the provision was also imposed upon the National Assessment Governing Board, which prepares the nation's report card test. So the NAGB had to define that phrase "secular, neutral, and non ideological."

The definition of "secular" is interesting because it says questions will not contain language that advocates or opposes any particular religious views or beliefs. Not advocate or oppose any particular religious views or beliefs. Well, religious views or beliefs consist of theistic and non theistic. So what does methodological naturalism do? Which belief system does it favor?

Well, we've heard a lot of testimony today it favors non theistic beliefs. Is it appropriate, is it secular for the State to adopt and embrace methodological naturalism and suppress evidence that is relevant? Whether it's religious or not, it is clearly relevant, it is scientifically gathered, it's not drawn from a religious text, it's clearly relevant. What is the-- how can that be secular?

In fact, the state of reason for methodological naturalism is to keep the supernatural out. That is a reason that is related directly to God. So in order to keep God out of the question, we're going to suppress evidence that might lead one to that idea. I submit that is not a secular purpose, that is a purpose relating to religion, and so it runs afoul of that particular requirement. Next, look at the definition of "neutral" and "non ideological."

MS. POSNY: One minute.

MR. CALVERT: Items will not advocate for a particular political party or a single perspective on a controversial issue. And that's what methodological naturalism does. It insures that only one side of the scientific controversy we presume it to be will be shown to the students. Thank you for listening to my testimony, and we will provide a detailed legal brief in our final submission.

DR. ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray, five minutes.


Q. Not having your legal brief makes it difficult for me to question you about your legal assertions. However, you have raised a couple of issues that I think are important to discuss. You mentioned the Epperson case, and thinking that you might attempt to rely on such authority, I did bring a copy of that case that I will include in the record. Epperson, et al. versus Arkansas No. 7 is a Supreme Court of the United States case cited at 393 U.S. 97, 89 Supreme Court 266. It was argued on October 16th, 1968, and decided November the 12th, 1968.

That case stands for the proposition that a statute that makes it unlawful for a teacher in any State supported school or university to teach or use a textbook that teaches that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals is unconstitutional. Which is to say, is it not, Mr. Calvert, that that case, in fact, stood for the proposition that the statute which was a product-- and I'm quoting now on page 2 of the opinion-- "The statute was a product of the upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor of the '20's. The Arkansas statute was an adaptation of the famous Tennessee Monkey Law which that state adopted in 1925."

Now, you would agree with me, would you not, sir, that as far as the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, it is important that in public schools, teaching should be secular in the science curriculum? Correct?

A. I agree with that.

Q. And the only argument that you have with which to impeach mainstream scientists in this country, and the teaching of evolution as it occurs every day in Kansas and across this country, is your view that that science, evolution, is biased by methodological materialism. Correct?

A. Methodological naturalism.

Q. Methodological naturalism.

A. Well, or scientific materialism.

Q. And--

A. I think that-- I think that that comes close to articulating what I said. I think evolution by itself without the bias and the prop is a perfectly legitimate scientific theory. It's when you combine it with methodological naturalism and origin science that it has the effect of promoting a naturalistic belief system.

Q. And in order for your argument to hold water, we would have to assume that the majority of scientists in this country, including every major scientific organization, is biased in the manner that you suggest.

A. No, I think that that doesn't follow. I think that there are a huge number of scientists that themselves don't even recognize the existence of the bias. And I think that there are a number of even those that do, or that maybe don't, that are in dissent of, you know, the science elite, as I might say. I mean, I run into scientists all the time, and they say, "Yeah, I know that's what they say, but I can't subscribe to that." But they suffer significant professional retribution if they happen to be in the academic community. It's a tenet that they have to abide by, or they wind up like Nancy Bryson. We just saw an example of it.

Q. Would you agree, sir, that with respect to the teaching of theories of origin in public schools, both the Supreme Court and the lower Courts have struck down anti-evolution statute policies, and disclaimers, as well as balanced treatment legislation?

A. Yes. And I think that I probably agree with a good number of those cases, and I think a good number of those cases were properly decided.

Q. Would you agree with the principles set out in Edwards versus Aguillard, striking down a statute that forbids the teaching of evolution in public schools unless creation science was also taught?

A. Yes, I agree with that.

Q. Would you agree with Epperson versus Arkansas, striking down the statute that made it unlawful for teachers to instruct on Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools?

A. Very definitely.

Q. Would you agree Freiler versus Tangipahoa-- and for the court reporter, that is T-A-N-G-I-P-A- H-O-A-- where efforts of the Board of Education invalidate a disclaimer required to be read to students prior to teaching evolution because the disclaimer had the primary effect of endorsing a particular religious view?

A. I take exception to the Freiler case.

Q. You take exception to the Supreme Court in that case?

A. I don't think the Supreme Court decided that case. I believe it was decided by the 11th Circuit--

Q. The 5th Circuit.

A. -- and the Supreme Court simply didn't take cert.

Q. And by the Supreme Court not taking cert, that means that, in essence, they stood by the ruling of the 5th Circuit. Correct?

A. That means that they couldn't get the votes necessary to accept it. That does not mean what-- that does not endorse a lower court ruling.

Q. Well, it certainly doesn't set it aside, does it?

A. No, it doesn't. I would agree with that.

Q. Daniels v. Waters, 515 Fd.2d, a 6th Circuit Court, declaring unconstitutional a statute that required disclaimer to accompany all theories of origin except the biblical theory of creation and that precluded the teaching of occult or satanical beliefs of human origins, you have no problem with that case, do you?

A. Mr. Irigonegaray, I will have to say I have not read that. I can't recall reading that particular case, and--

Q. How about--

A. -- I may have. I have a hundred cases or more in my computer here, but I don't--

Q. It is unfair to try to have you--

A. -- but I would--

Q. Let me just finish.

A. I mean that--

Q. Let me just finish, sir.

A. Yeah, but I--

Q. Let me-- just a second. It is unfair, Mr. Calvert, to have anyone standing there questioned about a long line of cases and to be asked specifics, so I'm going to reframe the question in this manner.

A. Sure.

Q. Would you agree that the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution requires neutrality in the teaching in our schools--

A. Yes.

Q. -- as far as Satan?

A. Yes.

Q. And your argument then would be that since neutrality is already breached by methodological naturalism, that it is only fair that Intelligent Design be permitted as an alternative theory.

A. No. I don't think so. I think that-- I think that what methodological naturalism does is that it prohibits-- it prohibits a particular point of view based on-- even if-- even if there is scientific evidence that supports that view, methodological naturalism essentially rules it out of order. And I think that that is not-- and when you're in-- that impacts religion, origin science. I think that any time you get into a discussion of religion and you decide we're going to skew the evidence one way or the other, I think you violate the idea of neutrality.

Q. And it is your opinion, therefore, that evolution as it is being taught across this country today is skewed in a biased manner towards methodological naturalism?

A. I think so. I think that-- and that's been my experience. I have been in a lot of different states, and I've seen a lot of-- you know, the last five years, it's just been-- you know, and so I can cite a number of different examples of the implementation of it in addition to what we've heard today in testimony.

Q. And you would further agree with me, would you not, that that term is found nowhere in the Kansas Standards?

A. Yeah. I don't find that specific expression in the Kansas Standards.

Q. And you would agree further with me, would you not, sir, that in order to bring this issue to bear, one would have to, in essence, read between the lines to assume that that is the purpose of the Standards? Correct?

A. Well, see, that's the problem. If you're going to-- and it is-- see, it's admitted that it's skewed. And John Staver's admitted it, Steve Case has admitted it. The reviewers of the peer review all admit that methodological naturalism adheres in the Kansas Science Standards. And it is surprising to me that the admission says it's there, but you can't find the term. That really is, to me, very damning.

Q. Isn't what they're talking about, sir, that scientists are simply interested in finding natural answers to the world around us?

A. I think that's true. But when you get into an area of origin science, you have a different kind of science. It is much different than other kinds of science. It's historical. That requires competing multi-hypotheses. Naturalism essentially limits to-- when we use methodological naturalism, why do we even discuss or investigate origins? Because we know the answer before we even started the investigation. What process, where do we come from? A natural cause. I mean, why-- why even discuss origins? You know in advance what the answer is.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Calvert, do you disagree with the-- well, I think we're just simply going back and forth, and we're simply not going to agree, sir. And I respectfully disagree with you, and we'll leave it at that.

MR. CALVERT: Mr. Irigonegaray, I really want to thank you for your demeanor in these proceedings. I think that you have done a good job defending your client, and I just want to thank you for participating. I think it's given the public a much more interesting discussion.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Thank you, Mr. Calvert, and I look forward to the opportunity of presenting our side this coming Thursday.

MR. CALVERT: Yes, sir.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Thank you, sir. By the way, I do have a little bit of time left, don't I?

MS. POSNY: Oh, yes.

Q. (By Mr. Irigonegaray) There's a line of questions I forgot to ask you about. How much money are you--

A. I knew that was coming.

Q. How much money are you expecting from the State of Kansas taxpayers for these hearings?

A. Well, my understanding is that we're-- our witnesses-- I'm not expecting any, but our witnesses, other than myself, other than Dr. Harris, I don't think we have any significant expenses-- but other witnesses are subject to a $5,000 expense budget.

Q. And that 5,000 expense budget is being paid by Kansas taxpayers?

A. Yeah, I believe so. I assume it is.

Q. And the $5,000 is coming from the Board of Education's budget?

A. I assume that's the case, but I don't know.

Q. And those are dollars that would normally go to further the education of Kansas children. Correct?

A. I believe that's the function of this hearing, yes.

Q. And included in the $5,000 expenses, for example, is the expenses for the travel of the gentleman from Turkey?

A. Not from Turkey. His travel-- he was in the United States on other business, and so his travel expenses are simply from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City.

Q. And the expenses of others that have come here and testified.

A. Yes.

Q. Does it include lodging for those individuals?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it include their food?

A. No.

Q. So you're not paying for food?

A. No.

Q. Not you, but the taxpayers are not paying for their food, but they're paying for their hotel.

A. They're paying for their hotel.

Q. And do you think, sir, that the Kansas taxpayers-- well, I know what your answer's going to be.

A. Right.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't mind paying for them. It's an important issue. I'm speaking for the people.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Sir, that gentleman is out of order, and he should be removed from the hearings.

DR. ABRAMS: That's out of order. We're not taking comments from the audience.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, but you just--

DR. ABRAMS: No, no, no. Please.

MR. SISSON: Mr. Chairman, may I make one statement on behalf of my law firm? Would that be okay, Mr. Irigonegaray? Mr. IRIGONEGARAY: I have no problem with you making a statement--

MR. SISSON: We're not--

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: -- when I'm done. Excuse me, sir. When I'm done.

MR. SISSON: I thought you were.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: No, not yet.

Q. (By Mr. Irigonegaray) And the expenses that are being paid, how are those going to be paid? Are they going to come directly to the witness from the State of Kansas, or are they going to be funneled through you?

A. The witnesses have been asked to submit expense vouchers.

Q. To whom?

A. They will be submitted-- I will be sort of a conduit. I'll gather those expense vouchers, and then I will submit them to the State of Kansas, making sure that there are no expenses on there that we should not be asking the State of Kansas to pay for.

Q. And you will make that determination?

A. Well, the State can second guess me.

Q. And it is true, is it not, that just before I got started on this process, the budget that you sought was $20,000 for yourself? Correct?

A. No. That's not the case.

Q. How did the figure of 20,000 come about when I became involved in this?

A. I think that the figure of 20,000-- and you would have to talk to the Department of Education, but-- and this is secondhand knowledge-- but my understanding was that the Department and the State Board were budgeting 20,000 for the entire process, not just for the witnesses on this side. And so that would include-- it was contemplated that you would have a like number of witnesses, and so there would be expenses for them, and that there would be expenses for the court reporter and so forth. My guess is that the expenses will be under the 20,000, but maybe not.

Q. Well, sir, I'm not accepting a penny for any of the work we've done. I think that would be, in essence, stealing from the children of the State. Further-- further, I think it is important to also place on the record that it was after my objections that the $20,000 budget was reduced to 5,000. Is that correct?

A. I just know that we were submitting a list of witnesses that looked like it could very well-- it was essentially a list of witnesses without any cap on the amount of expenses, and the State Department of Education said, "We don't think it's appropriate to have an uncapped--" or at least that was the impression I had, and that the expenses-- "You need to figure out a way to limit your expenses to $5,000." And to me, that was a reasonable request, and so that's what we've tried to do.

We have-- we have found a lot of volunteers, for example, that are handling all of the ground transportation. By the way, I just can't thank those ground volunteers enough. They have done an absolutely Trojan job in getting witnesses back and forth between KCI and Topeka.

Q. And who, sir, made the arrangements for the lodging and travel for these witnesses that testified on your side of the case?

A. The lodging was arranged by-- there was a-- the Department of Education contacted the Ramada Inn, I believe, and got a per-room rate of, like, $50 a night or something like that. And the witnesses made their own arrangements for travel in terms of airfare and things like that, and so they are paying for those expenses up front. And they will also-- they're paying for their hotel bills as they check out. So at this point in time, the State hasn't spent a penny on any travel expense.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Thank you. Nothing further.

MR. SISSON: Just to state for the record, neither I nor my law firm are getting one penny from this $5,000 fund or any other Kansas funds. This is entirely a pro bono effort of Arnold and Porter. Had Mr. Irigonegaray presented witnesses next week, I would have been available to question next week, and that would also have been at no cost to the people of Kansas.

DR. ABRAMS: Thank you, Mr. Calvert. None of us have any questions for you.

MR. CALVERT: Okay. Thank you very much. I would like to say just a word of thanks to the court reporter, to Mr. Irigonegaray, to the Committee, and to the Department of Education. They have done an absolutely yeoman's job, just absolutely terrific job in the logistics of this hearing, and they are to be commended for it. Thank you so much.

DR. ABRAMS: We will meet again next Thursday at 8:30 in this room. Thank you for your interest in Kansas education.

(THEREUPON, the hearing was in recess.)


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