Kansas Evolution Hearings

Part 2

Previous

Contents

Next

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: If I could have your attention, please. We're getting ready to get started with the afternoon session. Another announcement, I might mention that if you leave if you leave by any door you must be rescanned every time you re-enter. Sorry that has to happen, but that's the order of the Capital Police. Therefore, I would ask you to try to be efficient this afternoon regarding the bathrooms. If any possibility of staggering, that would be good. But also-- also we're going to extend our intermission ten minutes. We were scheduled from 3:30 to 3:40, we're going to extend that to 20 minutes, 3:30 to 3:50 in an effort to accommodate that. Therefore, we'll also extend the other two sessions after that by ten minutes as needed. And I thank you for your perseverance. Mr. Calvert.

MR. CALVERT: Thank you.

JONATHAN WELLS, Ph.D., called as a witness on behalf of the Minority testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALVERT:

Q. Doctor Abrams, members of the committee, I'd like to introduce to you Doctor Jonathan Wells. Doctor Wells, has come from the State of Washington. Where do you live there.

A. I live near Bucoda Sound, northwest corner of Washington State.

Q. I really appreciate your coming all this way to talk about the issue. To get started, Doctor Wells, would you please explain a bit about your background and your occupation at the time of the Minority Report. And in particular I believe you're going to be addressing the evolution benchmark at standard three, benchmark three, at grades eight through twelve?

A. Yes, thank you for inviting me. I earned a bachelor's degree in physical science, which included mostly physics and geology in the late '60s from the University of California at Berkeley. Went on to get a Ph.D. in religious studies at Yale in the '70s and early '80s. And did my research there on the 19th century Darwinian controversies, the religious and theological.

A few years after that because of my interest in the Darwinian controversy, I went back to school, proof that I'm actually certifiably insane if you want to know the truth. Maybe I shouldn't make jokes here. That's what people told me at the time. I went back and got a second Ph.D. in biology, molecular and cell biology, again at the University of California at Berkeley where I focused on embryology and evolution.

Since then I have worked as a supervisor of a medical laboratory in California for a while. Then was asked to come up to Seattle as a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute there.

Q. Could you tell us a bit about the Discovery Institute and your relationship to it now?

A. The Discovery Institute is a public policy institute, not for profit institute. It actually preexisted the current controversy. It has projects that focus on regional cooperation between Oregon and Washington and British Columbia, specifically transportation issues, fishery issues, technology issues.

And in 1996 the center for science and culture was founded at Discovery Institute specifically to address the Darwinian controversy in public education. And I was invited to come up then as a senior fellow. Which is where I am now, I moved up in '98 with my family. I'm not an employee of the Discovery Institute. I receive a research grant for which no goods or services are required. But obviously my interest in the institute-- (reporter interruption). I have a fellowship-- a research fellowship in Discovery Institute, which does not require goods or services, so I'm not an employee. But the research I do is obviously of interest to the institute.

Q. Could you describe a bit of that research?

A. Specifically in-- probably notoriously in 2000 I published a book "Icons of Evolution", in which I showed many of the major images used in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution and the facts do not fit the evidence.

I first discovered-- the one I first discovered was the picture of embryos, which I'll talk about in a few minutes, because I was studying embryology. And I would compare pictures with the embryos I was actually looking at and realized there's a discordance there. And I went on from there to study various other icons and found similar discrepancies between the icon and the evidence.

Q. In your program I guess you will tell us what an icon is?

A. Well, I call them icons because they're pictures, first of all. They're pictures that have taken on an aura that goes far beyond their evidentiary value. They become symbols almost of evolutionary theory. And in that sense of almost iconic status. That's why I call them icons.

Q. Now, your book was published 2000?

A. Yes. Revised slightly in 2002.

Q. And I believe it has been reviewed by a number of different people, scientists. Is that correct?

A. Yes, it has. The number of published reviews is probably somewhere around a dozen, of which roughly half are favorable and half are extremely unfavorable.

Q. What about the unfavorable reviews?

A. Well, I responded to them in an article I posted on the Discovery web site a few years ago called "Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution," because they were raving reviews in the sense that they were extremely angry with me. And I hope I showed them in that response that on a scientific level nobody has actually rebutted the claims I made. Instead typically what happens is my credentials are impugned, my integrity is attacked, and various other things. It's a campaign more of character assassination than dealing with the evidence.

Q. I have also heard the argument that even though icons themselves may be incorrect in various cases they still represent deep fundamental truths. Is that the criticism that's been made?

A. Yes, it has. But I try to be very careful in my book to say exactly why the icons are wrong. For example, the peppered moth icon, which to be specific has the peppered moth resting on a tree trunk where we now know they don't normally rest, is used as evidence for natural selection. Well, I have no quarrel with natural selection, so I'm not saying that the falsity of that icon refutes natural selection.

But for each icon that I deal with what I do say, and I think legitimately, is that if this is sought or presented as some of the best evidence we have for Darwinian evolution and so much of it is false, where does that leave the theory. Because sooner or later if a theory is going to be scientific if you have to test it against the evidence. And if piece after piece of that evidence turns out to be exaggerated or distorted or even fake, then I think the theory itself at some point becomes suspect.

Q. Your criticisms in "Icons of Evolution", and I've read the book, tend to weaken evolutionary theory, would you agree with that?

A. The evidence is what weakens evolutionary theory.

Q. Is that--

A. I have no desire to weaken any theory except by comparing the evidence. What I don't want to weaken is science, because science thrives on comparing the theory of evidence.

Q. Do you believe science education should oppose curriculum that has the effect-- whether intended or not, has the effect of weakening evolution or putting it in a bad light?

A. Well, I'm certainly no supporter of weakening the treatment of evolution in science curriculum. In fact, I think if anything a student should learn more about evolution than they're currently being taught. They need to be taught the theory more clearly, they need to be taught the evidence for it, and the evidence against it. And in most cases often I see a rather superficial treatment of evolution that doesn't really get into the issues. And I find the issues extremely interesting. And my experience-- my limited experiences with students is that they find it interesting too.

Q. You've read the Minority Report?

A. I have.

Q. And what is your overall assessment of the proposals in that report?

A. My overall assessment is that it improves the set of standards that were on the table before the Minority Report because it raises issues that I think are important to raise in the science classroom.

Q. Regarding the definition science, one of the proposed changes in the Minority Report is to substitute the definition of science that was very similar to a definition adopted in Ohio. And I believe you're familiar with that definition. I wanted you to comment on that and I will put that up on the screen here. There it is. The Minority Report-- oops. It may be a bit hard for you to read that. Okay. The definition of science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypotheses, testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument, and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomenon. Maybe you could comment on that definition?

A. Well, I will and I'll comment also on the statement that it's replacing up there, namely science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

I realize that there's room for a lot of controversy on a topic like this, so my first tendency in a situation like this is to go look for data. So I went looking at the science standards for every state in the United States. I literally spent two days glued to my computer, not very healthy, but I found the science standards or what I could find for all 50 states. And I was actually somewhat surprised to learn when I did that that in defining science as the human activity of seeking natural explanations, namely to mention the majority view, is absolutely unique in the United States. There is no other state in the union that defines science that way.

In fact, what I found, if I could hold this up for the Board, the yellow states have no explicit definition of science that I could find on the internet. The green states all define science in terms of a process, a process of inquiry, formulating hypothesis, seeking evidence, testing the hypothesis against the evidence to find better explanations for potential world phenomenon. In this sentence the Kansas definition that proceeded this controversy was idiosyncratic. No other state has that definition. No other state gives priority to the explanation we're supposed to find. Every one else gives priority to the process.

In this sense the minority view, in my opinion, is actually putting Kansas back in the mainstream of American science education. And as a scientist myself-- and I have the data here which I'll hand that to you later, as a scientist myself I hear this. I would not like to see science become an enterprise where we're told at the outset what sorts of explanations we're supposed to find. For me science is an exciting, open ended search for truth. And the way that's conducted is through hypothesis testing. And I think the minority view replacement definition here is much more in line with that than the definition of science as seeking natural explanations.

Q. Doctor Wells, I'd like to turn now to the evolution benchmark. There we go.

A. I want to get a quick drink.

Q. Okay. This is the benchmark that you're going to talk about and that you have a power point presentation to cover?

A. Yes, if that's okay. The reason I'm using power point is because so much of this is visual, which is why I wrote about icons.

So this is the part of the benchmark that I will specifically focus on in the power point. Namely the view that all living things-- the view that living things in all major kingdoms are modified descendents of a common ancestor. Now, Darwin's theory-- now, I'm going to be speaking here today about Darwinian evolution. Evolution as we've already heard is a very broad concept. And I'm specifically addressing Darwin's theory namely that living things are modified descendents of creatures that lived in the very distant past. Descendent modification is what Darwin called this theory.

The modification Darwin thought was due primarily to natural selection acting on random variations which the modern version of Darwin come from genetic mutation. So in a nutshell that's the theory I'm addressing here.

The only figure in Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species" is this one. And by it he meant to illustrate what he meant by his theory. So in the distant past we might have a small species down here. He drew two here that converge further down. We have a species here that has a variety of forms in it. Two parts of this population might get separated and one form would go this way, the other form would go that way and eventually split into two species. Further down the road the differences might be greater. Instead of two species we might have two genre or families or orders or classes or right up to the highest levels of the biological hierarchy.

Now, no one doubts common ancestry at the level of the species. I have no problem believing that all of us in this room somewhere in the distant past shared a common ancestor. But is it true at higher levels? Are all the different types of animals related by common ancestry, for example. Do we share a common ancestor with a worm or a fly? That's the question I'm going to address here. And we have to address questions like this in science by looking at the evidence. So of all the levels that we could look at, I'm choosing this-- actually we already know that there's substantial doubt about the one above it. But I'm going to look at the animal phylum, it's the phylum institute that includes-- it would be us and mammals and the alligators and the fish. Another phylum would be the phylum that includes sea urchins and sea stars, another one would be the mollusks or the snails and the squids and so on and so on. So these are the phyla, plural, the major different kinds of animals.

Now, according to the benchmark, this is proposed to be added by the Minority Report. Okay. This view that the major kingdoms I'm actually dealing with phyla, which is a smaller kingdom, are modified descendents of a common ancestor has been challenged in recent years by three things. Molecular evidence, fossil evidence, and embryo evidence. And I'll deal briefly with all three of those.

First, molecular evidence. I'm going to pick just to illustrate this seven phyla, seven major groups. We're in the chordate group, here are the starfish, these are flatworms, roundworms, mollusks, arthropods which include the crabs and the insects and earthworms.

Now, if we look at the molecules in these organisms and we group them according to the similarity of their molecules we can rearrange them, thus. So these-- the molecules here are most similar-- they're more similar to each other than they are to these, for example. These are more similar than they are to those. So we can regroup these according to the similarities in this particular molecule, which I won't try to describe in technical detail, but it's the one commonly used.

Now, if we construct a tree, an evolutionary tree following Darwin's pattern passed on this molecule, we get something like this. But the-- clear that the only data we have are up here. We have the molecules from these organisms and the rest of this is inferred based upon the assumption that they share a common ancestor. What's interesting is when we look at these molecules various discrepancies immediately appear. For example, the tree I just showed you from 18s RNA doesn't fit the classical tree that had been shown on the base of morphology or anatomy. Animals that are close together up here are far apart over here. Not only that, if I pick a different molecule 28s RNA, I get a different tree again. Here's the 18s tree, here's the 28s tree. Okay. Once again, animals that are closely related by one are not closely related by another.

Imagine that you found out that your grandfather was not the least bit related to you, but-- you know, related to people half a world away. This is pretty fundamental biology stuff, you know, it matters who you're related to. Even worse if we take the 18s RNA and submit it two different laboratories, as it was done in this case, again, we get two different trees. So the molecular evidence is shot through and through with discrepancies.

A recent article in Nature just last week shows that this controversy is continuing. These trees here, it shows these two trees in nature. Here, we, the chordates are most closely related to the arthropods or the insects, but according to this other molecular study we're way off here and the insects are more closely related to roundworms. These are not trivial issues in evolutionary biology.

So the inconsistency in the evolution tree based on molecular comparisons have to actually be explained away in the light of evolution theory. They actually don't provide evidence for the theory. I'm not saying the theory is proven false, but this certainly doesn't provide evidence for it.

Now, according to reviewer Wiley, who reviewed the Minority Report, these discrepancies do not challenge the view that all living organisms are related through common ancestry. Reviewer Bartlett wrote something very similar. And while I can't necessarily prove them wrong-- I mean, maybe we really all are related to a common ancestory and just haven't figured out how to make the molecules tell us the true story. At the very least we can only say this based on some other form of evidence. We're not getting it from the molecules.

So what other forms of evidence do we have? Well, the other two forms generally proposed are the fossil evidence and the embryology evidence. So that's what I'll talk about next, the fossil record. According to the Minority Report sudden bursts of increased complexity, such as the Cambrian Explosion, challenge the Darwinian view that we're all related through common ancestry.

Now, in Darwin's theory - this is a very simplified cartoon of it - the phyla that I showed you a few minutes ago are up here and if we had good fossil record, which, of course, we don't, we would expect to find something like this in the past where these branch off somehow to the common ancestry which might be, for example, some form of worm. Ideally this is what we would expect. When we go looking at the fossil record what we found instead is this. Most of the major animal phyla appear abruptly, theologically speaking, in the Cambrian Explosion, with no fossil evidence that might actually be from a common ancestor. Theory versus evidence.

Now, remember common ancestry might be true at lower levels, but at this level, the level of the animal phyla, the fossil evidence certainly isn't helping us. Darwin himself recognized this. He said this actually presented a serious problem, a valid argument, I'm sorry. To suddenly appear in the Cambrian must remain inexplicable and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views of common ancestry. I would argue as a biologist that the problem has not been solved in the 150 years, at least not in the fossil evidence.

Now, reviewer Wiley criticized people who think the Cambrian Explosion is a big deal. He says it is not. And they, myself I guess, would know this if they actually examined the recent literature. Well, I have examined the recent literature. For example, Wiley cites two articles in 1996 that rely on molecular studies - there we are back to that - to date the original divergence of the animal phyla to about 12 hundred million years ago or about seven hundred million years before the Cambrian Explosion. The problem is other molecular studies true to form come up with a very different answer and give us a date much closer to the fossil record. According to Berkeley paleontologist James Valentine and his colleagues-- now, these are not Intelligent Design proponents these are not creationists, these are actually not even people who doubt Darwin's theory in a larger sense, but these paleontologists who are experts on the evidence say the accuracy of molecular clock is still problematic, at least for the phyla since the estimates vary by hundreds of millions of years depending on the techniques use. So they do not muffle the Cambrian Explosion which continues to stand out as a major feature in animal evolution contrary to reviewer Wiley.

Reviewer Wiley then cites two other articles reporting fossil evidence for animals before the Cambrian Explosion. What's interesting is one of the articles he lists is considered an extremely dubious interpretation of fragmentary data by other experts in the field. The second article is, at best, controversial. So here we have two articles, dubious and controversial, up against literally hundreds of articles documenting the dramatic and extensive nature of the Cambrian Explosion and we're supposed to accept the Cambrian Explosion based on these two articles. Well, I'm not persuaded. Clearly Darwin's theory of life does not fit the fossil evidence for the origin of the major groups of animals.

Finally, number three, embryology. I love this part because I'm an embryologist primarily. For Darwin the best evidence to his theory was embryology. He said the embryos are the most distinct species belonging to the same class, such as mammals are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, largely dissimilar. This is by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory. Actually by class in that point Darwin meant phyla. And to illustrate a colleague of his in Germany, Ernest Haeckel, made this drawing in 1868. And many of you, I'm sure, have seen it or some version of it. Here's a salamander-- I'm sorry, a fish, a salamander, a turtle, a chick, four mammals. And in Haeckel's drawing they all look almost identical in their early stages. And the lesson from this that Haeckel drew and Darwin himself drew is that this shows all of these share a common ancestor. And, in fact, to Darwin the common ancestor probably looked something like that. The problem is Haeckel faked his drawings. He was known to have faked his drawings. At the time his colleagues accused him of fraud. If you look at the actual fish, amphibian, turtle, chick, human embryos if you look at them at this stage and draw them from life they look more like that. This is what I saw as a Berkeley graduate student and realized there was something wrong here.

Well, reviewer Miller, when he comments on this part of the standards, admits that the earlier embryonic stages were incorrect. And he says textbooks have long been corrected now to reflect Richardson's observations. Well, Miller did correct his book somewhat. I'll get back to that in just a minute. But here are two textbooks from 2004. Biology textbooks copyright dates 2004 and there are Haeckel's embryos. Here's a biochemistry textbook from 2004, this is for graduate students. Well, maybe not. Upper division undergraduates perhaps. And there are Haeckel's embryos. So, yes, they have been removed from some textbooks, but certainly not from all.

Reviewer Theobald says that it's true that the embryos were fake, but that does not invalidate the fact that development is more similar between two animals the more recent is the common ancestor between them. In other words, the main point is still true according to Theobald. Wiley takes a similar view. The more recent the common ancestor, the more similar the development. And reviewer Miller likewise argues that the principle is true even if the drawings are wrong. And Miller then takes the Minority Report to test for telling students that vertebrate embryos differ in ways that they do not.

Well, here's the picture from Miller's book. He uses photographs. He certainly cannot be accused of faking drawings here. In the early stages of development chickens, turtles, and rats look similar to providing evidence that they shared a common ancestor. So the principle for Miller is still true. But let's take a closer look at the evidence.

Choosing embryos only from certain classes and then distorting them to make them look similar is not Haeckel's main fault. Even more significantly he didn't even show the earlier stages of vertebra embryos, he started in the middle. If you look at the earlier stages of vertebra embryos, here's the stage that Haeckel made look very similar. If you look at earlier stages the patterns are extremely diversional. Mammals, for example, begin their cell division in a way total radically different from the other classes. So instead of-- and here's a comment from a Dartmouth embryologist to that effect this is not a secret, it's only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence by bending the facts of nature that one can argue that the earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are similar when they're adults. Instead what we really have with the evidence is what is now called, by developmental biologists, the developmental hourglass. Okay. The embryos start out very different, they converge in the middle for reasons we do not understand and then they diverge again as they grow older. Well, remember Miller's pictures, these are photos now that can't be accused of being doctored. But look at where he got them. He picked three-- the three most similar of these five embryos and left these out, picked the three most similar at this stage where they're the most similar and he called this the earlier stages and then he accuses the Minority Report of telling students that embryos are more-- are less similar than they really are.

Now, here's another textbook-- I honestly don't know if Miller's book is in use in Kansas, but I know this one is. This is "Biology, The Dynamics of Life." I'm sorry that's next. This one here-- I don't have the book with me, but Campbell, Williamson, and Heyden has this set of pictures. Well, same thing again. These are taken from the two most similar at this stage and represented as evidence that embryos are most similar in their early stages, which is absolutely false.

I was going to hold another book up which does the same thing, but I think the point is made. So I'll summarize recent challenges to universal common ancestry molecular data do not yield the consistent pattern of evolutionary relationship. Fossil records of the Cambrian Explosion certainly do not fit the branching tree patterns of Darwin's theory. And embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages. So my conclusions is there are discrepancies between Darwin's theory of evolution and the evidence from molecules, fossils, and embryos. Science students should know about them. Thank you.

Q. Doctor Wells, sort of a follow-up question, the-- I believe that it's indicator 1 F that you did your power point slide discovered. Do you agree all living things in all natures kingdom--

A. Yes, F 1, 2, and 3.

Q. Yeah. Now, would you comment on the scientific validity of-- in 1 F, 1, 2, and 3?

A. The Minority Report's proposal?

Q. Yeah.

A. Well, certainly the evidence supports them. I mean, there may be a pedagogical question should high school students be exposed to this. But given the-- usually the way Darwin evolution is often presented as though there's overwhelming evidence for it and no dispute about it. Clearly that's not the case. So I do think students should be exposed at least in outline to these problems.

Q. Would it be fair to say that exposing students to this information would improve their understanding in biological evolution? And when I say understanding, understanding in terms of comprehension, being able to comprehend the subtleties of the theory so it can be more reasonable?

A. Well, remember I didn't use the term biological evolution. I used the term Darwinian evolution. If by biological evolution you mean the facts that we see that living things are different now than they used to be, this evidence certainly increases the students knowledge of that pattern of difference. What does it do to Darwin's theory? Well, I think it weakens Darwin's theory. The evidence weakens Darwin's theory. But for science that's good. If the theory doesn't explain the evidence then it should be weakened in the eyes of the students. They shouldn't be told something explains evidence that isn't there. They should be aware of the evidence.

Q. We were just talking about the definition of evolution and I'd like to take your attention up to indicator 1 A where the Minority Report adds a couple of sentences to the definition of biological evolution and ask you to comment on the additional-- two additional sentences in indicator-- additional specificity on 1 A?

A. Well, honestly I would not call it biological evolution there because to me that term is too broad. I would have written that Darwinian evolution or Darwin's theory of evolution. And if it were written that way I would say it's absolutely true, at least in Darwin's mind. Remember my first Ph.D. was on the 19th century controversies and I actually wrote a book about Darwin's view of teleology and guided evolution. It was very clear that the process of evolution was unguided. If by biological evolution you mean Darwinian evolution, this is a fact, historical fact.

Q. So if you were to substitute the word "Darwinian evolution" in your opinion anyway, the statement would be a scientifically valid statement?

A. Historically true, yes. And that's not just Darwin himself, but his followers with various exceptions. Am I through?

Q. I have some more questions of you. Okay. In indicator 3 D there's a discussion of micro and macroevolution and a distinction is made in the Minority Report, which you would not find in the mainstream report. My first question is whether it is appropriate to make the distinction between micro and macroevolution changes and then whether 1 D, in your view, is a scientifically valid teaching?

A. Well, I was fascinated to read the review by Hurd. Hurd wrote in his peer review of the Minority Report, quote, "I am confident that there are other qualified commentators who would have pointed out the absurdity of differentiating macro and microevolution, a term that has no meaning outside of creationists limits." Well, I don't know Mr. Hurd, but this statement is wildly false. The term micro and macroevolution were first used by neo-Darwinist Theodosia Dobzhansky in his 1937 book, "Genetics and the Origin of Species". And I'll just quote a few sentences here. There is no way toward an understanding of the mechanism of macroevolutionary changes which require time on the geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the micro evolutionary process observable within the span of a human lifetime and often controlled by a man's will. For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge, reluctantly, to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro and micro evolution and proceeding on this assumption to push our investigations as far as this working hypothesis will permit.

Now, the terms macro and microevolution are found throughout the evolutionary literature right up to present day. And what's interesting is that this problem that Dobzhansky pointed to is that we actually can't get a handle on the macroevolutionary process without extrapolating from microevolution. This problem is still with us and it's highly controversial among biologists. I on my way down --on the way down here was finally getting a chance to read a book that came out in 2003, it's called, "Origination of Organism of Form". Now, these are imminent evolutionary biologists. As far as I know there's not an ID proponent in there, certainly not a creationist. As far as I know all of them have a faith that sooner or later completely natural explanations can be found for all this phenomenon. But to a person these writers say quite clearly that there's a problem extrapolating microevolution and macro evolution, a scientific problem. It's just undeniable throughout the scientific literature. Maybe I could comment briefly on one term that appears in that paragraph, irreducibly complex.

Q. Yes.

A. Another reviewer, reviewer Theobald, wrote in his review of the Minority Report, quote, "The term irreducibly complex is not found in the scientific biological literature and the concept is not used by real research biologists. Rather it is a term from the pseudoscientific publications of intelligent design proponents." While this isn't quite as wildly false as was stated about micro and macroevolution, it is false nevertheless. As far as I know the first person to use the term irreducibly complex in the biological literature was Michael Katz of Case Western University and he used it to describe-- maybe I can just read it briefly, natural systems that cannot be reduced to smaller precursors. And Katz regarded them and their existence as a serious problem for Darwinian evolution.

Now, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe got quite notorious when he proposed Intelligent Design as an explanation for irreducible complexity. But the phenomenon of irreducible complexity is independent of that explanation and preexists in the biological literature. It is not a term coined by Intelligent Design at the press.

Q. Is it fair to say that the argument that this system is irreducibly complex is essentially a challenge to neo-Darwinism or to the accuracy of natural selection?

A. Absolutely. Darwin himself acknowledged that although he does not use the term irreducibly complex he wrote in the origin of species, if it could be demonstrated-- if it could be-- I went from all to nothing. Are we still here? If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which couldn't possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. And he's talking in there about the same thing that Katz was talking about.

Q. Have there been a lot of scientific criticisms that irreducible-- the idea of irreducible complexity has been completely refuted, could you comment on that?

A. I can comment briefly, but I just haven't been able to keep up with the voluminous literature on that subject. But there's a long and ongoing debate between Mike Behe, Scott Menick, various other people on the one side and Ken Miller and various other people on the other side as to whether the specific feature is irreducibly complex or not. And I think that's a legitimate controversy. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

Q. It hasn't been resolved?

A. No, it hasn't been resolved. It's continuing. But that controversy is actually distinct, as I said, from the explanation Darwin provides to try to account for irreducible complexity once established as a theory.

Q. Is that information that would be the fact that there is that controversy over that issue-- pretty deep controversy, is that something that would help and kind of aid the students understanding of what you would call Darwinian evolution?

A. It would certainly aid in their understanding in the sense that they would know there's a controversy over whether Darwinian mechanisms can account for irreducibly complex systems if such exist. There certainly is controversy over that.

Q. Doctor Wells, I want-- I believe you're familiar with the Ohio curriculum that--

A. I have read it.

Q. -- has been adopted by the State of Ohio. If you could just briefly explain what that curriculum is, why it was developed, and what parts of that curriculum support the proposed changes in the Minority Report that are reflected in benchmark three?

A. Well, I have read the Ohio curriculum. I don't claim to be an expert on it, but it's certainly, I think, a model for how evolution should be taught if the schools have the time to do it. This particular curriculum, I think, takes an estimated duration of four to six hours of class time. Which given the purported importance of evolution theory in modern biology I think should be well worth it in a biology curriculum.

But the Ohio curriculum goes into quite some detail presenting the arguments and evidence for and against various aspects of Darwin's theory. And it provides an appendix with an annotated bibliography, sample questions and answers, study guides. I mean, it's really a valuable resource and I am recommending to the State of Kansas doing something like that.

Q. I believe there will be other witnesses that will testify about that and we'll, at a later point in time, introduce copies of the Ohio curriculum. Doctor Wells does not have those with him, but Doctor Wells does have with him some written testimony that he will hand to the committee and the reporter and Mr. Irigonegaray.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: May I have that written report now, if he's going to rely on it for any purpose whatsoever, please?

MR. CALVERT: Beg your pardon, sir?

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: I would like to have his written report if he's going to rely on it or has relied on it for any purpose.

MR. CALVERT: Well, we will provide that.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: If he has it, I would like to have it so I can question him.

THE WITNESS: It's up to you, John.

MR. CALVERT: If we have it, sure.

Q. (BY MR. CALVERT) Doctor Wells, in conclusion--

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

Q. (BY MR. CALVERT) In conclusion could you explain why you believe the State of Kansas should implement the proposed revisions in the standard three, benchmark three of the high school science standards?

A. Yes, very briefly. Although I have indicated my disagreement possibly with a word or two in the actual phrasing of things, I think it's a valuable addition to standards because it alerts teachers and students to problems with evolution theory. Darwinian evolution theory is very real and currently very controversial within the biological community. And I think it actually makes the whole study of evolution far more exciting when students know about that, rather than just having to memorize things by rote. Which is one reason why in the beginning I emphasized the process of science rather than the learning of specific explanations.

Q. Thank you very much.

MR. CALVERT: I believe Doctor Wells is open for questions after he gets a drink of water.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Hold it just a minute. Mr. Irigonegaray, you have 24 minutes.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY:

Q. I have a few questions for you, sir. You are the same Jonathan Wells as the individual that is the senior fellow at the Center for Renewal Science and Culture, the acronym CRSC?

A. That was a former acronym. That was the original name of the center. It's now the Center for Science and Culture, CSC.

Q. Which was a branch of the Discovery Institute?

A. It's one the programs of Discovery, yes.

Q. Which is a private funded conservative think tank based out of Seattle?

A. It's a privately funded think tank. It actually includes a lot of people who would not consider themselves conservative.

Q. It is true, is it not, that it believes that Science, in general, and the theory of evolution, in particular, are responsible for materialistic, atheistic philosophy, whose destructive cultural consequences in our society must be reversed?

A. I'm not sure where you're getting that statement.

Q. Do you agree with that statement?

A. No.

Q. So you disavow that statement?

A. I do not think science is responsible for cultural materialism. I think a misuse of Science is responsible for it.

Q. Is it your opinion that science today, particularly mainstream science represents that which I have read?

A. A large number of scientists today would subscribe to the sort of view that is being criticized there. That's a sociological statement, not a statement about science per se.

Q. Is it true that the CRSC--

A. CSC. Q. CSC. Give me that acronym now, please?

A. Center for Science and Culture, CSC.

Q. It's been changed to CSC. When was that change made?

A. A couple of years ago. I'm sort of on the edges of it as a research fellow, so I'm not directly involved in their day-to-day activities.

Q. You were certainly involved with it when it was the CRSC?

A. I was a senior fellow then, yes.

Q. And it is true that as part of the former CRSC strategy, now the CSC, the wedge was a strategy for replacing science as it is currently practiced with Intelligent Design, which is a theistic science which would allow supernatural causes. That is true, is it not?

A. True of what?

Q. Of what the former CRSC, now the CSC has a goal through the wedge?

A. I don't know. I don't know what document you're referring to.

Q. Are you familiar with the wedge?

A. I have heard of it.

Q. You have just heard of it?

A. I read some version of it years ago. I haven't seen it since. But my own view and the view of people I work with is not that science is the culprit here. Materialistic philosophy in the guise of science is the culprit.

Q. And who do you allege are materialist philosophers?

A. Well, I could name some names. Daniel Dennett, for example.

Q. Are you suggesting that the majority of scientists in the United States and the world that adhere to the theory of evolution may be defined as such?

A. I wouldn't know how to evaluate that. I certainly couldn't evaluate it outside the United States. I do know that several of the professional societies that I belong to in biology do have statements like that as policies.

Q. Is it your belief that mainstream science is biased against your views?

A. If by mainstream you mean the majority of currently practicing scientists and by bias against my views, I assume you mean my criticisms of evolution theory as in icons of evolution, the answer would be, yes, most of them disagree with me. I am definitely in the minority, which is why I'm here supporting the Minority Report.

Q. That's pretty obvious you are in the minority.

A. I enjoy being in the minority. I'm more comfortable.

Q. More than being right?

A. More than you? I missed that, I'm sorry. I prefer to be right. If that means I'm in the minority, so be it.

Q. Now, sir, it is true, is it not, that the former CRSC, now the CSC, has as its long-term agenda to extend Intelligent Design to all aspects of the culture, as their name indicates, to hope to renew science and culture in some sort of a mix?

A. I'd say that's true, yes. But the method by which that's intended is to have Intelligent Design win on the scientific grounds.

Q. It is true--

A. It's obviously a long way from having done that at this point.

Q. It is true, is it not, that as a member of the Discovery Institute you first joined in 1996?

A. I became a senior-- well, the center was founded in 1996, yes. I forget the exact date when I became a senior fellow. I moved to Seattle in 1998.

Q. Is it true that as early as the 1970s you were a member of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it a fact that while involved with that church you became convinced that evolution was false because it reflected-- it conflicted with your church belief that humankind was specifically designed by God?

A. I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence.

Q. You keep using the term Darwinian evolution. You would agree, would you not, that since Darwin the science of evolution has advanced greatly?

A. Well, then I would include in that neo-Darwinian evolution, which is just Darwinism combined--

Q. You keep using Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, isn't it, in fact, the science of evolution that we should be speaking about and not using terms that are intended to simply draw a reaction if we're interested in speaking about science?

A. I prefer to be precise. The problem is the term evolution, as several speakers before me pointed out, is vague. I mean, it can mean change over time. I've seen it defined in textbooks as change in gene frequencies. Well, that's not correct. My children have different gene frequencies from mine and they haven't evolved.

Q. Please answer my question, Doctor Wells.

A. I'm trying to be precise.

Q. It is true that since Darwin 150 years ago the science of evolution has advanced greatly? As an example, Darwin had no knowledge about genetics, did he?

A. No, he didn't. That's why I said neo-Darwinism is Darwin's theory combined with modern genetics. Neo-Darwinism. So it's true I could say neo-Darwinian evolution, that would actually be more accurate in this situation. So I'll say neo-Darwinism evolution.

Q. Is that the manner in which you would broadly paint all scientists involved in evolution as neo-Darwinist?

A. Absolutely not. I just saw in the book where people say neo-Darwinism fails and they would call themselves evolutionary biologists in some general sense. So that is why I am specifically criticizing neo-Darwinian evolution, Darwinian evolution for shorthand.

Q. After you received your degree in biology you did immediately go to work for the Discovery institute, did you not?

A. No, I didn't. I worked for several years as supervisor of a medical laboratory in California.

Q. Doing what?

A. Supervising a medical laboratory.

Q. Doing what?

A. Well, not only laboratory tests-- actually I've been a medical laboratory technologist for about 25 years. But as supervisor I had to schedule people, I had to supervise quality control, I had to maintain a computer system. So in addition to my duties, I had these administrative duties as well.

Q. Doctor Wells, do you have a personal opinion as to how old the earth is?

A. I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old. But I'll tell you this, I used to-- I would have said, a few years ago, I'm convinced it's four-and-a-half billion years old. But the truth is I have not looked at the evidence. And I have become increasingly suspicious of the evidence that is presented to me and that's why at this point I would say probably it's four-and-a-half billion years old, but I haven't looked at the evidence.

Q. You do accept, do you not, common descent within species?

A. Within a single species, of course. I don't know anyone who doesn't.

Q. What about among species?

A. Among species? Well, I stated in my power point that I find it extremely unlikely based on the evidence that the animal phyla are related through common ancestry. Other biologists have said they're dubious of common ancestry at levels higher than that. The levels in between, I don't know. As a scientist I would have to say each case would have to be settled based on the evidence.

Q. What about between humans, the humans-- Homo sapiens and other species, such as prehominids?

A. I think it's extremely unlikely based on the evidence.

Q. You would agree that that opinion is a rather insignificant minority that believes that?

A. Well, I don't feel insignificant, but I've already conceded I'm with the minority, yes. If someone could show me a mechanism whereby an ape-like creature could turn into something like a human, I would accept it. But I've looked and I haven't found it, not even remotely close.

Q. It is important, is it not, to keep science neutral as far as faith is concerned?

A. Well, faith is a loaded word. But I'll say, yes, for the sake of argument. I find lots of faith in science, actually. Faith in common ancestry, for example.

Q. And the fact that someone-- the fact that someone is involved in the study of the natural process in the scientific process, that does not, in your mind, equate to that individual not being able to maintain a religious faith which is compatible with science and evolution, is it?

A. I see no problem at all. In fact, the world's greatest scientists were very religious people, including the world's greatest biologist. Except for Darwin.

Q. To your understanding is there anything in the standards that prevent teachers from discussion of these sort of issues and evidence and controversies you have raised?

A. Certainly nothing positively discourages them. What I find discouraging in the existing standards is the tone of Darwin only. We're going to present Darwinian evolution as though it were the explanation.

Q. Where in the standards does it say that only Darwin theory is to be taught?

A. It doesn't have to be because it presents only Darwin's theory. And I'm not actually suggesting that it present other theories, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the standards should include at least knowledge of the fact that there are problems between this explanation and the evidence.

Q. It is true, is it not, that a gentleman named Paul Nelson, together with Mr. Johnson and others, were instrumental in the early days of Intelligent Design?

A. Phillip Johnson, Paul Nelson.

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, they're still involved in it.

Q. I'd like to read a quote to you from Mr. Paul Nelson. "Intelligent Design proponents offer nothing to the scientific community upon which a scientific program can be developed. They don't even have clearly defined definitions of critical terms that can be understood and applied by others. For example, they have provided no objective basis upon which others can apply concepts, such as irreducible complexity or specific complexity."

A. Specified.

Q. "They focus on critiques of evolutionary theories that either attack strong views of evolution, misrepresent current science, or are simply based on flawed reasoning. They also point to areas of frontier science in which the scientific community is yet to reach a consensus. None of this constitutes any challenge to the predicted and explanatory power of evolutionary theory. In short, with regard to Intelligent Design there is nothing there. There simply is no theory of ID or anything approaching it. ID is not used in scientific research, even by its primary proponents. All ID is is a series of failed and rejected criticisms of evolutionary theory. Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now and that's a real problem. Without a theory it is very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, but as yet no general theory of biological design." I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about that quote. It is true, is it not, that there is no such thing as an ID theory?

A. I wouldn't say that. By the way I don't think all that's from Paul Nelson.

Q. It is true, is it not, that there is no ID theory?

A. I just said, no, I don't believe that.

Q. You believe that there is a definable theory of Intelligent Design?

A. Yes, I do. It's certainly in progress. I would not advocate putting it in the curriculum for reasons other people have given here. It's a young theory. It hasn't proved itself, it doesn't deserve a place in the curriculum as a requirement. It's an exciting theory and I think a robust one. And not all of that is from Paul Nelson.

Q. And would you agree that Intelligent Design must, in the end, conclude that a designer was involved?

A. A mind, yes. A designing mind. If something is actually designed, then a designing mind had to do it.

Q. But you're not suggesting it was the design of man?

A. Designed by man?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, certainly before humans appear on the scene, no it couldn't be.

Q. So the answer, which ID attempts to provide, is a supernatural one, is it not?

A. I won't go there. And here's why, I've said already I do not think science benefits from defining ahead of time sorts of explanations that it can find. There are already scientists-- respected scientists in this country who do experiments on things that most people consider supernatural, such as prayer. When Newton proposed the theory of gravitation it was dismissed as supernaturalism because it was action at a distance. What constitutes supernaturalism in today's science may very well not be supernatural in tomorrow's science. That's why I emphasize the process of testing hypotheses against the evidence.

Q. I understand, sir, but there is a difference between looking at nature and asking questions versus looking at questions and because we cannot find an answer at the moment assuming that it had to be an intelligent designer?

A. That's not how Intelligent Design works. Intelligent Design is not an argument for ignorance. What it does is it sets certain criteria by which we normally, in the course of our daily lives, determine whether certain things are designed or not and then it argues that that can be extended to creatures of the natural world. Obviously that's a controversial claim, but I think it is a legitimate one.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: I have nothing further.

EXAMINATION BY MS. MORRIS:

Q. Thank you for coming, Doctor Wells.

A. Thank you for inviting me. I love controversy.

Q. Irreducibly complex, where did that term originate or where in the research did that start showing up?

A. As far as I know-- and I actually gave you a handout about it.

Q. I noticed that and I can study it later if you feel like I'm going to get my answers there?

A. It's just documented there.

Q. Okay.

A. The citation is there. As far as I know the first use of it was Michael Katz of Case Western University.

Q. Around what year?

A. 1986. I'm sorry. 1986, which was ten years before Michael Behe's study.

Q. Now, this prebiotic soup that we discussed earlier, there was a speck that landed in the soup. What's the scientific term for that? Is it a cell? What is it that we just discovered or they were saying was irreducibly complex, what's the term? Was it a cell?

A. Are you talking about origin of life researcher what they would say?

Q. I don't even know. I'm just saying what was the first piece of life?

A. The first piece of life?

Q. According to Darwin, what was it called?

A. Well, Darwin was not clear on this. He didn't pretend to have the answer. He talked about a warm little pond, but he didn't really deal with it.

One modern evolutionary biologist, Carl Woese, at the University of Illinois years ago thought that he could show that all the domains of life-- the major domains were related, but came to the conclusion just in the last few years that they were not, that they emerged separately from this primordial soup, or whatever you want to call it. And that the soup itself consisted of a mixture of complicated molecules that interacted like-- sort of like living things, but not quite like living things. And I'm trying to represent Woese's position. It's not my position, so I'm not sure I have it right. He would say something like that.

Q. Okay. What has been discovered to be reducibly complex?

A. Well, something reducibly complex would be anything that would continue to function after you take certain parts away from it. Irreducibly complex means that those parts are necessary for the functioning. If you remove any one of them then the thing you're talking about stops functioning. That's irreducible complexity.

Q. Okay. I'm going to pass the mike for now and see if I can get my questions possessed. Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN ABRAMS:

Q. Doctor Wells, you state that neo-Darwinian evolution and biological evolution are not the same, how are they different?

A. Well, they're often confused, as they have been here. But I know people who would call themselves evolutionists who distinctly disavow neo-Darwinism. So there has to be a larger class of evolutionists and some general sense that living things have changed over time by some mechanism which we don't yet know as opposed to neo-Darwinian evolutionists who think that the change happened by neo-Darwinian mechanisms. So there's a distinction in the scientific community.

Q. Okay. I understand the thought about neo-Darwinian evolutionists. But if someone calls themselves a biological evolutionist, what does that imply or how is that different?

A. Well, I think you'd have to ask each individual. It might mean, for example, they will be-- an interest in common ancestry, so everything shares a common ancestry, but the mechanism of change are something other than what Darwin or neo-Darwinians proposes. But you'd have to ask each individual what he means or what she means.

Q. So why would you say that as has been stated before and you have stated also that the word evolution is a rather slippery word? Why is that? Why don't we be distinct and be specific?

A. I try to be. I really do try to be.

Q. In the science field, I mean, it is not generally considered to be distinct and specific?

A. Well, often it's a throwaway word. I mean. It's just a word you put out there, you know, it's just part of the jargon. If you're dealing with a specific aspect of it in a scientific writing, then usually you define that aspect and zero in on what that is. Very few biologists would say I am not an evolutionist. I mean, in a sense-- in a general sense I'm an evolutionist, but I'm definitely not a Darwinian or a neo-Darwinian evolutionist.

Q. What would you say-- or can you state what the hypothesis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution is?

A. Yes, I'll do my best. First of all, Darwin's theory-- and this is an extension of that, Darwin's theory is that distinct with modification. All living things share a common ancestry and they have become modified through natural selection acting on random variations. Now, the only addition in neo-Darwinism is that the variations are explained by recourse through genetic mutations, genetic differences. So it's natural selection acting on genetic variations causes things to evolve from a common ancestor. That would be it in a nutshell.

Q. As I understand it when Albert Einstein was first trying to bring out his theory of relativity he made a prediction that light would actually bend and that was unknown at the time and it was-- he made this prediction, stepped out there, and made it and in a few years certainly found that it was, that light can bend. Therefore, he stepped out and that was an act of falsification, he was able to state this hypothesis.

A. He took a risk.

Q. And he stated a prediction and it either proved it false or it substantiated it. And it's substantiated it at that point in time. It was not proven false. So with that in mind the prediction that with the hypothesis of neo-Darwinian evolution that there is common ancestry, why doesn't the analysis, the evidence that-- about the 18sRNA tree versus the 28sRNA tree falsify that, why doesn't that do that?

A. In my opinion because neo-Darwinian evolution has left the realm of science. It now functions as an assumption, an underlying given, a dogma. It cannot be falsified. Nothing can falsify it because it's a given. It does make predictions. I would argue that virtually every prediction it has made above the species level has been falsified in the sense you just described and yet the theory is still with us. And I would argue that that is evidence for nonscientific nature. Now, why should it be taught in science class, because sociologically it is still part of science. I just think it should be taught fully.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Thank you very much. Any other questions?

EXAMINATION BY MS. MARTIN:

Q. Thank you for telling us a little bit more about Intelligent Design. We have a lot of people addressing us and saying, well, this is not science and why and when I say, well, I think it has a scientific basis they still argue that it's not science. Can you address any of that why is Intelligent Design science and--

A. Well, it's interesting. If you read the evolutionary literature, at least before the last few years when this started brewing more heated, Darwinian evolutionists have consistently argued against Design. Darwin himself did. Hundreds of pages in The Origin of Species included the argument against design. The argument was that the evidence will show that what looks like it's designed can actually be explained by natural processes.

Now, if evidence can show that something is not designed, then in principle evidence can show something is designed. You can't have it both ways. You can't say suddenly-- well, you can't argue for design because all of a sudden that involves something supernatural. Darwin was excluding the supernatural and claiming that the evidence justified it.

I would say if you're going to resort to evidence on one side, you can resort to it on the other. And for me that's all Intelligent Design does, says the evidence we see points to design. Where we go beyond that is a theological question. I'm also a theologian so I know those questions, but that's not science.

Q. We appreciate you being here. It's been fascinating to hear some of your comments and remarks.

EXAMINATION BY MS. MORRIS:

Q. I just have a brief question.

A. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. That's okay. You had a reference to Darwin, I believe it's one of his books and it went on concluded by summary, would absolutely breakdown. Is the reference to that quote in the material you gave us?

A. It is. It's in the supplement K on irreducible complexity and it's from The Origin of Species.

Q. Okay.

A. Chapter 6.

Q. Okay. What was it that he said was irreducibly-- he didn't say irreducibly complex, but what was he talking about if that ever broke down or if that ever was termed to be irreducibly complex then his theory would break down, that's my paraphrasing, what was that thing he was talking about?

A. If anything could be shown to be like this, you mean?

Q. Yes.

A. Anything at all. The eye, the hand, the human person, a leaf. Any feature-- he was speaking specifically of the biological world, but any feature that could be shown not to have been formed by numerous life succession modifications then his theory would absolutely breakdown. It could be anything.

What's interesting is all it takes is one, one example and Darwin's theory is finished according to Darwin himself. And Intelligent Design theory, you might know, does not need to see everything as design. We follow the evidence where it goes. If it's design, fine. If it's not, that's what the evidence shows.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And that's time.

MS. MARTIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Thank you, Doctor Wells. Mr. Calvert.

MR. CALVERT: Doctor Abrams, looks like we go ahead and start with Doctor Simat. We might be able to not have to stay beyond 5:30. So if it's okay with you I'd like to go ahead and call Doctor Simat.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: If we could bring order back, please. If you'd take a seat. Please, take a seat. Mr. Calvert.

MR. CALVERT: Yes.

BRUCE SIMAT, Ph.D., called as a witness on behalf of the Minority and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALVERT:

Q. Doctor Abrams, members of the committee, I'd like to introduce you to Doctor Bruce Simat. And, Doctor Simat, I want to welcome you and thank you for traveling all the way from the fair state of Minnesota-- Wisconsin, I guess it is.

A. No, don't go there.

Q. Minnesota. Would you further introduce yourself and give us a bit of information about your background?

A. First of all, I'm not a cheese head. My name is Bruce Michael Simat. I'm currently at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota.

My background starts with the University of Minnesota, Duluth, where I gained my bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry. I then went to the Duluth Medical School and got my master's degree in human physiology with biochemistry. After I did a research project there then I moved on to the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and did my Ph.D. work in the Department of Medicine and the Department of Physiology in human physiology and biochemistry-- and biochemistry as a minor, but almost a second major. My thesis research was delving into the nuclear site of action of thyroid hormone and how it turned on specifically messenger RNA and the genome itself. After the University of Minnesota, I went to work for the U.S. Government at the VA Medical Center in a postdoctoral position looking at toxicology and specifically looking at how to modify specific therapeutic drugs that could be used as cardiotonics to reduce arrhythmias as well as to reduce bronchial congestion for asthmatics.

In that experience I learned how specific biomolecules really work in the human body in a therapeutic fashion and how the slightest modification changed either their therapeutic value or it enhanced and made the drug extremely lethal. We were able to take some of those drugs and make them therapeutic at doses 1 X and lethal at does 2 X. You want to be very careful with cardiotonics.

After that two-year experience I moved to Abbott Laboratories in Chicago, Illinois, and worked for four years with them in their medical diagnostic division. There I invented new biomolecules for that division. Biomolecules that were used to produce blood tests in the hospital market. After that I went to--

Q. What were you testing for in your blood tests?

A. Oh, things that you might not like. Pregnancy tests and human thyroid hormone, prolactin hormone. And we had a very successful unit. In fact, I also headed up a group that was a new technology group looking to produce some of these tests in the home market so that they could be a home pregnancy test, for instance. And we worked very carefully with new techniques in delivery where you could do mass amounts of protein attached to small plastic particles. So I learned a lot about material science there as well.

And that is why I was hired through head hunters to come to Minnesota to look at a job that was produced by Sanofi Diagnostic Pasteur, which is French company in Minneapolis. And there we worked on diagnostic tests, but more importantly I think is the experience I had with the new technologies. I learned very carefully how to produce blood tests with a new technology. In fact, three new technologies. I actually won a science award for technology in putting the biomolecules on them.

Since that time-- and that-- I guess that was eleven years ago when I quit that job. Since that time I have worked for Northwestern College in Minnesota. And for the last eleven years I've been teaching a variety of classes there.

Q. Why did you take the job at Northwestern? What did they ask you to do?

A. Well, actually I had a choice of going into technology again, biotechnology. There's plenty of companies in the twin cities where you can do biotechnology, but I-- I don't know if I can explain it easily. I really had a yen to try teaching because I had not really been a professor in a college before, although I had taught extensively through the businesses. So I was hired because of my extensive background in teaching in business and teaching bio and biotechnology.

They had a two-year associate degree in science and it had just been approved by the State of Minnesota to be upgraded to a four-year bachelor's degree. So they had no one to teach the third and fourth year classes. In fact, there were no third and fourth year classes. So my job was to invent them. And, in fact, doing curriculum development for all upper division classes. That's quite a challenge.

Most people go to the university system or any kind of college system and take over a position, not invent two years of classes. So I had a unique experience under my belt here for eleven years of developing classes for developmental biology, immunology, animal biology, physiology, biochemistry, principles of biology, concept of biology. I think there's more.

Q. Did you run into evolutionary theory in developing the curriculum for these programs?

A. Everywhere. In my first year of teaching there-- this being a Christian college I sort to wondered whether or not I would be at odds teaching at a Christian college and teaching evolution theory. What I found was that the students did a very good job of provoking me. And I use that word provoke in to knowing the evolutionary science very well. And I did not know it that well in my first year. And I realized-- a very sharp example to me here was that I realized that all of my undergraduate biology, all of my master degrees biology, and all my doctoral biology had only been very superficial in how it presented evolution. I knew all the standard jargon, I knew all the standard theories, I knew all the standard propositions, but when I was teaching in the textbooks what I did not know is how it actually operated. I had never been really taught how it actually operated.

Q. Did you use evolutionary theory in your operational science when you were working for Abbott labs and a couple of these other places?

A. I would say probably not at all, not at all.

In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it really has no meaning.

Q. The argument has been made that in Kansas the Minority Report would somehow be embraced by mistake that would drive bioscience out of the state, probably along with many other economic resources, could you comment on that?

A. That's interesting. I don't know how that could be possible. Not only have I never run into evolution in the variety of companies, I seldom run into it at all. With any of my colleagues in the University of Minnesota, which I have several friends working there still, it seems to come up as a topic of conversation only if someone is actually teaching evolutionary science. Other than that, it does not seem to come up in anyone's research per se.

In fact, I've been told by colleagues that if it wasn't for the-- this is their words, if it wasn't for the fact that it was required of them in their conclusions to make evolutionary claims, they would not put in it their papers at all. And what I found is that's probably fairly true with most researchers who are in the many disciplines who are looking at very narrow investigative areas.

As a biochemist I was-- I was so deep into very narrow areas of how biomolecules work and how to modify them and how to make them profitable, in fact, that there is no reason to vary outside of that.

In fact, I read an article on a web site recently that was complaining, if you will, about the biochemist coming here to testify. And the individual said that, oh, that's okay, he's a biochemist, they usually don't know much about evolution. And I twinged at that a bit and I realized that that was absolutely true. Except that now after eleven years my students have forced me to learn about evolution.

So they have provoked me. The students provoke me to know everything about evolution because they came up with so many questions. The textbooks were very dogmatic in their approach to evolution, especially macro evolution and origins. No one had any trouble in my class talking about microevolution and diversity. No questions come from that. Every one is just amazed how well that works together. But every one has questions about how macroevolution can work. I found eleven years ago that I couldn't answer that. Now, eleven years later, I still can't answer that and I read everything. I have the opportunity in my position of not having research required of me so I dabble in research with students for their own specific research purposes because it's very important that they have specific research projects that they can show-- we have colloquium that are available to them at the University of Minnesota, our own school and at various other schools that they can show they have actually done specific personal research projects.

So, yes, we work with research, but I do not have to have grants, I do not have to have a publish or perish attitude. That is not put upon me by my institution. That has allowed me to dabble in the fine art of reading everything that I can and that has helped me so much to understand exactly what evolution says and evolution cannot say by the data.

Q. Doctor Simat, we were talking about this and you explained to me how you began to develop curriculum and I think you said you first went through the textbooks and you would study the materials in a section dealing with micro evolution and then you would move to other chapters further on in the book. Can you talk a bit about that?

A. Some of the provocation coming from the students came from the wording in the textbooks. In the chapters, for instance, in genetics, when I teach that course the wording, the verbs, if you will, used in describing mutations is very precise and very accurate and very declarative. They, with data, are able to declare that the mutations are deleterious, that there are insertions, deletions, et cetera and that they cause problems with the function of that gene.

And then when we get to the chapter on macroevolution the question is asked-- and this is pages later, chapters later. The question is asked can macroevolution lead to new forms of life. And the answer in one word was certainly. And then all of a sudden the verbs change to what I call soft verbs. No longer is it we know, we have tested, data shows. It is now should have, could have, must have been. And my students picked up on that and wondered why all of a sudden there aren't declarative verbs here and everything is very soft in it's wording. That was provoking me, I had to find out why. So I've been reading extensively and the textbooks are written accurately. It is a lot of soft verbs. There has to be because there's a lot of stories of how it possibly could have happened, but there is no data to back it up such that we can say we have tested or we have produced such phenomenon.

Q. Is it fair to say that what caused you to begin to challenge evolutionary theory was your asking-- your being asked to develop a new curriculum?

A. Yes. If it had not been finding these chapters in these textbooks I probably wouldn't have been involved with evolution at all. In fact, some of my textbooks don't mention evolution but maybe in passing. My physiology textbook is pretty much devoid of using the term evolution. My biochemistry textbooks are scant. In fact, I go to the index to find every word that's mentioned so I can read exactly what is being said there. And the entries to the index in the biochemistry textbook is about three or four entries, five entries maybe in the entire textbook. When it comes to genetics then there's a whole column of entries in the index, so it's referred to often and talked about and described often.

So with developmental biology, for instance, there is fair amount-- a lot of evolution mentioned there. So I am challenged in certain classes and in other classes it's hardly mentioned.

Q. We asked you to look at the proposals in the Minority Report and in particular the evolution benchmark, that's benchmark three, grades 8 through 12. And I'd like to direct your attention to that benchmark, that hopefully will come up on the screen here in a minute. And let's begin with the beginning of that benchmark, indicator 1 A adds additional descriptive information about evolution.

By the way, I notice on the left side of the column it says biological evolution, descent with modification is a scientific explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms. What is the role of history in biological evolution and how does that affect the explanation?

A. That's rather interesting. The word history used in biology is a best guess at best. It tends to be used only if we are trying to determine how a function came about today. When we do, for instance, history of disease, if we do something in physiology with that regard, we will look back and use history to help us understand it in today's world.

What I'm finding with the evolution claim, however, is that the macroevolution history-- if we look back at that origin's history has little to bear on science today in terms of its actually practical use and what we're actually doing with it. And I'm realizing that that's probably why it's not being actually talked about out there in the marketplace of ideas. In the companies, in the universities it's not being used on a day-to-day basis in their research for most-- the vast majority of disciplines. The history is just that, it's a story that we have to make up because we don't know. It's not that we have a historical record to look at so easily, especially with origins. What we have is our best guess, which means it's out of us.

Q. Would you comment on indicator additional specificity 1 A, particularly the first sentence, "Biological evolution postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process that has no discernible direction or goal." Is that a scientifically accurate description of biological evolution?

A. Yes, it is. That is exactly what it says in the textbook.

Q. The second sentence also, "It also assumes that life arose from an unguided natural process." Is that--

A. That's also in the textbooks, yes. Exactly that. That is not anything different than what I've been reading and teaching for the last decade.

Q. Is that information important to a student's understanding of biological evolution?

A. Well, absolutely. I think the definition of evolution cannot be minced or reduced. If that's what, in fact, the papers are publishing about, then that's what the textbooks have to reflect. And, in fact, they do. So if you're not teaching that exactly as it's-- as it's being proclaimed, well, then you're not teaching evolution. So, yes, I think you need to-- every one needs to understand exactly what evolution basis is.

And I think-- and I think perhaps in my own experience I've had to meet that challenge also in that again coming out of a Christian college I have sort of, you know, wondered what kind of trouble do I run into if I want to minimize-- if I feel I should be minimizing something, evolutionary theory, for instance, and will there be pressures put on me. And I was very concerned about that. What was very refreshing for me is that my college has virtually had no restraints on me in teaching biology. That's very refreshing. So I've been very open to talk about exactly what's in the textbook and-- but because of the students and the way they're provoking me I have to know my evolutionary science very well. And I've come up short on origins and I've come up short on methodological naturalism to get into macro evolution.

Q. What is methodological naturalism?

A. Well, sort of-- it's-- besides hard to say, it's actually quite straight forward in that nature has a method, so-- which is a little bit in conflict with-- if you will, with the wording of unguided process. So nature has a method, but it's an unguided process. So the word method and unguided have a tension there. So if you have an unguided process then that's your method. So it's saying that the nature, which has no discerning direction to it, will make a change in a gene sequence and change, in fact, one nucleotide. So, therefore, it's unguided. So that is the method that it is unguided. So that one change in that nucleotide will make that DNA produce a protein that is different. So that's the method of nature according to that. Whether or not that can work or not is the question.

Q. Does methodological naturalism essentially limit explanation to an unguided process?

A. I think it has to. Methodological naturalism then, by virtue of its name, states that nature is doing this. So that, in fact, it not only is unguided, it has to be unguided because we cannot find-- we cannot find an intelligent molecule, we cannot find an intelligent force that would connect these nucleotides up to teach other. There's nothing in any of the literature and there's nothing we've ever found that says a particular nucleotide would want to bind to any other particular nucleotide for the purpose of making a proper sequence that would be the proper sequence to make the proper protein. We don't have any forces that would know how to do that.

Q. Let me ask you this, going back to the first sentence in 1 A it says, "Biological evolution postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process." Now, that is stated in the nature of a theory or a postulate and that being the case doing science, we should be able to challenge that postulate-- that change results from an unguided process. Is that correct? I mean, science should-- we should be able to challenge that?

A. Yeah, all things should be available for challenging. That has been part of my anger with science is that nothing is sacred is the norm for all other disciplines except evolution and all of a sudden it becomes the sacred cow.

I have had an occasional outburst in class by me when I'm lecturing when I have to tell students that by golly when I did my master's research thesis research and when I did my post doctoral research and when I did 15 years in companies with their research, everything-- everything is held up to scrutiny and skeptical analysis. Nothing is left untouched, nothing is taken for granted, nothing is taken on faith, everything must be proven. And you can make theories about what's unproven, but then you call them theories. And if they get proven and enough people can corroborate that, then you might be talking something other than a theory or better than a theory. But when you have open ended questions and you have nice stories about how that might happen, then you still don't call that theory, even though they're in a theory. Nobody else gets away with that. Peer review editors don't let you get away with that. In your conclusion you say and I speculate, you don't say this is the truth because I made this story up, but not in evolution.

Q. Let me ask you this, does methodological naturalism permit one to challenge that postulate that the process is unguided?

A. Well, that's why I get angry in class because it doesn't allow that. I want to challenge it, but my textbook says I cannot. So I have to go outside the textbook, so I find other papers that have-- that are, in fact, challenging that. I have found many papers that challenge the going norm that it is not challengeable. I found many papers. In fact, I have put together several talks in the twin cities just about that, pointing out what other people are saying about the data and how, in fact, it doesn't support gradualism or that it doesn't support abiotic to biotic in the soup. Or that the fossil record with it's Cambrian Explosion is not supporting a gradualistic Darwinian or neo-Darwinian concept.

One has to come up with a very fast mutation rate that is still good and we don't have any information that you could have a fast mutation rate and still be reasonable and not kill things. In fact, we don't have data to show that slow mutation rates give you something positive that you could actually develop with. And I have a lot on that as well.

Q. Doctor Simat, I'd like to direct your attention to indicator-- we're running out of time, so I'm going to go directly to indicator 6 C. And it relates to a statement that biological evolution is used as broad unifying theory or framework for biology and that natural selection of genetic drift, genomes, and the mechanisms of genetic change provide a context in which to ask research questions and help explain observed change in the populations. And then Doctor Harris and his colleagues have added, quote, "However, reverse engineering and undirected thinking are used to understand the function of biosystems and information." My question is, is that-- is that a valid and accurate statement is-- are biochemists and people in operational science using that kind of thinking and is that really inconsistent with the methodological naturalist?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Two minutes.

A. Well, we have a-- we had a piece of paper. We'll wing it. All right. Just recently-- just recently I was reading a very nice piece on evolution of the immune system and-- among other systems and the blood system. And they do some very nice science here in terms of making a very science-type of story. I want to call it scientific, but it is reverse engineering. We look at-- to fill the gap of how something very complex could have come from nothing then we look at what we have and we look at what it would take to start with and then you just work backwards. So if something is more complex now you make it a little less complex, a little less, a little less, a little less until you come back to rudimentary molecules and talk about how all those got together and ended up with this very complex process. It's a very interesting story, but it is in fact a historical story, not one of data. It is something that we would say would have had to have happened in time over-- and then, of course, whatever period of time for that to have occurred.

That is fraught with problems because this-- first of all, there's no data for that. Second of all, the story does not relate to the entire process of the organism. As a biochemist I realize that that are so many patterns and so many lines of biochemistry and they all interrelate.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's time.

A. And they all interrelate and, in fact, depend on each other. So to talk about how just one gets through the system and it doesn't affect the rest of them is very naive.

Q. (BY MR. CALVERT) One final question. Do you believe that changes in three are appropriate-- benchmark three are appropriate?

A. Benchmark?

Q. The benchmark we've been talking about. Standard three, benchmark three. And this deals with the changes in the Minority Report offered with respect to the section on biological evolution. Do you have any general comment on those changes, are they appropriate, inappropriate?

A. Well, I think they're very appropriate in this regard. My students coming out of a Christian college are now armed with all of evolution. Exactly what it teaches and exactly what it's downfalls are or its shortcomings. They know what it can show and they know what it can't show. I would say that they're probably better armed than their counterparts who are going to the University of Minnesota who are not shown what, in fact, it can show or cannot show. So who has more knowledge and who has more accurate knowledge, those who know what a theory can do and what it can't or those who are just told the party line.

Q. Thank you so much for your testimony.

MR. CALVERT: Mr. Irigonegaray, you can commence your questions.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray, you have 16 minutes.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Thank you.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY:

Q. Sir, the first question I'd like to ask you is, do you accept the evolutionary theory of common descent of humans from prehominids?

A. From the data that I've been following it's probably not true.

Q. I'd like to now specifically address the issues in the standards that you have discussed. Is there anywhere that you have even been able to find in the standards an indication to teachers and their students that they are not allowed to discuss evolution in every aspect, including whatever shortcomings may be involved in evolution today?

A. I believe that the standard is setting up this state to fail at biology.

Q. That wasn't my question.

A. I know it wasn't.

Q. Then please answer the question. Is there anything in the standards that would preclude a teacher and his or her students from discussing fully evolution, including whatever short comings that students may question?

A. I don't believe that the standard, as it's written, does not preclude that.

Q. Is there in the standards, anywhere at all that you have been able to ascertain, the use of the word "unguided"?

A. It is in the definition of evolution and it's in the definition of--

Q. Where in the definition of evolution in the standards do you find that?

A. The standard as it-- excuse me, let me start this way, the standard does not have to mention that.

Q. So please answer my question. My question was specifically to you, where in the standards is the word "unguided" found?

A. It is found implicit in the definition of evolution.

Q. I'm not talking about implicitly. Where is the word "unguided" found?

A. It is not in the standard and it doesn't have to be.

Q. If it doesn't have to be and if it's not in the standard, isn't it a fact that the only reason it is suggested in the comments for the minority is to have a strong man argument?

A. Not at all.

Q. Not at all. You have made the claim from the floor that methodological naturalism entails that nature is unguided. What would you say to the millions of people, including many scientists, who believe that God works through the natural process?

A. Many of those people believe that it is guided through the natural process. Some of them believe that it is unguided through the natural process.

Q. Sir, you made the broad statement that methodological naturalism entails that nature is unguided, that's what you said.

A. That's its definition. I didn't say that as if I was making it up.

Q. But that definition does not mean, does it, that there are not many, many thousands of scientists who believe that that is precisely how God works?

A. I don't know that.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: I have nothing further.

EXAMINATION BY MS. MORRIS:

Q. I'm sorry, pronounce your name. Is it Doctor Simat?

A. That's close enough.

Q. How do you say it?

A. Simat.

Q. Welcome to Kansas. It's a beautiful state. Maybe you'll get an opportunity to see some more of it. When you are testing your students, how do you handle this issue?

A. Well, they have to know all of the evolutionary theory and all of its tenets. Then I also ask them on all the additional information that I had brought forth into class that I cannot find in my textbook. So they have to know it all.

Q. Okay. So in the State of Kansas in elementary and secondary education we assess and the assessments are built around the standards, so what would be your advice to us as the Board who has the constitutional authority to provide general oversight, what should we do to make sure that students are taught evolution and its criticisms and they are assessed on both items knowing that what's in the standards is what gets taught and is what gets tested?

A. Here's how it works at Northwestern College, I do not work in the education department, I work in the biology department. However, our education department has a science methods class for K through 12. I come in for two lectures and I teach. After they-- excuse me, after they have taught them the evolutionary tenets I come in and give the rest of the data of what, in fact, is out there, but not in the textbook of what is-- what is supportable and what is not supportable. So we do that with-- actually it's four lectures, so we add that to their curriculum. And I come in from the biology department because I have the information and the person who does the science methods cannot keep up with it. Although she's very knowledgeable. So we add that in there as compliment to that after they learn all the tenets of evolution and then they are tested on knowing exactly what evolution can and cannot do in terms of true data and true conclusions.

Q. So true data, true conclusions, if we want quality education in Kansas we should also teach evolution and its criticisms, wouldn't you agree? Is that what you do at your school?

A. Well, for macroevolution and origins, if you're going to teach just from the textbook and those tenets of what it should be able to do, then you're not actually teaching the story-- the entire story of evolution, you're teaching a segment of it.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN ABRAMS:

Q. Doctor Simat, how would you describe the ability of the Majority Draft, as well as the Minority Report to teach the students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religion and philosophical claims that are made in the name of science?

A. That was a long question.

Q. How would you describe the ability of each one of those, the Majority Report and the Minority Report, with reference to teaching the student to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious and philosophical claims that are made in the name of science?

A. Well, the modified program, modified document is going to go much further than the original with regard to expecting students to k