|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P023
Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1
THE COURT: All right. We continue then with this witness on direct examination. And, Mr. Rothschild, you may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION ( CONTINUED) BY MR ROTHSCHILD:
Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Forrest.
A. Hello.
Q. Has the intelligent design movement described its strategy as a big tent strategy? And let's make sure we don't talk about college football.
A. A big tent with a T, yes.
Q. And what do you understand that term to mean as they use it?
A. The big tent strategy was developed by Phillip Johnson. It's a strategy to avoid alienating young earth creationists, to convince them to join in the intelligent design movement, and to agree to put off discussion of what they consider devicive issues, such as the interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and to knight around the effort of the intelligent design movement.
Q. And this is a term they've used to describe themselves?
A. Yes, they've written about it.
Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit 429, P-429, and highlight the title and author? And actually, if you could actually highlight further down which indicates where this article was first published. Could you read the title into the record, Dr. Forrest, and the author?
A. The title of this article is Life in the Big Tent: Traditional Creationism and the Intelligent Design Community, by Paul A. Nelson.
Q. And this indicates it was published in 2002 in the Christian Research Journal?
A. That's correct.
Q. Who is Paul Nelson?
A. Paul Nelson is a young earth creationist who is one of the founding members of the Wedge. He's been with the Center for Science and Culture since it was the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. He is an integral member of this group.
Q. What is this article about?
A. In this article, Dr. Nelson is essentially arguing to his fellow --
MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, objection. The article speaks for itself.
MR ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, I think this article, first of all, is written by, as Dr. Forrest testified, an important member of the intelligent design movement.
This is part of the corpus of intelligent design, and as Dr. Forrest will explain, gives an extremely valuable history of intelligent design. It is again a primary source that is integral to her opinion.
THE COURT: That may be true, but that's not Mr. Thompson's objection. His objection is, in effect, you're asking the witness to paraphrase or summarize the article. I'm going to permit the article. It wasn't a hearsay objection. But why don't you go to individual passages rather than have her characterize the article. So the objection is sustained.
MR ROTHSCHILD: I will do that, Your Honor.
BY MR ROTHSCHILD:
Q. Have you highlighted passages in this article that you found significant?
A. Yes.
Q. Matt, could you go to the first highlighted passage?
A. This is the synopsis of the article. Quote, Until recently, the majority of active dissenters from neo-Darwinian naturalistic evolution could be classified as young-earth, or what I call traditional creationists. Their dissent could be dismissed as motivated by Biblical literalism, not scientific evidence.
While this criticism of traditional creationist is unfair to the actual content of their views, many prominent creationists are outstanding scientists. The absence of a wider community of dissent from Darwinism hindered the growth of scientific alternatives to the naturalistic theory.
Such a wider community now exists in the intelligent design, ID, movement. Within the past decade, the ID community has matured around the insights of UC Berkeley Professor Phillip Johnson whose central insight is that science must be free to seek the truth, wherever it lies.
The possibility of design, therefore, cannot be excluded from science. This outlook has deep roots in the history of western science and is essential to the help of science as a truth seeking enterprise. Under the canopy of design as an empirical possibility, however, any number of particular theories may also be possible, including traditional creationism, progressive, or old-earth creationism, and theistic evolution.
Both scientific and scriptural evidence will have to decide the competition between these theories. The big tent of ID provides a setting in which that struggle after truth can occur and from which the secular culture may be influenced, end quote.
Q. Does this synopsis summarize this big tent strategy?
A. Yes, it summarizes it.
Q. It includes both young-earth or traditional creationists or old-earth creationists?
A. Yes, in the big tent.
Q. Mr. Nelson indicates they also include proponents of theistic evolution. Have proponents of theistic evolution, in fact, been embraced under intelligent design's big tent?
A. No, it has not. In fact the intelligent design movement specifically rejects theistic evolution.
Q. Matt, why don't you go to the next passage.
A. Quote, The growth of a broader debate about evolution and creation can actually be seen as a boon for those struggling to discern the proper relationship between science and faith, how to understand the Book of Genesis, and how to defend the Christian world view in a hostile secular culture.
Life in the big tent of the intelligent design community certainly requires a period of acclamation, but Christians, in particular traditional creationists, should welcome their new ID surroundings.
Q. Based on your reading of this article and Mr. Nelson's writing, what did you understand him to mean by traditional creationists?
A. He's already defined that as young-earth creationism.
Q. And this objective of defending the Christian world view in a hostile secular culture, is that a theme that runs through all forms of creationism?
A. That's a very strong theme. That's apologetic, essentially defending Christianity from what they perceive to be a hostile culture.
Q. I think that's the first time you used the term apologetics in your testimony. What you just said, is that the definition of apologetics?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the concept of apologetics a component of the intelligent design movement?
A. It's a very strong component. In fact, it's specifically included in the Wedge Strategy.
Q. And we'll look at that in a little bit. Why don't you go to the next passage, Matt.
A. Quote, Let's begin with some history. The year 1997 marks a noteworthy turning point in the American debate over the science and philosophy of origins. In that year, a long cultural battle that had begun more than a quarter century earlier with Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's classic, The Genesis Flood, in 1961 appeared to many onlookers to have come decisively to an end when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court declared creation-science to be a religious belief, end quote.
Q. Dr. Forrest, I'm going to ask you to read a few passages that comprise this history. Does the history that Mr. Nelson sets forth in his article, is it pretty consistent with the history as you have studied the intelligent design movement?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you go to the next passage?
A. Quote, In 1982, Federal Judge William Overton declared the Arkansas balanced treatment law unconstitutional in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, but it was the 1997 Supreme Court opinion, Edwards v. Aguillard, that seemed to shut the door permanently on creationism, end quote.
Q. Go onto the next passage.
A. Quote, The two-model approach to the origin's controversy was now dead, end quote.
Q. Just remind us, what is meant by the two-model approach?
A. The two-model approach is -- and this was actually referred to in the McLean decision as the contrived dualism. The two-model approach is the view that there are two possibilities for explaining origins. One is creation-science, and the other is evolution. The idea there is that, if evolution can be successfully undermined, creation-science will win the debate by default.
Q. If you could just go a little slower for Wendy, that would be helpful. Thanks. I want to go to the next passage, Matt.
A. Quote, Edwards v. Aguillard seemingly had ended the public debate over origins. A revolution from an unexpected quarter, however, was about to occur. In 1997 [sic 1987], Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, was taking a year's sabbatical in London, England.
Every day on the walk to his office, he passed a book shop where Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, were on sale. Curious, Johnson bought the books and read them through. He noticed immediately that the ostensible issues of Edwards v. Aguillard were not the real issues at all, end quote.
Q. Go to the next passage.
Other Links: The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth? A good refutation of Johnson's Darwin on Trial. A. Quote, The creationists in Louisiana never had a chance. Because of the way science was defined in the debate, the very possibility of evidence against Darwinian evolution had been excluded at the outset. Reading the amicus briefs in Edwards v. Aguillard, such as that filed by the National Academy of Science, the most prestigious group of scientists in the nation, Johnson discovered that what had been presented on the ground rules -- as the ground rules of science had tilted the playing field irrevocably in favor of Darwinian evolution.
In Darwin on Trial, the influential book that drew out of his 1987 insights, Johnson wrote, quote, The academy does define science in such a way that advocates of supernatural creation may neither argue for their own position nor dispute the claims of the scientific establishment, end quote.
Q. And what do you understand Mr. Nelson to mean by the way science was defined in this debate? How was science defined, so to speak, in Edwards v. Aguillard?
A. It's defined as naturalistic, remaining within the area of the natural world and seeking explanations.
Q. And under those rules, creationists didn't have a chance?
A. As Phillip Johnson understood that. Phillip Johnson considers the definition of science as naturalistic to be arbitrary and operari and so that it would exclude supernatural explanations from the very beginning.
Q. Could you go to the next passage?
A. Quote, Johnson rejected the philosophical dichotomizing. Definitions of science, he argued, could be contrived to exclude any conclusion we dislike or to include any we favor, end quote.
Q. Go to the next passage.
A. Quote, In June 1993, Johnson invited several of the mostly younger members of that community to a conference at the California beach town of Pajaro Dunes. Present were scientists and philosophers who themselves would later become well-known such as biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, 1996, mathematician and philosopher, William Dembski, author of The Design Inference, 1998, and Intelligent Design, 1999, and developmental biologist, Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, 2000.
Of the 14 participants at the Pajaro Dunes conference, only three, microbiologist Siegfried Scherer of the Technical University of Munich, paleontologist Kurt Wise of Brian College, and me, that would be Paul Nelson, could be seen as traditional creationists, end quote.
Q. So Mr. Nelson is acknowledginging he is a traditionalist --
A. Dr. Nelson is, yes.
Q. These passages I just asked you to read, you agree, this is an accurate history of how the intelligent design movement arose?
A. This is consistent with everything I've seen, yes.
Q. Creation-science was ruled unconstitutional in Edwards?
A. Yes.
Q. And then Mr. Johnson came up with with a new strategy for arguing for creationism?
A. Yes. Dr. Nelson actually gives Phillip Johnson credit for reviving the debate. After they thought that the two-model approach was dead, he gives Johnson credit for reviving the debate about origins.
Q. His new approach was to try to redefine science from how the NAS understood?
A. Yes. He rejects the definition of science as naturalistic.
Q. And then he gathered around him these figures that are identified here, Behe, Dembski, and Wells, to take up that project?
A. Yes. As I understand it, this was a conference that Professor Johnson called in order to do this, to draw these people together, and begin to execute what would become the Wedge Strategy.
Q. Matt, could you go to the next passage, please? And could you highlight the heading of this part of Mr. Nelson's article? And what is the heading there?
A. This is a subheading in the article. It's God's Freedom and the Logic of Design.
Q. And could you highlight the passages, Matt, that Dr. Forrest did in this section?
A. Quote, Johnson saw that allowing for the possibility of design as special divine action, for instance, God creating human beings directly, meant that one must also allow for other possibilities, such as God electing, if he so chose, to use an evolutionary process that wasn't self-designed.
Quote, I believe, Johnson wrote, that a God exists who could create out of nothing if he wanted to do so. But he might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead, end Johnson's quote. God could have created everything in six 24-hour days or not.
The fundamental point is to allow for the possibility of design. The scientific narrative of design, when God acted, and how, might capture any number of competing theories, end quote.
Q. Any doubt about who Mr. Johnson is declaring the intelligent designer is, according to Mr. Nelson?
A. No. As Dr. Nelson recounts, the designer is specifically named as God.
Q. Nothing about space aliens?
A. No, space aliens are -- Dr. Dembski, in 1992, actually wrote an article in which he stipulated that he was not talking about space aliens, he was talking about a supernatural transcendent designer.
Q. Nothing about super time travelers here?
A. No, nothing like that.
Q. Matt, could you go to the next passage.
A. Quote, The promise of the big tent of ID is to provide a setting where Christians and others may disagree amicably and fruitfully about how best to understand the natural world as well as scripture, end quote.
Q. Are you aware of any other scientific theories in which understanding of scripture is central to the enterprise?
A. Not as science is currently practiced, no, I'm not aware of that.
Q. Has Mr. Johnson, in addition to the article we looked at very early in your testimony where he defined intelligent design as theistic realism, has he written other articles or books that suggest, that for him intelligent design is a religious proposition?
A. Yes.
Q. And made statements as well to that effect?
A. Yes. In fact, he made a statement in, I think, 1996, that the intelligent design debate is not about science, it's about religion and philosophy.
Q. I'd like to have you look at Exhibit P-524. And if you could illuminate the title and author. What is this article called?
A. This is called How the Evolution Debate Can be Won. It's by Dr. Phillip Johnson.
Q. And do you recognize this document?
A. Yes. This is 1999. This is the text of a speech that Professor Johnson gave at a conference that was called by Reverend D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida. It's an annual conference that Dr. Kennedy calls. It's called the Reclaiming America for Christ Conference.
Q. Have you highlighted passages in this article?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Can you go ahead and do that, Matt?
A. Quote, To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end.
It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning, end quote.
Q. Does this fairly summarize Mr. Johnson's opposition to the theory of evolution?
A. This is very characteristic of it.
Q. We'll go to the next passage, Matt.
A. Quote, I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. One very famous book that's come out of The Wedge is biochemist Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, which has had an enormous impact on the scientific world, end quote.
Q. According Mr. Johnson, Mr. Behe's work is part of his project?
A. It'ss a very prominent part of the Wedge Strategy.
Q. Could you go to the next passage, Matt?
A. Quote, Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible.
When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves, end quote.
Q. So Mr. Johnson finds support for intelligent design in the Bible?
A. He specifically supports it in John 1:1.
Q. Is he the only intelligent design leader who finds that intelligent design is derived from the book of John?
A. No, Dr. Dembski has very prominently cited the Book of John as the foundation of intelligent design.
Q. What about Charles Thaxton? Has he done that?
A. Yes, he has. Dr. Thaxton wrote a book with Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in 1984. It's called The Mystery of Life's Origins.
In the epilogue of that book, he argues for special creation, supernatural creation by a creator beyond the cosmos. Near the end of that epilogue chapter, he cites someone named P Fong. That's initial P Fong. And the citation of P Fong called upon the (inaudible) prologue, which is the first 18 verses of the First Book of John.
Q. Could you pull up Exhibit P-355? Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. This is an article from World Magazine about Dr. Phillip Johnson. It is dated December 2003.
Q. And what is World Magazine?
A. World Magazine is a religious magazine.
Q. Matt, could you go to the first highlighted passage?
A. Quote, But once someone accepts the fact that random evolution couldn't produce life on earth, it has to have developed some other way. Quote by Johnson, I look for the best place to start the search, Mr. Johnson says, and I found it in the prologue to the Gospel of John. In the beginning was the word.
And I ask this question, does scientific evidence tend to support this conclusion or the contrary conclusion of the materialists that in the beginning were the particles, end quote.
Q. So again, the reference to the Book of John?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it fair to say, Mr. Johnson starts with the Book of John and looks for scientific evidence to support it?
A. Actually, he talks about having -- upon rejecting natural selection as an explanation, he looked around for the place to start in finding an alternate explanation. He says he found it in the Book of John.
Q. Then tried to gather the scientific evidence that would support it?
A. Well, he regards this as true scientifically.
Q. Could you go to the next passage, please?
A. Quote, Mr. Johnson notes that if we start with with the Gospel's basic explanation of the meaning of creation, we see that it is far better supported by scientific investigation than the contrary.
At this point, we haven't proved the Bible's claims about creation, but we've removed a powerful obstacle in the way of such belief. And all I really want to do with the scientific evidence is to clear away the obstacle that it presents to a belief that the creator is the God of the Bible, end quote.
Q. Would you go to the next passage, Matt?
A. Quote, It's a great error Christian leaders and intellectual leaders have made to think the origin of life, just one of those things scientists and professors argue about, Mr. Johnson says. The fundamental question is whether God is real or imaginary.
The entire way of thinking that underlies Darwinian evolution assumes that God is out of the picture as any kind of a real entity. He points out that, it is a very short step from Darwinism and science to the kind of liberal theology we find in many of our seminaries that treats the resurrection as a faith event, something that didn't happen, but was imagined by the disciples, and assumes that morality is something human beings may change from time to time as it's convenient to change it, end quote.
Q. Could you go to the next passage, Matt?
A. Quote, Resistance from some Christians to intelligent design has been one of Mr. Johnson's biggest surprises and greatest disappointments. He expected many scientists to attack him because their careers depend on Darwinism. This is a quote by Johnson.
The more frustrating thing has been the Christian leaders and pastors, especially Christian college and seminary professors. The problem is not just convincing them that the theory is wrong, but that it makes a difference. What's at stake isn't just the first chapter of Genesis, but the whole Bible from beginning to end, and whether or not nature really is all there is, end quote.
Q. I think we have one more passage in this document.
A. Quote, Mr. Johnson explains, Once God is culturally determined to be imaginary, then God's morality loses its foundation and withers away. It may stay standing for a historical moment without a foundation until the winds of change blow hard enough to knock it over like a cartoon character staying suspended for an instant after he runs off the cliff. We are at the end of that period now, end quote.
Q. Fair to say that this is the whole shooting match for Mr. Johnson? He's challenging evolution because of God's morality and the truth of the Bible?
A. Yes, he regards the -- he regards evolution as a threat to the Bible in its entirety and as a threat to the moral fabric of American culture.
Q. We have one more document associated with Mr. Johnson. Matt, could you pull up the Exhibit P-379? Can you tell me what this document is?
A. This is a partial transcript of a speech that Mr. Johnson made in June of 2001 at a conference in Kansas.
Q. Just before we go on, Kansas is another place where the evolution creation controversy is quite alive?
A. Very much alive, yes.
Q. And it indicates this is from his speech on June 29th, 2001?
A. Yes, these are excerpts from his speech that he entitled The State of the Wedge.
Q. Matt, could you go to the first highlighted passage? Just -- he's saying, one of the goals of his movement is to unify the religious world?
A. Correct.
Q. Strange objective for a scientific proposition?
A. Science doesn't attempt to do anything of that kind.
Q. Would you go to the next passage?
A. Quote, It would involve the simple question of creation. Do you need a creator to do the creating or don't you? What does the evidence of science tell us about that when it is viewed without prejudice? Now, of course, that's the tough thing, isn't it? When it is viewed without prejudice, because you see, the immediate response will be that the evidence of science is viewed through the conclusive prejudice that natural causes can do and did do the whole job. End of story, end quote.
Q. So the prejudice he's complaining about is methodological naturalism?
A. Yes.
Q. Go onto the next passage.
A. Quote, And so we thought the religious people ought to challenge that. The people of God ought to be unwilling to accept that kind of a dogmatic decision by definition, end quote.
Q. I think we have one more passage, Matt.
A. Quote, This is a way of phrasing the issue that ought to bring together Protestants of different views, young-earth believers and the scriptures, old-earthers who interpret Genesis differently, even the people who take the whole thing allegorically. Again, they should have a common interest in the issue. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning God created. True or false. End quote.
Q. He's trying to situate all of these different creationists, including the intelligent design creationists around the Book of John?
A. Yes, around the Book of John.
Q. Dr. Forrest, you've referred on quite a few occasions during your testimony to the Discovery Institute and the Center for Science and Culture. When was the Discovery Institute founded?
A. The Discovery Institute itself, which is a think tank, was founded in 1990.
Q. And where is that located?
A. It's in Seattle, Washington.
Q. And then there was the center that was started. When was that?
A. Yes, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was established as an arm of the Discovery Institute in 1996.
Q. And does it still go by that name?
A. No, the name has been shortened to Center for Science and Culture.
Q. How does the center fund -- is the center devoted to the proposition of intelligent design?
A. Yes, it exists expressly to promote intelligent design.
Q. How does the center fund its operations?
A. Mostly through donations.
Q. Are there -- are you aware of who the major donors are to the center?
A. Yes. My research revealed that the major donors were the Stewardship Foundation, the McClellan Foundation, and a gentleman by the name of Howard Ahmanson.
Q. The two foundations you named, what is your understanding of what their mission is?
A. Both of these are religious organizations with religious or evangelical missions, as they state on their websites.
Q. Do they state they have an objective of supporting scientific research generally?
A. No, they support missionss which are consistent with the requirement of spreading of Gospel, or what is called the great commission, and that is specifically stated on the website.
Q. What is the mission of the Center for Science and Culture?
A. The mission of the Center for Science and Culture, as they state, is to replace materialistic science with science that is consonant with their Christian and theistic convictions.
Q. Is there a document that states that?
A. There is.
Q. And is that the Wedge document that you referred to earlier in your testimony?
A. It is. The formal title of that document is The Wedge Strategy.
Q. Could you pull up the Exhibit P-516, please? Is that the cover page of The Wedge?
A. That is the cover page, yes.
Q. And it indicates that it is from the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, the Discovery Institute?
A. Right.
Q. And has the Discovery Institute acknowledged, yes, this is our product?
A. They have. They acknowledged it in 2002.
Q. Is the Wedge Strategy document particularly important to your understanding of the intelligent design movement?
A. It's the best most concise statement of what the what the movement is about in its entirety. It lays out the strategy and goals for the next 20 years.
Q. Have you highlighted important parts of the Wedge document for your testimony here today?
A. Yes.
Q. What I'd like you to do is, just walk us through what you considered the important parts of the document and explain why they're important to your opinion about intelligent design?
A. Okay. Matt, could I have the first slide, please? This is the first page of the Wedge Strategy, and this is the opening paragraph of it. Quote, The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which western civilization was built.
This is the opening statement, and it states very well the foundational belief behind the intelligent design movement and the reason that they have rejected the theory of evolution. The next slide, please. Quote, Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment.
As you can see, Darwin here is bundled with two other thinkers, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, and there is a reason for that. Charles Darwin is the one, the scientist whose theories are the specific target of the intelligent design movement. And what they are saying here is that, Darwin is a source of a type of biological determinism which precludes the existence of a spiritual side of human life and, therefore, takes away our spiritual dimension.
Karl Marx represents historical determinism. Sigmund Freud represents psychological determinism. And all of these thinkers are regarded as materialists who have contributed to the degradation of western culture.
Next slide, please. Quote, The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists deny the existence of objective moral standards claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still underguards much of modern economics, political science, psychology, and sociology, end quote.
This is, of course, an objection to materialism. This is not new. Creationists typically object to materialism. And it also, they also object to moral relativism, the idea that moral standards are less than absolute. You can also see here that they regard the effect of evolution as pervasive have throughout all of the disciplines, which include the social sciences as well.
Next slide, please. Quote, Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies, end quote. This gives a very good indication of the comprehensive program that the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture has instituted.
They would like to completely change the way science is understood and to completely reverse the effect of what they call scientific materialism on American culture. And as they understand it, the only way they can do that is through renewal, which means basically renewing the religious foundations of American culture.
Next slide, please. Quote, The center explores how new developments in biology, physics, and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have reopened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature, end quote. What this indicates is that the intelligent design creationists are using the developments of modern science and reinterpreting them in such a way as to support their view that the supernatural can be a scientific explanation.
I might point out that this was original wording on an early website, which actually helped me to authenticate this document. But on that early website, it says, have reopened the case for the supernatural. It was specifically stated. That term was used.
Next slide, please. Quote, The center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow, Dr. Stephen Meyer, an associate professor of philosophy at Whitworth college, end quote.
Q. Can you situate, I know you mentioned Dr. Meyer already in your testimony, but can you situate him in the intelligent design movement?
A. He is one of the founders of the Wedge Strategy. He is one of the very early members of the -- one of the founding members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dr. Meyer met Professor Johnson in 1987 when they were both in England. And Professor Meyer took back a paper that Professor Johnson had written and introduced it to some of the other people who were interested in intelligent design.
Q. Did he have thinking to do with the drafting of Pandas or the writing of Pandas?
A. Yes, he's the co-author of the note to teachers at the end, along with Mark Hartwig, who we referred to earlier.
Q. And as he also written an article called The God Hypothesis about intelligent design?
A. Yes, he has.
Q. Won't you continue?
A. Next slide, please. This is a representation of the phases. The Wedge Strategy is to take place in three phase, which they -- the document says that these phases are roughly, but not strictly, chronological. Chronologically, this is how they work.
Phase 1, scientific research, writing and publicity. Phase 2, publicity and opinion making. Phase 3, cultural confrontation and renewal. My research shows that they have really executed virtually every aspect of these phases, except the first one. Scientific research was supposed to be the foundation of the Wedge Strategy, but no meaningful scientific research has been produced.
They have, however, done a great deal of writing and a great deal of publicity. A very strong component of the Wedge Strategy is cultivation of the media. The third phrase is, ultimately their goal is to renew American culture by confronting secular cultures, scientific materialism.
Q. What did you do to examine the question of whether they have, in fact, produced science?
A. I researched this on the scientific data bases that would contain all of the articles published in the peer review journals.
Q. What did you find?
A. I'll give you an example of -- the biggest data bay is medline. And I did a key word and subject searches for peer reviewed articles in science journals using intelligent design as a biological theory.
Q. And did you find anything?
A. I found nothing.
Q. And when you say found nothing, did you find any peer review -- did you find any peer reviewed articles in which there was used data research?
A. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear your question.
Q. Did you find any articles in the peer review literature using original data or research?
A. Not about intelligent design, no, none.
Other Links: Meyer's Hopeless Monster A detailed debunking of Meyer's article. The "Meyer 2004" Medley A list of many links to materials about the paper. Q. Are you aware that there is one article by Steven Meyer that was published in a peer review journal?
A. I am.
Q. Have you read that article?
A. I have.
Q. You're aware there's a controversy around that article?
A. Yes, that article also invokes the idea of intelligent design.
Q. Now putting aside the controversy, why doesn't Dr. Meyer's article qualify as a peer reviewed article presenting data and research in support of intelligent design?
A. Well, first, Dr. Meyer is not a scientist. He's not a paleontologist. Second, the article contains no new data. He presents no new data. He calls it a review essay. What he does is, review the scientific literature, and he's attempting to reinterpret it in such a way that it supports his thesis of intelligent design with respect to the Cambrian fossils that we mentioned earlier. That's what this article is about.
Q. And again, reinterpreting the Cambrian record, he's not doing that from the prospective of an expert in paleontology?
A. No, he has no credentials in paleontology. He's not a scientist.
Q. Have members of the intelligent design movement admitted that they are lagging behind on the phase of scientific research?
A. Yes, they have admitted it.
Q. Matt, could you pull up the Exhibit P-410? And this is actually the cover of a magazine. Can you tell us what this is that is?
A. This is the cover of a magazine called Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. This is the July/August 2004 issue. The special title of this issue is Darwin's Last Stand, a special issue of Darwinism, naturalism, and intelligent design.
Q. And what was contained in this magazine?
A. There were articles by intelligent design supporters, and most prominently, an interview with the leaders of the intelligent design movement.
Q. And I'd actually like to look at that interview. Matt, could you turn to the cover page of that interview? And what is that called, Dr. Forrest?
A. The title for this interview is called The Measure of Design.
Q. And some of the people who were interviewed included Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Paul Nelson?
A. Yes, Phillip Johnson, Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Paul Nelson, and several others.
Q. And, Matt, could you highlight the answers given by Paul Nelson that Dr. Forrest asked you to highlight? And can you tell us what Mr. Nelson is talking about here?
A. Would you like me to read that? Yes, this is Dr. Nelson. Quote, This is in response -- by the way to a question, so that you'll understand the context of it. The question was, Is intelligent design just a critique of evolutionary theory or does it offer more? Does it offer something that human kind needs to know? This is his answer. Quote, It offers more, but demonstrating that is going to be a long-term challenge. Science in the key of design, if you will, is a melody that we are going to have to teach others to hear and play.
First, of course, we have to master it ourselves. 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's 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, end quote.
Q. Dr. Forrest, the school district and school board in Dover sent a newsletter to the Dover community which told the citizens of Dover that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Is there any way you can reconcile that with Mr. Nelson's statements?
A. There's no way to reconcile that at all.
Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit 354? Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes, that's the key notes -- it's called Becoming a Disciplined Science, Prospect, Pitfalls, and Reality Check for ID by William A. Dembski. That is a keynote address that Dr. Dembski delivered at a conference in October 2002 called the RAPID Conference. That RAPID is an acronym for Research And Progress in Intelligent Design. And he is here assessing the state of intelligent design in this speech.
Q. Matt, could you go to the highlighted passage to see what Mr. Dembski said about this subject?
A. Quote, Because of ID's outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind, end quote.
Q. Consistent with the way you portrayed the Wedge document, they're moving full steam ahead on cultural confrontation and publicity, but not so much on scientific research?
A. That's correct.
Q. And one more exhibit on this topic. Matt, could you pull up P-473? Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes, this is a recent Seattle Times article about the intelligent design movement.
Q. Matt, could you highlight the title? Thank you. Could you read that into the record?
A. The title of this article from March 31, 2005, is Does Seattle Group Teach the Controversy or Contribute to It?
Q. And when they're talking a Seattle group, who is this article talking about?
A. The Center for Science for Culture, the intelligent design people there.
Q. Matt, could you pull up the highlight passage? And there is a reference to a Meyer. Who is the Meyer?
A. That's Dr. Stephen Meyer?
Q. What did he say?
A. Quote, The school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, however, got it wrong, Meyer said, when it required instruction in intelligent design. The matter is now in court. Intelligent design isn't established enough yet for that, Meyer says.
Q. And based on your reading of the article, what isn't established enough?
A. It isn't established enough as a science for anyone to teach it.
Q. This is coming from the director of the science enter for science and culture?
A. Coming from the director and one of the founding members of the Wedge.
Q. Why don't we go back to the Wedge, Doctor? And, Matt, could you highlight the next passage there Dr. Forrest requested?
A. These are the governing goals. I'll read these. Quote, To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies; to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. These are the general goals which are, of course, stated in the opening paragraph of the opening passages that I read.
They would like to completely reverse what they regard as the deleterious effects of scientific materialism on American culture. It's undermining of religion.
Q. Next slide, please.
A. This is another goal.
Q. Just to be clear. Could we go back to that for a second, Matt? These are the only two governing goals that have been listed?
A. These are the two governing goals, that's correct.
Q. Not a lot of science there?
A. No, there's no science there.
Q. Can you go on, Matt?
A. This is another of their -- I think this is one of their five year goals. To see -- quote, To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life. It's pretty clear here that their goal is not scientific, but rather religious, cultural, moral, and political.
Next slide, please. This is under their five year objectives. This one says, quote, Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula and include design theory.
This goal makes it clear that they do want design theory included in the science curriculum, and, of course, Dover is an example of that at the local level. Next slide. Another goal, one of their activities that they list that they intend to carry out, an important activity is, quote, alliance billing, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations, and media outlets, end quote.
Again, there's a very strong component. One of the specific goals is to form alliances with churches, which scientific organizations are not known to do, but you can also see again that cultivating media outlets is a anothe recurrent component in the Wedge Strategy.
Next slide. This is a very important goal. It's the goal of spiritual and cultural renewal, which really represents phase 3 of the strategy that was entitled Cultural Confrontation and Renewal. Quote, spiritual and cultural renewal. Main line renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism.
Q. What do you understand main line renewal movements refer to?
A. There are movements within some of the main line churches, for example, in the Presbyterian Church USA in which a conservative faction within a church is trying to force it back toward a more conservative, more traditional understanding of scripture.
Q. Does that include a literal interpretation?
A. In some cases, yes, I think it is. Shall I continue?
Q. Please.
A. The next item is major Christian denominations defend denominations, defend traditional doctrine of creation and repudiate Darwinism. This is another goal. And they actually did succeed in getting a statement from the now deceased director of the Lutheran Church repudiating evolution.
The next goal is seminaries increasingly recognize and repudiate naturalistic presuppositions. Very strong component of the Wedge Strategy is to change the way future ministers are educated in seminaries. They regard seminary education in the main line denominational seminaries as too accommodating to modern science.
And then the last goal is positive uptake in public opinion poles on issues such as sexuality, abortion, and belief in God. That's a rather amorphous goal. I'm not sure what their aims are there.
Next slide, please. This is a summary of their five year strategic plan. Quote, The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequencess are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.
This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a wedge that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest point. The very beginning of this strategy, the thin end of the Wedge was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 and Darwinism on Trial and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Those are Professor Johnson's books.
Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design, ID. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic's worldview and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions, end quote.
Q. Michael Behe is an extremely important part of this strategy?
A. He is very important. He is an integral part of the Wedge Strategy.
Q. And Darwin's Black Box was the book where he introduced the concept of irreducible complexity?
A. Yes, the book is centered around that.
Q. He argues for intelligent design?
A. He argue for intelligent design. And he also argues in the last chapter for admitting the supernaturals as a scientific explanation, that that should be done.
Q. Has he made that same argument for intelligent design and the supernatural creator in peer reviewed scientific literature?
A. Professor Behe has not done that.
Q. Does he make presentations about intelligent design?
A. Not at science meetings. He has been quoted as saying he does not think scientific meetings are the proper venue for discussing intelligent design.
Q. What venues has Professor Behe chosen?
A. He has presented talks on intelligent design at numerous conferences and at religious gatherings and at numerous churches.
Q. Science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions, not a normal description of science?
A. That is certainly not the way practicing scientists speak of what they're doing.
Q. And fair to say that their goal is a science consistent with a particular religious viewpoint?
A. Yeah. Specifically here, it says, Christian. This is very much understood in the minds of this movement's leaders as a Christian effort.
Q. Please continue.
A. Next slide, please. Quote, Alongside a focus on influential opinion makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars, end quote.
Again, you see the specific stipulation that their primary constituency is Christians. They include here specifically the element of apologetic seminars, which they have held. Professor Dembski has conducted such seminars. And apologetics, as I stated earlier, revolves around -- it's the development of arguments to defend Christianity against what is perceived as hostile attacks on Christianity.
Q. Dr. Forrest, you obviously, in many of the writings that you reviewed, that intelligent design, in your view, is a religious proposition, and that's reflected in the writings?
A. Yes.
Q. If it was only presented as a religion proposition and not as a scientific proposition, would you find it objectionable that it's being presented in religious journals and churches and the like?
A. If it were presented up front as a religious proposition, I would have no problem with that whatsoever.
Q. But it is being represented as a scientific proposition?
A. It is being represented as science.
Q. Please continue.
A. This is from the last phase, phase 3, which was entitled Cultural Confrontation and Renewal. Quote, Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialistic science through challenge conferences and significant academic settings.
We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula, end quote. There are two significant references here.
The first -- several actually. The first is that they're indicating that they were going to start this third phase once their scientific research had matured. This third phase actually began immediately. And one -- an example of the kind of confrontation we're talking about here is conferences on the campuses of universities where they appear on the platform with evolutionary scientists whose materialistic views, as they put it, they intend to confront. And there have been several of these conferences.
The other indication here that is significant is that they specifically state that they intend to integrate design theory into the public school science curriculum and that they are anticipating legal problems because they were planning for legal assistance in that event.
Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement?
A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute?
A. All of the leaders are, yes.
Q. Mr. Johnson?
A. Mr. Johnson is the advisor. He's held that position as advisor. He's listed that way on the website.
Q. Steven Meyer?
A. Steven Meyer is the director.
Q. And Michael Behe?
A. Michael Behe is a senior fellow.
Q. Scott Minnich?
A. Scott Minnich is a fellow.
Q. Nancy Pearcey?
A. Nancy Pearcey is a fellow.
Q. Dean Kenyon?
A. Dean Kenyon is a fellow.
Q. Paul Nelson?
A. Paul Nelson is a fellow.
Q. Jonathan Wells?
A. Jonathan Wells is a fellow, in fact one of the earliest ones along with Dr. Behe and Dr. Nelson.
Q. Is Jonathan Wells a scientist?
A. He is by training. He has a Ph.D. in biology.
Q. Has he -- does he practice science?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Has he explained why he pursued his degree, Ph.D. in biology?
A. Yes, he has explained it. As Dr. Wells explains it, he hasn't -- he had a first Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale. He also attended the Unification Theological Seminary, which is the seminary in the Unification Church of which he's a member, and that church is led by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
Q. I'm sorry. Continue, Dr. Forrest.
A. He has explained that the Reverend Moon urged him to go back to school to get a Ph.D. in biology so that he could, as Dr. Wells puts it in his own words, so that I could devote my life to destroying Darwinism.
Q. And what activities has he carried out in pursuit of that goal?
A. He has promoted intelligent design full-time for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He's written a book entitled Icons of Evolution.
Q. Has that book also been made into a video?
A. Yes, there is a video of the same title.
Q. And one last individual, William Dembski. Is is he affiliated with the Discovery Institute?
A. Yes, he's one of the founding members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, one of the founders of the Wedge Strategy.
Q. What else do you know about Dr. Dembski?
A. Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in philosophy, a Ph.D. in mathematics, and he also has a divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is presently employed at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisvile, Kentucky, where he has the Center for Science and Theology, I believe, is the current name of it. He has written a number of books about intelligent design.
Q. Has he ever described his work on the issue of intelligent design as Christian apologetics?
A. Yes, in fact that's one of the ways in which he has described it. It's a primary factor in his involvement in the intelligent design movement. He has described it that way himself.
Q. Has he actually written a book about apologetics?
A. Yes, there is a book that he edited -- he co-edited a book with another of his Center for Science and Culture fellows, J. Wesley Richards. That book is entitled Unapologetic Apologetics. That is a book of essays, some of which Dr. Richards and Dr. Dembski wrote.
These essays were written by them and their classmates when they were students at the Princeton Theological Seminary, and I believe it was in 2001 that Dr. Dembski edited these essays and published them as a book entitled Unapologetic Apologetics.
Q. Has Dr. Dembski written articles and written in his books about intelligent design in a way that suggests that, for him, it is a religious proposition?
A. Yes, he has.
Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit P-386? Could you highlight the title and author and date? Could you read that into the record?
A. This title says, Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris, by William A. Dembski, 1 February 2005.
Q. And Henry Morris, as you described him, is sort of the grand-daddy of modern creationists?
A. He is. In fact, there is a line in this essay in which Dr. Dembski credits with Henry Morris with his, Dr. Dembski's, becoming a design theorist.
Q. Matt, could you go to the next passage?
A. Quote, Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology which suffocates the human spirit, but in my personal experience, I found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options, but Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option.
The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.
Q. Is this representative of Dr. Dembski's views on the purpose for intelligent design?
A. Very much so. In fact, he stated in other places, most notably in remarks he made to a meeting of the national religious broadcasters, that the chief obstacle for people to come to Christ was Darwinian naturalism.
Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit 359? Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes, this is an essay written by Dr. Dembski entitled What Every Theologian Should Know About Creation, Evolution, and Design. I believe this was written in about 1995 or 1996.
Q. Matt, can you go to the first highlighted passage?
A. Are you ready for me to read this?
Q. Sure, go ahead.
A. The title is What Every Theologian Should Know About Creation, Evolution, and Design. Quote, From its inception, Darwinism posed a challenge to Christian theology. Darwinism threatened to under the church's understanding of creation and therewith the understanding of the origin of human life, end quote.
Q. Matt, could you go to the next passage, please?
A. Quote, First off, design is not young-earth creationism. This is not to say that there are no young-earth creationists who are also design theorists. Paul Nelson and Siegfried Scherer come to mind. For the sake of argument, design theorists are willing tacitly to accept the standard scientific dates for the origin of the earth and the origin of the universe; that is, i.e., 4 to 5 billion years for the earth, 10 to 20 billion years for the universe, and reason from there. The point is that, design theory does not stand or fall with what age one assigns to the universe, end quote.
Q. Tacit acceptance. Is that the way most of the scientific community treats the age of the earth?
A. No, the scientific community doesn't hesitate to acknowledge the age of the earth as several billion years old.
Q. Is this an example of the big tent proposition?
A. Yes, this is an example of the big tent strategy in which the desire is not to alienate young-earth creationists. They simply don't want to discuss the issue of the age of the earth. They want to defer that until intelligent design reaches the goals that they have set out.
Q. Matt, could you go to Exhibit 390, please? Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes, this is Dr. Dembski's book. I believe it's 1998. The title is Intelligent Design, The Bridge Between Science and Theology.
Q. Matt, could you go to the highlighted passage in that document?
A. Actually, I think this book is 1999. Quote, The point to understand here is that Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory, but always a completion.
Q. Matt, could you go to Exhibit 394? Do you recognize this cover page here?
A. Yes, that's one of Dr. Dembski's recent books entitled The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design.
Q. Could you highlight, go to the highlighted passage? This is on page 22 of the book. Could you highlight that?
A. Quote, Theism, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, holds that God by wisdom created the world. The origin of the world and its subsequent ordering thus result from the designing activity of an intelligent agent, God.
Naturalism, on the other hand, allows no place for intelligent agency, except at the end of a blind, purposeless, material process, end quote.
Q. The tough question is, who is the intelligent designer? Do we know what Dr. Dembski's answer is?
A. This is a book about intelligent design, and he has specifically named the intelligent designer as God.
Q. And finally, could you go to Exhibit P-357? Do you recognize this cover page here?
A. Yes, this is the cover page to the July/August 1999 issue of Touchstone, a journal of mere Christianity. This was a special issue devoted exclusively to intelligent design. This issue was later published as a book called Signs of Intelligence. And this is the issue five years ago of the anniversary issue, July/August, 2004.
Q. Matt, could you go to the cover page of the article by Dr. Dembski and highlight the title? Could you read that?
A. The title of Dr. Dembski's article is Signs of Intelligence, A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design.
Q. Matt, could you highlight the last paragraph of the article? Could you read that into the record?
A. This is the last paragraph. Quote, The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality.
Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory, end quote.
Q. So like Mr. Johnson, William Dembski locates intelligent design in the Bible in the Book of John?
A. He specifically locates it. He defines it as beginning with the Book of John.
Q. And can you tell us how the Book of John begins?
A. In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was God.
MR ROTHSCHILD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. This would probably be an appropriate time for us to take our afternoon break, so why don't we do that. And we'll reassemble at 3:00 to commence cross examination of this witness. We'll be in recess for 20 minutes.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at 2:40 p.m. and proceedings reconvened at 3:07 p.m.)