|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P025
Trial transcript: Day 7 (October 6), AM Session, Part 1
THE COURT: Good morning to all. We resume with Professor Forrest's testimony, and we remain in Mr. Thompson's cross-examination.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Good morning, Professor Forrest.
A. Good morning.
Q. I'm going to ask you to refer to your expert witness report. Do you have a copy of that with you?
A. I do.
Q. On the first page of that report, under one, conclusions about the intelligent design creationist movement, you state, My area of expertise is the nature and strategy of the intelligent design creationist movement.
When did you first hear about the phrase "intelligent design creationist movement"?
A. In exactly those terms?
Q. Or let's focus it a little more, limit it to "intelligent design creationist." When did you first hear that phrase?
A. That came up in 1994 when I was involved in efforts to prevent the introduction into the science classes of Livingston Parish when I was involved in that effort that we talked about yesterday.
Q. And isn't it true that the proponents of intelligent design do not use that phrase, "intelligent design creationist"?
A. They don't like to be called creationists.
Q. I'm talking about the phrase. Is it true that they themselves do not use the phrase "intelligent design creationist"?
A. That's correct, they don't use that phrase.
Q. And it's true, also, that that phrase is used by people who are critical of the intelligent design theory. Isn't that correct?
A. That phrase is used by critics of the movement.
Q. So, really, it's a pejorative term?
A. No, sir, it's a descriptive term.
Q. But it's used by people who are critical of the movement?
A. People who are critical of the movement because they understand it as a creationist movement. They see it for what it is.
Q. And so it is a description that those who are opposed to intelligent design use?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, during your testimony yesterday, you identified Professor Michael Behe as one of the leaders of the intelligent design movement. Is that an accurate description of your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to add any descriptives to that?
A. I can't think of any that I need to add. He is one of the very early members of the group.
Q. Yet you barely mention Professor Behe in your expert report. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. I think you've mentioned him in one line. Isn't that correct?
A. In my report?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm sorry, I don't have a count of the lines in which I mentioned him.
Q. Okay. I want you to go to Page 48 of your expert report. And under the paragraph, No intentions to follow standard procedure for scientific peer review, that subheading, do you see that there?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. In about the middle of the paragraph starts the sentence, Kenneth Miller, an evolutionary biologist at Brown University, who has published scientific criticism of Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, has commented on Behe's refusal to avail himself of this opportunity. And that is an opportunity to, I guess, discuss his concept in front of various conferences, scientists. Is that correct?
A. Yes. Dr. Behe is a member of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. If you look at the Web site for that organization, it states that its members have the right to make presentations on any subject of their choice at their meetings. Dr. Behe has never availed himself of that opportunity, despite the fact that he is a member of that organization.
Q. And what is interesting in your report is the fact that you acknowledge that Kenneth Miller has published scientific criticisms of Behe's irreducible complexity concept.
A. Yes.
Q. So there is a controversy going on between scientists regarding the concept of irreducible complexity. Is that correct?
A. No, sir, not of the kind that the Discovery Institute is telling people that there is. The controversy that the intelligent design proponents are trying to convince people exists is a controversy over the status of evolutionary theory within the mainstream scientific community. That controversy is nonexistent, and that is what Dr. Miller is responding to.
Q. Well, he's publishing scientific criticisms. Is that correct?
A. He is a scientist who is responding to the nonscientific claims of Dr. Behe. He has the position as a scientist which gives him the prerogative to do that.
Q. And so he is going around and talking about and criticizing Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. Would that be a fair statement?
A. He is a very prominent critic of that, yes.
Q. Okay. And he is doing that at science meetings?
A. I'm not aware of what he has said at science meetings about this. Dr. Miller has been a very active voice in many different venues for the integrity of science.
Q. And then you go on in this paragraph, and it's a quote, quotation marks, it's a purported quote from Dr. Behe. Quote, If I thought I had an idea that would completely revolutionize cell biology in the same way that Dr. Behe -- excuse me, this is a quote -- that's not the quote I'm looking for.
A. This is Dr. Miller.
Q. Yeah, that's Miller. This is what Dr. Miller says. Quote, If I thought I had an idea that would completely revolutionize all cell biology in the same way that Professor Behe thinks he has an idea that would revolutionize biochemistry, I would be talking about the idea at every single meeting of my peers I could possibly get to. Is that an accurate quote from Ken Miller?
A. That is accurate.
Q. And then there's the purported quote from Behe that you've put in there. Behe, however, declines. Quote, I don't just think that large -- I just don't think that large scientific meetings are effective forums for presenting these ideas, period, end quote. Is that a quote that you got from Dr. Behe?
A. That is not a purported quote, sir. That is a quote in the Chronicle of Higher Education in the article by Beth McMurtrie. Both of the quotes by Dr. Miller and Dr. Behe come from that publication.
Q. It's a quote that you saw in a publication?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Behe is not an Evangelical Protestant, is he?
A. Dr. Behe is a Roman Catholic.
Q. So he's not a fundamentalist, as well?
A. He's not a fundamentalist Protestant.
Q. Okay. Have you ever personally interviewed Dr. Behe?
A. No.
Q. You are aware, I think we've discussed before, that he authored the book Darwin's Black Box?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read that book?
A. I have read parts of that book.
Q. Did you read parts of it where he describes the bacterial flagellum?
A. Yes.
Q. Does he describe it in religious terms?
A. No.
Q. Have you read the book where he discusses the blood clotting cascade?
A. A separate book? He only has --
Q. No, the same book where he's discussed -- in the same book where he's --
A. I've seen his discussion of the blood clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum in a number of places. The specific parts of Darwin's Black Box in which he speaks in religious terms, specifically the last chapter.
Q. But he describes the bacterial flagellum in scientific terms. Is that correct?
A. Scientific terms as he understands them.
Q. Observing the data. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And he talks about the blood clotting cascade, as well, in scientific terms?
A. Yes.
Q. He doesn't use religious terms to describe these biological systems, does he?
A. No, not in those descriptions. When he is referring to "design," though, that is a religious term.
Q. That wasn't my question.
A. When he introduces that into his discussion, then that would be a religious term.
Q. But that wasn't my question, was it?
A. In specific places in the book, yes, he does speak about it in a scientific fashion.
Q. My question was, when he discusses the blood clotting cascade, does he discuss that in scientific terms? And your answer was yes, as I understand it.
A. I said when he introduces the concept of design, then he's introducing it as a religious term. But, no, when he's discussing the blood clotting cascade, per se, yes, he's looking at it as a scientific idea, yes.
Q. And when he is discussing the blood clotting cascade, per se, he is not discussing it or describing it in religious terms, is he?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Your expert report does not even cite that book, does it?
A. Dr. Behe was not one of the primary subjects of my expert witness report.
Q. Well, the question is, your expert report does not even cite that book, does it?
A. No. It was not one of the primary objects that I looked at.
Q. Yet you considered him one of the leaders in the intelligent design movement. Is that correct?
A. I do.
Q. And your expert report does not even quote from the book, does it?
A. No.
Q. Okay. After you follow this quote of Dr. Behe, I just don't think that large scientific meetings are effective forums for presenting these ideas, end quote, you start the next sentence with, Yet, and you conclude that sentence with, he has made numerous presentations in churches, period.
A. Yes.
Q. That particular comment has nothing to do, does it, with the scientific validity of the concept of irreducible complexity?
A. The scientific validity of irreducible complexity is something that has to be addressed by somebody other than myself. I am not a scientist. Professor Miller has already addressed that. There was really no need for me to take that up in my expert witness report. It wasn't what I was asked to do. What I was asked to do is to document my research findings that this is a religious movement.
Dr. Behe, in his capacity as a participant in this movement, reflects the entire program. He does not make scientific presentations about an idea that he purports -- that he says is scientific. He does speak frequently about irreducible complexity and other aspects of his work in churches and other religious outlets.
That is the part of this issue that I was asked to cover. That is why I'm not talking about irreducible complexity in my report. That's not the area of my expertise.
Q. But yet you focus on the fact that he has made numerous presentations in churches?
A. Dr. Behe is the one that has made those presentations, and I am making people aware of that in my work.
Q. And this is a part of your scholarly study?
A. Yes. It's a part of the research that I did because it reflects the nature of the intelligent design movement.
Q. Are you aware that Dr. Behe has given many presentations in scientific settings regarding the concept of irreducible complexity?
A. Could you explain what those scientific settings are for me, please?
Q. The settings?
A. Yes. What are the settings that you're referring to?
Q. Okay. The Department of Biology, King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biology, University of South Florida; the Department of Chemistry, Villanova University; the symposium at Wheaton College; Department of Mathematics at the University of Texas; the Schilling Lecture on Science and Religion, Department of History and Religious Studies, Pennsylvania State University; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University; Department of Chemistry, Colgate University; Department of Genetics, University of Georgia; Department of Biochemistry, University of Minnesota; the Guy F. Lipscomb Lecture, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of South Carolina; panel discussions with Lynn Margulis and other scholars, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Department of Biochemistry at Mayo Clinic; the Brooklyn section of the American Chemical Society; the Gordon Research Conference on Organic Reactions and Processes in New Hampshire; Evolution, Darwinian Medicine Conference, Royal Society of Medicine in London; Baylor University, plenary lecture to the Nature of Nature; University of Aberdeen; Concordia College; Messiah College; Department of Philosophy at Wilkes University; American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting in Haverford College; University of New Mexico to the -- it was a special presentation to the Deans of Medical School; the Biotechnical Group at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Los Angeles National Laboratories in Los Alamos -- that was Los Alamos National Laboratories; American Museum of Natural History; Cornell University, introductory evolutionary biology class. That was actually the biology class of Professor William Provine, an ardent evolutionist. Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, undergraduate biochemical lecture; Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California; and the list goes on. You never mention any --
MR ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, objection. I just want to be clear, and I'm not suggesting -- I don't have personal knowledge, but is Mr. Thompson representing that all of these are presentations on intelligent design?
Because Professor Behe is a biochemist, has done work in the field of biochemistry separate from intelligent design, and I just want to make sure what's being represented here. I don't have personal knowledge, but I just want to make sure the record is clear on this point.
MR. THOMPSON: My question was, was she aware of presentations that Dr. Behe had made to various scientific organizations, because she never listed any of those.
MR ROTHSCHILD: And my objection stands.
THE COURT: Well, you don't know whether they were about intelligent design or about another subject?
MR. THOMPSON: I don't know that every one of them were, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That clarifies the question. You can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: I'm not -- I don't have knowledge of every single presentation that he's made, but I know that some of the presentations that you talked about were arranged by people who are sympathetic to his point of view as an intelligent design proponent.
For example, when he spoke of the Nature of Nature conference at Baylor, that was a conference that was organized by creationists. It was organized by members of the Discovery Institute. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics had a hand in that. That was not a bona fide scientific meeting.
And so these are not, you know -- these are not presentations in which he would be presenting intelligent design at a scientific meeting subject to peer review. He has stated himself that he chooses not to do that. Dr. Miller has pointed that out himself.
So many of his presentations are really -- they're not strictly scientific meetings. Many of the talks he gives on university campuses -- and I'm speaking about Dr. Behe -- are arranged by people who are sympathetic to his point of view, and some of them are arranged by campus youth ministries. That's a very frequent sponsor of some of the talks that he gives. So I'm familiar with some of those, and I do not agree that he's making strictly scientific presentations.
And from the publications that I found for Dr. Behe in the scientific databases, not a single one of those publications that's in a peer-reviewed scientific journal presents intelligent design as a biological theory. He simply does not do that kind of work. And when he was asked at the Baylor conference about the research in intelligent design, he expressed the hope that he hoped somebody would eventually do it. He himself does not do it.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. The Nature of Nature conference, there were Darwinists who gave lectures at that conference, were there not?
A. Yes.
Q. So they weren't all intelligent design advocates, were they?
A. They were chiefly that, chiefly intelligent design advocates. There were people representing the evolutionary point of view. That conference was designed that way by the people who organized it.
Q. And, in fact, you were attempting to keep Darwin evolutionists out of that conference, were you not?
A. No, sir, that is false. And I can explain that to you, if you wish.
Q. I will get into that in a few minutes. What's interesting, however, is that in your report, you throw out the comment that "yet he has made numerous presentations in churches."
The question I have for you is, what is the academic criteria or methodology you use to make the claim that Dr. Behe gives presentations at churches but yet leave out those academic presentations I just mentioned?
A. Sir, I am describing his activities. He does not make scientific presentations using intelligent design as a biological theory at bona fide scientific peer-review conferences. He does not do that. You will not find that reflected in his professional work.
In his professional work as a biochemist, he himself does not use "intelligent design." He doesn't use the term. I am reflecting his activities as he has carried them out. I simply did not throw out this term. This is an accurate statement of what Dr. Behe chooses to do.
Q. And so I'm still trying to understand the academic methodology or the criteria that you're using to make a statement that he speaks at churches but keep out the statements that he has spoken at all these other conferences that I mentioned. Even though some of them may not be, you know, dealing with intelligent design, you just leave totally out of your report that he does make statements.
A. Dr. Behe is discussed extensively in my book. It is not as though he is totally ignored in my work. The aspect of this issue that I was asked to discuss are his activities as an intelligent design proponent. I am reporting those accurately.
He makes numerous presentations. He does not and has not and has expressed an intention not to put himself through the process of peer review as reflected in the statement that is in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I am simply accurately -- my methodology is to tell the truth about what he does.
Q. Well, I think you misrepresented his quote. He just said, quote, I just don't think that large scientific meetings are effective forums for presenting these ideas, not that he is not subjecting himself to peer review.
MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. He's arguing with the witness now.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm asking a question. I don't think it was in an argument form.
THE COURT: Well, that was a declarative statement. That wasn't a question. If you want to phrase it as a question, you can do that. The objection is sustained.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Isn't it true that all he stated was he just doesn't think large scientific meetings are effective forums for presenting his ideas? Isn't that all he said?
A. Sir, this is part of the peer-review process. Scientists attend meetings -- there are certain standards of scholarship. It doesn't matter what your discipline is, you understand these standards of scholarship. And one of the standards of scholarship in science is that you submit your ideas to peer review in a scientific debate. Dr. Behe is the person who has chosen not to do that, and I am reflecting that.
Q. Would it be an accurate statement that there have been many comments about his book, Darwin's Black Box, by scientists?
A. Yes, there have been many comments about his book by scientists.
Q. And so scientists can read the book, and they have printed commentary, criticisms of his concept of irreducible complexity. Is that true?
A. Yes. They are responding to what they consider an inaccurate portrayal, not only of the science, but they're also objecting to his espousing the idea of intelligent design. The fact that scientists have responded to his work does not make his work in itself scientific.
Q. You just indicated that's a part of the scientific process, is it not?
A. The process of scientific peer review, which Dr. Behe, as an advocate of what he purports to be a scientific theory, is to present those ideas before his scientific peers at meetings to have them reviewed, to have them critiqued, and then to have those ideas survive that process so that they can be presented as scientific ideas in a scientific journal. Dr. Behe has not done that.
Q. You're not saying, I don't think, that all of these meetings that I mentioned, that there were not scientists there that were critiquing him, were you?
A. I'm sure there were scientists at lots of these meetings. That does not make these meetings part of the scientific review process.
Q. I guess the question I have to you at this point with regard to what you put in your report, don't you think that the way you set that down was a gross misrepresentation of what Dr. Behe is all about?
A. No, sir. It's an accurate representation.
Q. In other words, the validity of a particular scientific concept is based upon the fact that this proponent goes to church?
A. Scientists do not usually defend their ideas in churches, sir. Dr. Behe does that frequently. If he had a valid scientific idea to present, he would find a valid scientific outlet for it. He would submit it to peer review by his fellow scientists. He himself has chosen not to do that.
Q. Well, do you believe that it would be a fallacious argument for me to make the statement Dr. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is invalid because he goes to church and makes comments about that concept?
A. I have not said that it's invalid because he does it in churches. Dr. Behe, by his activities, is reflecting the fact that he has no valid science to present.
Q. Well, again, you are not a scientist, are you?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Okay.
A. My coauthor is.
Q. And so when you make those kinds of statements, you are going outside of your bounds of expertise. Is that correct?
A. People who are well acquainted with this issue and who make an effort to inform themselves about the current state of the science, which I have made a great deal of effort to do, understand that if Dr. Behe had scientific data to present, he could do that. It's not hard to understand that he hasn't done it.
Q. So my question is, you don't hold yourself out as an expert in science, do you?
A. No, sir, I've never claimed to do that. And I do not speak to his scientific -- his purported scientific defenses of irreducible complexity. Dr. Miller has done that very well.
Q. And there is a dispute between Dr. Miller and Dr. Behe about whether Dr. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity could be explained by natural selection. Isn't that correct?
A. Some of the country's major scientists, a number of major scientists have critiqued Dr. Behe's claims. Dr. Miller is not an isolated voice. Dr. Behe's work has been looked at by many of the most prominent scientists in the country. They are unanimous in their rejection of what he has to say. And irreducible complexity itself is a very old creationist idea. It is not new.
Q. And so basically what you said is a lot of scientists have looked at Dr. Behe's work and have critiqued it. Correct?
A. They have offered very thoughtful, detailed criticisms of it to show why he is wrong.
Q. Based on scientific principles. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. From their standpoint.
Q. You are not meaning to suggest that science is based upon majority vote, are you?
A. It's based on a consensus. It's not simply a vote.
Q. Well, would it be accurate to say that many scientific theories that were considered invalid by the community of science have ultimately become the consensus of the community of science?
A. Could you give me an example, please?
Q. The big bang theory.
MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. We're spending a lot of time asking this witness questions about science after Mr. Thompson has taken pains to point out that she's not an expert in that field, rather than the testimony she's actually given.
MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, the only reason I ask these questions is because she keeps on making scientific commentary, and I want to probe as to exactly where her limits of scientific experience end.
THE COURT: Well, she said she's not a scientist. I'm going to overrule the objection. I'll allow you some latitude in this area, but I'm not so sure that this is particularly helpful to me. I will tell you that. Be guided by that.
MR. THOMPSON: I will be guided by that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll give you some latitude. You can proceed.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Just to close up that line of inquiry, the big bang theory was espoused by a French priest, Belgian French priest. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the time that he propounded that theory, most of the scientific community thought he was wrong. Correct?
A. That happens.
Q. Okay. And, in fact, Einstein, our great scientist, called him a buffoon. Isn't that correct?
A. I'm not familiar with that specific comment, but if you say so.
Q. And ultimately it became the consensus of the scientific community?
A. Because it survived a very rigorous testing process and it was submitted to review by scientific peers. That has not happened with intelligent design.
Q. Well, science is an ongoing process, is it not? It starts someplace, and then you have the critiques that go on?
A. Yes. But I would remind you that the intelligent design strategy has now been in execution for almost 14 years, and they have presented absolutely nothing in the way of science to support their claims.
And they have themselves admitted, I might also recall from yesterday, just as recently as August of last year, Dr. Nelson pointed out, in an interview which he shared with major leaders of this movement, that they have no theory of biological design. They have nothing.
Q. We will address that. We did have some discussion yesterday about Dr. Bill Dembski. Correct?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And he is another leader, so-called leader of the intelligent design movement?
A. One of its early founders or early members of the Wedge strategy.
Q. And I recall you did acknowledge that he had written a book, The Design Inference?
A. Yes, I believe that was his first book.
Q. And that Design Inference book is an academic monograph?
A. It was his dissertation.
Q. On intelligent design?
A. I don't believe so. I have two conflicting statements from Dr. Dembski on that. When Dr. Dembski presented testimony in September, 2003, before the Texas Board of Education, when the Discovery Institute involved itself in the effort to choose science textbooks, Dr. Dembski presented to the board a list of works which he said supported intelligent design. He included his book The Design Inference in that list.
But two months before making that list, he had posted the comment on a Web site that he has that that book did not address the implications of biological design. It did not -- he himself wrote that about his own book, The Design Inference.
Q. Well, his book was a book on mathematical probabilities?
A. That's part of his work as a mathematician.
Q. Right. He's not a biologist, is he?
A. He has no formal credentials in science.
Q. But you will agree with me then that The Design Inference is an academic monograph on intelligent design based upon Dr. Dembski's mathematical formulations?
A. It depends on what you mean by a monograph on intelligent design. He himself is giving -- has given conflicting statements about that.
Q. Well, this monograph was published by Cambridge University Press. Are you aware of that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was published as a part of their monograph series entitled, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision. Are you aware of that?
A. That's correct.
Q. A question I have for you is, why was not his book, The Design Inference, mentioned in your expert report?
A. That book lies outside my area of expertise. I don't have the technical background to evaluate that book. The most important book that I looked at is the book in which he explains intelligent design to his lay audience. And in that book, he explains it in overtly religious terms. He himself stated, as I just pointed out, that when he wrote The Design Inference, it did not address the implications of design for biology.
Q. So that if a scientist describes their work in overtly religious terms, that means the work is invalid?
A. Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design as a religious idea. I believe that came out yesterday. If it's a scientific idea, you certainly don't define it as the logos theology of John's Gospel.
Q. Would you agree that many scientific theories have religious implications?
A. Just about anything you could talk about has religious implications.
Q. So that if a scientist wants to talk about the religious implications of his or her theory, they are certainly welcome to do that. Right?
A. Yes, they are welcome to do that. But when you're talking about intelligent design, you're not talking about something that has religious implications, you are talking about something which is, in essence, religious itself.
Intelligent design is essentially a religious idea. So it's not merely that we're talking about a scientific idea with religious implications. That is not the case.
Q. Well, again, there is some dispute as to whether intelligent design is a religious concept or not. But you will agree that Dr. Behe is doing biological studies on irreducible complexity as a part of the intelligent design theory. Correct?
A. No, sir, he's not doing scientific research to support that idea.
Q. You don't consider what Dr. Behe has done with reference to the bacterial flagellum as scientific research?
A. Dr. Behe wrote a book for the popular audience. That's what Darwin's Black Box is. It's a book for the popular audience.
Now, the fact that he talks about science in that book does not make it a discussion of a genuine scientific idea. When he gets to the last chapter of that book, he is actually arguing for supernatural explanations in science. That is not a genuine scientific idea.
Q. There are Darwinists that do the same thing, isn't that true, that argue a philosophical or a religious idea based upon their scientific theories and understandings?
A. Could you tell me who specifically you're speaking about?
Q. Well, yes. Richard Dawkins, who states the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Are those religious statements by a Darwinist?
A. Those are his personal points of view, which he is certainly fully entitled to express.
Q. As is Dr. Behe?
A. Yes.
Q. As is Dr. Dembski?
A. Yes. They are entitled to express their personal points of view. What they are not entitled to do is have those religious ideas presented in a science class to children as a scientific theory.
Q. Well, that's not the question I asked you. But it is Richard Dawkins who uses a theory of evolution to propound what I would say is religious and philosophical ideas. Is that correct?
A. He does. And some people have different ideas about that, and they express them differently. He's one voice, and he takes his own point of view.
Q. Do you know who Peter Singer is?
A. Yes. He's a philosopher.
Q. And he is a professor at a university?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever heard this comment from him, Evolution teaches us that we are animals so that sex across the species barrier ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings? Have you ever heard him say that?
A. I haven't heard that specific comment.
Q. Okay. What about Randy Thornhill, do you know who he is?
A. No.
Q. Or Craig Palmer?
A. Craig Palmer?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm sorry.
Q. Okay. These individuals indicate rape is a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of human evolutionary heritage akin to the leopard's spots and giraffe's elongated neck? Have you ever heard that?
A. No, sir. That's not connected to my work.
Q. How about the statement from Steve Weinberg, and we know -- you discussed Steve Weinberg. You know who he is. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he said, quote, I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief and that I'm all for that. One of the great things that, in fact, has driven me in my life is a feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science to free people from superstition. Have you heard that?
MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered. We're just repeating the same cross-examination from yesterday.
MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, I'm trying to help her. She asked for various Darwinist evolutionary concepts which have led to other philosophical and religious --
THE COURT: I'm not sure it was asked in exactly that form. I'll overrule the objection. You can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, would you repeat the last thing? What is your question, sir?
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. This was by Steve Weinberg, the quote by Steve Weinberg.
A. Right.
Q. I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that. One of the great things that, in fact, has driven me in my life is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science to free people from superstition. Have you heard that comment?
A. You read it yesterday.
Q. Yes. And that is going beyond the actual theory of evolution to a philosophical or religious point of view?
A. Yes, sir, it's a very uncontroversial fact that scientists don't always speak purely as scientists. Those comments are not what won Professor Weinberg his Nobel Prize. What won him his Nobel Prize was his work in science. Over and above that, he's free to take any point of view that he chooses.
Q. Yesterday I mentioned your claim that Senator Santorum's amendment was a first step to a theocratic state, and you asked where that statement was made. Does that refresh your recollection?
A. You indicated that you have --
MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection. That mischaracterizes the testimony.
THE COURT: In what way?
MR ROTHSCHILD: He referred to statements in her book by Mr. Santorum, and she asked to look at her book.
THE COURT: Well, it might be a distinction without a difference. She asked to see the statement in the context of the book. Let's move on.
MR. THOMPSON: Let me ask it in a different way, if I may, Your Honor.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Is it your position that Senator Santorum's amendment, as adopted in the final conference report, is a first step in a theocratic state?
A. Sir, you indicated that you had a letter that I had written?
Q. Forget about the letter right now. I'm asking you the question.
A. Senator Santorum cooperated with the intelligent design proponents. Phillip Johnson crafted that entry, which was first filed as a sense of the senate resolution. Senator Santorum is a very strong supporter of intelligent design. He has chosen to align himself with their effort.
Q. And then my question to you again is, is it your opinion that that amendment was a first step toward a theocratic state?
A. That amendment is part of the Wedge strategy, and the Wedge strategy itself is an effort to overturn everything that they consider to be detrimental to American society. The Wedge strategy is very clear, and the Santorum amendment is part of that. The Wedge strategy is an effort to, as they say, completely overturn the effects of scientific materialism on American culture.
They have spoken many times, intelligent design proponents have spoken many times of their dislike of secular culture, their dislike of secular education, their dislike of secular government. The Santorum amendment was part of that effort.
Q. So is it your opinion then that the Santorum amendment was a first step toward a theocratic state?
A. It's a part of the continuing effort to overturn the secular basis of American culture. It's part of the Wedge strategy.
Q. You still haven't answered my question, Professor Forrest. Is it your opinion that Senator Santorum's amendment was a first step toward a theocratic state?
A. I think it is a step which points in that direction, yes, sir.
Q. Have you heard a statement by President Bush in the last several weeks that we should be teaching intelligent design alongside evolution?
A. Yes. The statement he made in early August?
Q. Yes. And do you believe that is also a step toward a theocratic state?
A. I can't tell you what was in the President's mind. I only know what he said. I am familiar with what the intelligent design proponents are doing. I'm familiar with their strategy. What the President was thinking when he made that statement is not -- I'm not privy to that.
Q. In your book -- and I'm referring to your book now Creationism's Trojan Horse -- you make a statement, and it's on Page, I believe, 271 in your book, you make a statement in your book on Page 271, Dobson -- this is in the middle of the page.
A. Yes.
Q. Referring to James Dobson, Director of Focus on the Family, Dobson sees America as gravely threatened by secular humanism.
A. I'm sorry, let me find the line.
Q. Okay. It's about in the middle of the page.
A. I've got it.
Q. The sentence is, and I quote, Promoting the religious right propaganda that church/state separation is a myth, Dobson sees America as gravely threatened by secular humanism. Is that an opinion that you came by that Dobson seems gravely -- said he's gravely threatened by secular humanism?
A. That reflects Dr. Dobson's position as he himself has explained it.
Q. That part, gravely threatened by secular humanism, is that an opinion of yours, or has he made that actual statement?
A. That reflects his statements, his sentiments as he has expressed them on many occasions.
Q. And you believe Dr. Dobson is a theocratic extremist. Is that true?
A. I believe Dr. Dobson has very extreme views, yes, I do.
Q. And you would characterize him as a theocratic extremist?
A. I would.
Q. What about D. James Kennedy, do you know who he is?
A. Certainly. I've written about him.
Q. And he is whom?
A. He is the founder of Coral Ridge Ministries in Coral Ridge, Florida.
Q. And you also characterized Dr. D. James Kennedy as another religious right operative?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what do you mean by the word "operative"?
A. He's very active in the religious right effort to undermine secular public education, secular government. He is very active. I would call him an activist.
Q. And he is also characterized as a theocratic extremist?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in writing your book, Creationism's Trojan Horse, how long did it take you?
A. Three and a half years.
Q. How long after you did your research did you work on the manuscript?
A. I did research almost up until the time it was published. We were adding material almost at the very last -- for as long as we could.
Q. And you had a coauthor, as well?
A. Yes, I have a coauthor.
Q. How was that -- how did that work? How did you and the coauthor decide upon the actual final draft?
A. I had a complete draft at one point containing the research I had done on the intelligent design movement. When Professor Gross agreed to become my coauthor, we went back through the entire draft. He did some extensive additions in terms of critiquing the scientific claims of the intelligent design proponents. He and I both went through every word of every chapter. We both were integrally involved in reworking my original manuscript, and he added his scientific critique to it.
Q. And how long did that process take where Dr. Gross became involved in actually going through the manuscript?
A. I'm trying to think exactly when he came on as the coauthor. We worked for at least two years together. It was quite a long time.
Q. And can you give me an idea how many drafts you all developed?
A. Too many to count.
Q. Okay.
A. We revised this book many, many times. It's a product of a great deal of hard work.
Q. You are not, in your review of Pandas and People and the various drafts that were put up on the display, you are not suggesting that school boards must review all the drafts leading up to the final product before they approve a reference book to put in their library, are you?
A. I'm not suggesting that school boards should have reviewed drafts of manuscripts before they were published. Is that your question?
Q. The various drafts of manuscripts.
A. No, I didn't suggest that.
Q. Okay. And you're not suggesting that school boards should do background investigations on the religious and political leanings and activities of the authors of books before they put those books in the library, are you?
A. I didn't suggest that.
Q. You have no evidence showing that any member of the Dover School Board or the Dover School Board administration was aware of the various drafts of Pandas and People, do you?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever have an opportunity to review the transcript of the deposition of Jon Buell?
A. Yes.
Q. He's the FTE founder.
A. Yes, I have the transcript.
Q. And are you aware that Mr. Buell, under oath, stated that there was never any contact between FTE, himself, and any members of the Dover Area School District or administrators?
A. I don't recall that specific part of the transcript, sir. I'm sure if it's in there, that's what he said.
Q. Well, do you have any evidence at all that there was any contact between --
A. No.
Q. -- FTE and Jon Buell and any members of the Dover Area School Board or the school board administrators?
A. No, I don't have evidence of that.
Q. Now, there were several displays put up that had graphs of word counts. Would you just go through how you developed those graphs?
A. Those drafts were developed by staff at the National Center for Science Education. You're referring to the word counts in the Pandas books, the various drafts?
Q. Yes, right.
A. There was a firm that I believe was working with the legal team that provided scans of those drafts in what is called ASCII text. That's just plain, unformatted text. Based on those drafts, the word counts were run.
It's very easy to run a word count for a specific word or a cognate of a word. The NCSE staff ran the word count and made the charts, and I re-created some of the word counts just to see how they had done it and to verify it. I got exactly the same results they did.
Q. Okay. I've got two graphs that were prepared, and I'm not sure how I can identify them. I guess I can. One has the -- there are two phrases. One is "creation" and "design."
A. That was the first graph.
Q. And then there's a second graph that has "creation" with an IS at the end and "intelligent design."
A. That was the second one, yes.
Q. Now, the graph here on the left side of the page, and any graph, has -- on either one of the graphs, I should say, starts from zero at the bottom and goes up to 300. That's referring to the "creation" and "design" graph. What do these numbers mean on the left side of the graph?
A. The number of times a word or a cognate would be used.
Q. Okay. Taking the graph that describes "creation" and "design" word counts, it starts at 150. Does that mean "creation," which is in red, was used 150 times?
A. Is that the first graph you've got where we were looking for "creation" and then "design"?
Q. Correct.
A. Yes, it would represent finding that word in the text about 150 times.
MR ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, can I suggest that we put them up on the witness's monitor and on the screen?
MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. The top, as I understand it, the top display is the one that deals with "creation" and "design." And the word for -- "creation" appeared at the beginning of the graph 150 times?
A. That's what -- the graph reflects the actual word counts.
Q. And then the blue line dealing with the word "design" is just below the 50 line. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the graph goes up and down towards the last book, Of Pandas and People, which is edited or published in 1993 where -- can you give me the word count for "creation" in that edition?
A. I'm sorry, which one are you -- 1993?
Q. Yes, the last one.
A. Okay. Well, it shows that it's far fewer than 50. If you're looking at the far right side of the graph -- right?
Q. Right.
A. Pandas, 1993?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, it's well below 50.
Q. And the word "design," how high is that?
A. That is -- I'm sorry, it's right here. The word "design" in the 1993 version is something over 200.
Q. Now, how many total words were in Of Pandas and People?
A. Oh, sir, I'm sorry, I can't remember the total number of words.
Q. So we can't really put this in perspective to the whole book, can we?
A. I think you can. I think what this graph -- what this graph is intended to show is the sharp decline in the use of the term "creation" in the second, 1987 draft and the steep rise in the substitution of the term "design" for that word. That's what the graph is designed to show.
Q. So that you cannot tell the Court how many actual words there were in Of Pandas and People?
A. No. The total word count? No, sir, I don't remember that.
Q. So that it could possibly be that even if you go to 200 words of "design" in the last book, it might be miniscule compared to the number of words in that edition. Correct?
A. That's not a very long book. That book is probably less than 200 pages. It's quite a short book, actually.
Q. But please answer my question. You can't really determine the relative importance of that word unless you had the total word count?
A. What's important about this graph is not the total word count of the book, but the use of the word "creation" as opposed to the word "design." That's what the graph is designed to show.
What the graph is designed to show is that the word "design" was substituted for the word "creation," as you can see in the sharp decline in the use of the word "creation" and the sharp rise in the use of the word "design."
Q. Do you believe that it would have been appropriate academically to list the number of words in each edition?
A. Typically, in editions of textbooks, people are not concerned about the total number of words in the book, if I understood your question correctly.
Q. Well, maybe let me rephrase it. To get an idea of how important 200 times "design" was used, one should have an idea of how many total words there were in the book. Isn't that accurate?
A. In a book that short, which has only about six chapters and they're not that long, I think you're looking at significant word counts with respect to the word "creation" and the word "design." In a book that short, I think these findings are significant. The words were used pervasively throughout the book.
Q. Well, "significant" is a subjective opinion. Is that right?
A. "Significant" is not at mathematically precise word.
Q. Right. And so it would have been more mathematically accurate to at least give us the total word count in each edition of Pandas and People?
A. I'm sure we could provide that information if you wish. What is significant about this graph and the work that we did is that it shows very clearly that a word substitution was made, that the term "creation" was changed to the term "design." Not only -- a visual inspection reveals that quite clearly. This simply quantifies what we learned through visual inspection. A deliberate change was made.
Q. Would you consider Darwin's Origin of Species a scientific book?
A. Yes.
Q. You agree that it does have all kinds of references in it to intelligent design -- excuse me, to "design" in the book?
A. It refers to "special creation."
Q. And it talks about the Creator?
A. There is a reference near the end of the book in one edition to that, yes.
Q. And would you think that by referring to "design" and the "Creator," that that makes the Origin of Species a religious book?
A. No, it doesn't make it a religious book. You have to look at what Darwin was doing. The prevailing explanation up until Darwin was that the data in the geological record, for example, was -- reflected the work of a supernatural creator. That was the prevailing explanation.
Now, in order to make his case, Darwin had to mention the prevailing explanation. He simply had to because it was the one that he was arguing -- that he was presenting evidence to show that his explanation works better.
It's not a surprise that he would incorporate mentions of special creation in his book because he's arguing that this cannot be a scientific explanation that accounts for what we see. It's not surprising that he would talk about it.
Q. What about the breath of the Creator? That's a religious term.
A. If you know the background of Darwin's writing of that book, you know that Darwin was very concerned about the effect of that book on the religious sensibilities of people about whom he cared quite deeply. He was very respectful of that.
He added that as a gesture of respect to the idea that some people believed that. Darwin himself did not believe that the origin of life was a question that he could answer, and he never addressed it. It was made as a nod to the religious sensibilities of some of his readers.
Q. Would you object if Darwin's Origin of Species was placed in a school library?
A. I would not.
Q. And reference was made to it in a curriculum?
A. I would not.
Q. Even though it did have that nod to religion in it?
A. I would not object.
Q. Okay. Darwin also wrote the book Descent of Man, I believe it was.
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that book about?
A. That is a book in which he applies his ideas about natural selection to the human species. He does not do that in the Origin of Species.
Q. That book also has some philosophical -- strike that. You teach a course on critical thinking?
A. I do.
Q. And what do you discuss in that course? What are the major topics?
A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part of your question.
Q. What are the major topics? What do you discuss in that course?
A. That's a course in which students learn the basics of logic, the difference between deductive arguments and inductive arguments. They learn about the different types of propositions that can be used in arguments. They learn about the logical fallacies. They do a good deal of exercises learning those thinking skills.
Q. Would it be a logical fallacy to hold that a particular scientific theory is invalid because of the religious motivations of its proponents?
A. A scientific theory is not invalid simply because people have religious motivations in their work.
Q. Would you believe it's a logical fallacy to hold that a particular scientific theory is invalid because of the religious affiliation of its proponents?
A. Certainly not.
Q. Now, as I recall, you also use in your -- one of your course of studies, I don't know if it's the critical thinking course, but the Appleman reader, Darwin's Appleman reader?
A. Philip Appleman is the editor of the Norton Critical Edition of Darwin, that's correct.
Q. And what course did you use that for?
A. That's in my graduate seminar in the History of Western Thought.
Q. And how do you use that book?
A. My graduate students read the excerpts in that book from the Origin of Species, from The Descent of Man, and they read some of the critical essays in the back.
Q. And one of the critical essays they read is Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe?
A. There's an excerpt, yes.
Q. And that is to give them a critical view of Darwin's theory of evolution?
A. Those essays are included to show that creationists have made various objections to the theory of evolution. Mr. Appleman is trying to give a full panoply of the responses to Darwin's theory.
Q. Does he actually use the purpose of Darwin's theory -- the purpose of Michael Behe's Black Box is to show what creationists think?
A. It's in a section in which various -- there are various responses to that. I believe it's in the same section as Eugenie Scott's response, and it is part of the section that deals with creationist objections.
Q. But he doesn't call Dr. Behe a creationist, does he?
A. Mr. Appleman?
Q. Yes.
A. He doesn't call Dr. Behe a creationist in that book.
Q. Do you think that that is a valuable book for the education of your students?
A. It's valuable in that it shows that there have been nonscientific objections to evolutionary theory. It's valuable in that it shows something of the history of the creationist effort in the United States, the responses to Darwin's theory.
Q. Do you have any idea why they would pick Darwin's -- excuse me, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box to do that?
A. To show the full nature of the creationist response. I think that it's intended to be represented as part of creationists' objections to Darwin's theories.
Q. Well, isn't it true that the part that he picks deals with Dr. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity?
A. That's true.
Q. Now, is it necessary for a scientist to develop a scientific theory by doing lab work?
A. That's part of science. There are certain areas of science in which that is appropriate.
Q. Is it necessary to a scientific theory that the theory's proponent himself do lab work?
A. I should think that if a person purports to have a scientific theory, that person would be closely involved in whatever research is necessary to substantiate that claim.
Q. Well, there are various ways of -- I'm not sure what you mean by "closely involved."
A. Doing research.
Q. Doing the research. So a theory is only valid if the proponent of the theory himself does the research?
A. I should think that if a person is a proponent of a theory in the way that Dr. Behe claims to be, he would be in the front line of the research, he would be involved in it himself.
Q. I'm not sure if you answered my question. Is it yes or --
A. I'm sorry, that's what I thought you were getting at.
Q. Well, just please answer my question. Do you believe that the proponent of a theory has to actually do the lab research for that theory to be valid?
A. If a person is a proponent of a scientific theory, that person should be engaged in whatever research is appropriate to the establishment of that theory, whatever it might be. It might not necessarily be working in a laboratory. It might be something else. There's fieldwork, for example, that's involved.
Q. What about reading peer-review articles, could that be sufficient for a valid scientific theory?
A. No, sir. Reading peer-reviewed articles is not doing research. Reading peer-reviewed articles is reviewing the research. It's not the first line of science, which is to produce the data. If you're doing -- if you are doing scientific research, you are producing data.
Q. So that failure to do scientific research on a particular theory that a scientist propounds makes that theory invalid?
A. Failure to produce any data at all for what is presented as a scientific theory indicates that you don't have a theory.
Q. Well, will you agree that Albert Einstein developed the theory of relativity?
A. May I make a distinction here just for the sake of precision?
Q. Sure.
A. There is a difference -- a theory is well-established science. It is something that's far beyond the stage of initial research. When you propose an idea in science that is in its preliminary stages of research, what you have is a hypothesis. And by the time you call something a theory in science, it is far beyond that stage. It means that it is a very well-confirmed scientific explanation.
So when a person purports to have a scientific theory, if he's using the term accurately, then the research has, by and large, already been done. It may still be ongoing, just as research in evolutionary biology is ongoing.
But the fact that evolutionary theory is called a theory means that it is already established with abundant and consistent research as a scientific explanation. It's not hypothetical by that stage.
Q. There are different -- you will agree that there are different definitions of theory?
A. In science, there's one, and that is that it is an explanation that has been confirmed.
Q. There are scientists who have what they call theories that they are just trying to do the research on. They have a theory that this may be an explanation of certain empirical data, and they call it a theory, but it is not the same definition of "theory" as I understand that you're using.
A. The way you're using it is very imprecise. It's maybe the layman's use of the term "theory." Laymen typically don't understand theory in the scientific sense.
If you are talking about a scientific theory in the precise sense in which it is used in science, you are talking about a confirmed hypothesis, a well-established, well-founded explanation, which is not likely to change. It's conceivable that it could, but it's not likely to.
Q. Well, you will agree that Albert Einstein developed the theory of relativity?
A. That's how it's referred to.
Q. And at the time he did that, he did not have a lab, did he?
A. I believe he did a great deal of theoretical work, as he was a theoretical physicist.
Q. In fact, he was a clerk in the patent office, was he not?
A. He was, he was.
Q. And so he was just looking at the data that was already there and developed an explanation for that data. Isn't that correct?
A. But Einstein worked in close association with a great many other people. He didn't just sit in isolation in the customs office or wherever he worked. He worked in close association with people who were integrally involved in scientific research. What Dr. Einstein did, as I understand it, was theoretical physics. There are different areas of physics.
Q. Are you aware of Francis Crick and James Watson as the co-discoverers of the famous double helix DNA molecule?
A. Yes.
Q. They basically looked at all the research that was already there. Isn't that correct?
A. I believe that they were also involved in the production of a great deal of research, too, themselves.
Q. Is it your understanding that they developed or, quote, discovered the architecture of the double helix DNA molecule --
A. Yes.
Q. -- without doing independent research?
A. Sir, I can't give you the specifics of what they did. Those two gentlemen were both scientists. They were both, during their lifetimes, very heavily involved in scientific research. I can't give you the specifics of their exact work on that particular area.
Q. Well, would you agree that it's a standard -- and maybe you don't have the expertise to give this opinion -- but it's a standard scientific practice for scientists to point to the scientific literature that already exists, to point to experiments and observations that have already been reported on and have been done by other people, and to cite that evidence to bolster their arguments in a particular theory?
A. That is part of what scientists do. The review of the scientific literature is certainly not, you know, what all scientists do. All people who are bona fide practitioners of science are involved in the production of data. In addition to that, they review the literature of their scientific peers which presents their data.
So all of this peer-reviewed literature must be tied to the production of original data. The literature is not free-floating. It is tied to data. And scientists who do research produce data, and they share it with each other. That is the significance of the peer-reviewed literature. It's the sharing of the data.
Q. Correct. And sometimes a scientist will come up with a theory, an explanation of data based upon the literature that already exists. Is that correct?
A. That's part of the process, as I understand it.
Q. So you would answer yes. Okay. In your report, you discuss the compromise strategy of the Discovery Institute. Do you recall that in your report?
A. Could you point me to it?
Q. I'll try to find it here.
A. Point it to me, please.
THE COURT: All right, let's do this. While Mr. Thompson is looking for that -- Mr. Thompson, we've been on this witness awhile. I'm going to take a break. At this point we'll take our morning break, and we'll return. But I would expect you'll soon be out of this witness when we return. In an effort to keep moving here, we're going to have to move on. Your cross has exceeded the time of the direct examination. Now, certainly that doesn't mean that you can't exercise your right to have some more cross-examination, but let's move out of the witness fairly promptly after we return.
So we'll take our morning break at this point. We'll return and complete the cross-examination. We'll hear any redirect at that time. We'll be in recess.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Recess taken.)
recess[edit]
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Dr. Forrest, I'd like to focus your attention on Page 38 of your report, your expert report.
A. 38 of the report?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay.
Q. If you can read to yourself that first paragraph or parts of it to familiarize yourself with the compromise strategy.
A. Just the first paragraph?
Q. Read as much as you want to familiarize yourself with the so-called compromise strategy.
A. Okay. Just give me another minute.
Q. Sure.
A. Okay.
Q. In your expert report on Page 38, you refer to the so-called compromise strategy. Is that correct?
A. That's part of a quote I've used.
Q. Right. What is the compromise strategy?
A. Compromise strategy refers to the efforts in the State of Ohio. The initial efforts were to introduce intelligent design into the state science standards. When the effort to do that, in which the Discovery Institute was involved, by the way, with some Ohio supporters, when that effort ran into opposition, they changed their strategy so that rather than asking for intelligent design to be in the science standards, they simply asked that teachers be permitted to teach or discuss the controversy. That was the compromise.
Q. Do you think that the Discovery Institute tried to employ that strategy in this case?
A. In the Dover case?
Q. Yes.
A. I think that the -- first of all, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me --
MR ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor --
THE WITNESS: -- or how specific I need to be.
THE COURT: Wait. Hold on, ma'am.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
MR ROTHSCHILD: The question lacks foundation. I'm not sure what facts Mr. Thompson is referring to.
THE COURT: Well, the question was did she think that the Discovery Institute was employing that tactic in this case. How does that lack foundation?
MR ROTHSCHILD: There's no foundation for this witness about what the Discovery Institute did or didn't do in this case. I'm not sure what he's referring to. I mean, there's the Discovery Institute large and their activities nationally, but I'm not sure if Mr. Thompson is referring to something they've done locally.
THE COURT: Well, the clarification subsequently was, in the Dover case, and he said, yes, in the Dover case. So the question is specific to Dover, as I understand it. Do you understand it to be that?
THE WITNESS: May I ask for a clarification?
THE COURT: You may.
THE WITNESS: I would like to have one.
THE COURT: You may.
THE WITNESS: Are you asking me if the Discovery Institute is working with the Dover board? Is that part of your --
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. No. Maybe I should rephrase it then. You mentioned what the compromise strategy was. Correct?
A. In Ohio.
Q. In Ohio. And you then referred to some quotes that Stephen Meyer made regarding the Dover School Board. There's a quote right in that paragraph.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And I'm asking you, was the compromise strategy attempted in the Dover School Board case of the curriculum change?
MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. It's still not clear what Mr. Thompson is asking, whether he's asking about Discovery Institute involvement specifically with this board, with this community, or whether he's just talking about, you know, the Discovery Institute in the air.
MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, I'm referring to what she said in her report, Page 38 of her report where she discusses the compromise strategy and then makes some statements about whether it was being applied by Discovery or attempted to be applied by Discovery in --
THE COURT: So is the question whether the compromise strategy, as referenced on Page 38 of the expert report, was employed by the Discovery Institute in this case?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, there we said it. There's the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Now I can address it, because I don't think we're talking about the same thing in each instance.
In the Ohio case, representatives of the Discovery Institute were working, they were publicly involved and they were working with supporters in Ohio, a couple of whom are on the Ohio Board of Education, and they were working together to try to promote intelligent design, to get it included into the science standards. When they encountered opposition, they changed their strategy. That's what happened in Ohio.
What I see happening with respect to Dover is that the Discovery Institute, regardless of what the Dover board may be doing or not doing, they are also trying to adjust their position strategically so as to -- I've seen them say some different things at different times.
What I'm referring to outside the quote -- there's the quote that refers to the compromise strategy that was devised in Ohio. What I'm referring to subsequent to that quote, in the lines just after it, are to the very typical strategic shifts that the Discovery Institute makes in the way they express their position. That is something that they have a habit of doing. And I think they have done that in this case.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. I think that answers the question. Thank you, Professor Forrest. In your testimony, you place a great deal of emphasis on peer review. Is that correct?
A. Yes, because the scientific community places a great deal of emphasis on that.
Q. And based upon your research, is it accurate to say that peer review has sometimes been used to obstruct the advancement of valid scientific ideas?
A. If I could get you to clarify what you mean by "obstruct."
Q. Prevent the scientific idea from gaining acceptance.
A. What the peer-review process is designed to do is to make distinctions, distinctions between scientific claims that are well-founded and scientific claims that are not. And so there are inevitably -- and I have scientist friends who have experienced this. Every scientist who submits materials for peer review gets rejections. So if you're referring to that, that's a very common practice.
Q. Well, one of the famous cases, I guess, is Gregor Mendel and his theory of genetics?
A. Gregor Mendel the monk?
Q. Yeah. Are you familiar with what happened there with his theory?
A. Not as it refers to -- not as it refers to obstructing publication. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Q. Well, he had this theory and he gave it to a botanist to review, and it sat there for 40 years. Right?
A. Well, the case with Mendel is, I don't think anybody recognized the significance of his research at the time. It wasn't until well after the turn of the century that people understood the importance of his work. I don't think anybody was deliberately trying to obstruct his work for conspiratorial purposes. It was just that -- even Darwin didn't understand the significance of it. It took a little while.
Q. Now, we mentioned a letter that you had written to the House of Representatives and the Senate regarding the Santorum amendment. Do you recall that?
A. Yes. You said you have a copy.
Q. Yes.
MR. THOMPSON: May I approach the bench, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may, the witness.
MR. THOMPSON: The witness.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR ROTHSCHILD: Mr. Thompson, can we have a copy?
THE WITNESS: This is not a copy of the letter, sir.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Isn't that the letter?
A. A copy of -- Oh, oh, okay. I see. This is the letter with a number of signatories, yes.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, yes, I'm sorry. Yes, I do recall this. This was not a letter I wrote.
Q. You are a signatory to that?
A. I'm a signatory to this, yes.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection?
A. Yes. Without being able to read it word for word, I do recall this letter being written.
MR ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, may counsel have a copy?
THE WITNESS: And could I keep a copy?
THE COURT: If they're going to ask you questions, if he's going to ask you questions, you're certainly entitled to a copy. Let's let Mr. Rothschild look at it first.
MR ROTHSCHILD: Just give me a moment, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. This letter was dated -- strike that. This letter was signed by several individuals in the scientific community.
A. Excuse me, are you going to question me about the letter? If you are, I'd like to have a copy, please.
THE COURT: You can approach the witness, and if there's something that --
MR. THOMPSON: It's going to be pretty general, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, if you need it to ask questions, you can stand near the box. You can look on it, and then you can give it to the witness if you only have one copy.
THE WITNESS: May I have just a moment to review it?
MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. This letter, as I indicated, was sent as a joint letter from scientific and educational leaders to the Senate and to the House of Representatives.
A. I believe it was sent to the conference committee. Representative Boehner was one.
Q. It was Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman?
A. Yes, conference committee.
Q. And then the Honorable John Boehner, Chairman. One from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate?
A. That's correct. I think his name is pronounced Boehner, but I'm not sure.
Q. And the purpose of that letter was to try to prevent adoption of the Santorum amendment. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, there was another letter you sent to Simon Blackburn. Do you remember that letter?
A. I do.
Q. And that was a letter to a particular participant or potential participant in this conference that was going to be put on by Bill Dembski. Is that correct?
A. The Nature of Nature conference at Baylor.
Q. Right. And do you remember why you wrote that letter to Mr. Blackburn?
A. Yes. I wrote the letter as a professional courtesy to a fellow philosopher to inform him of the nature of the event in which he would be participating.
At that particular time people did not realize that this was a conference that had been organized by creationists. And I thought, as a member of Professor Blackburn's discipline, having the knowledge of what this event was about, as a professional courtesy, I would make him aware of that.
Q. And your purpose of doing that was to in some way persuade him not to attend?
A. No. Did you read the letter, sir?
Q. Yes, I did.
A. Okay. In that letter, I specifically say, my purpose is not to persuade you not to go because I understand that you are already committed. It specifically says that.
Q. But you ask him or invite him to talk to other people about it?
A. Yes. I didn't want him just to take my word for what was in the letter. The thing that was proper to do is to refer him to other people who could corroborate what I was telling him.
Q. Do you know if he did attend that conference?
A. He did not attend. He declined to attend.
Q. Was part of the reason for his declination the fact that he received this information from you?
A. Yes. It was the fact that he had read the letter. May I give you more information about that?
Q. I'm trying to speed it up. Your attorney can ask it.
A. There's a bit more to the story.
Q. If it's not a complete answer, certainly you should give a complete answer.
A. Dr. Dembski acquired a copy of that letter and, without my permission, posted it on his Web site. Accusations were made that I had persuaded -- that I had written to a number of people persuading -- asking them to jump ship and not to go to the conference. That accusation does not reflect the contents of the letter. So I would like to clarify that.
Q. There were other attempts to -- there were attempts from other evolutionists to contact potential attendees at that conference?
A. I know what I did. I don't know what other people did.
Q. Now, you claimed in your direct testimony that you did some kind of a Medline search on the issue of intelligent design to see if there were any peer-review articles out there?
A. Yes, I did that several times.
Q. And I believe you gave us the phrase that you did the search on?
A. No, I said I did a key word search and a subject search.
Q. What was the key word search?
A. I was working with the reference librarian at the library where I teach, and we used a variety of key words. We used intelligent design, design theory, all of the variations of that.
Q. And you claim that you did not find any peer-review articles?
A. There were none.
Q. You did not find the article by Behe and Simon about simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues?
A. I found a number of articles by Professor Behe, but they were not articles that used intelligent design as a biological theory. He has done some bona fide scientific work.
Q. That was in protein science in 2004?
A. That was a recently published article that came out since I've done my work and my research. I'm aware of that article.
Q. Are you aware of a peer-review article by Chiu, C-h-i-u, and Lui, L-u-i, entitled, Integrated Use of Multiple Inter -- excuse me, Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis?
A. I believe I ran across that one.
Q. Okay.
THE COURT: Easy for you to say.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. But you did not mean to reference it in your report?
A. Excuse me?
Q. You didn't reference it in your report?
A. This is one of a number of publications that intelligent design proponents have claimed support intelligent design. They have all been reviewed by qualified scientists, and I'm aware of that fact and I'm aware of their findings that these articles do not actually support intelligent design theory.
Intelligent design theory is based on the supernatural, and so it's not likely that you'll have scientific evidence that will support that.
Q. Well, whether it's based on supernatural is an issue that we have in dispute. But you did not find that article when you did your peer-review search?
A. That article was not out yet, I don't think.
Q. What about Thornhill and Ussery, A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution?
A. Yes. That's by Dr. David Ussery and Dr. Thornhill, yes.
Q. And that was devoted to analyzing Dr. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity?
A. They were responding to Dr. Behe's claims about that.
Q. And so that would be a yes to my question?
MR ROTHSCHILD: A yes to what?
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, what --
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. The question was, they were responding to analyzing Dr. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity?
A. Yes, that's what they were doing, yes.
Q. Okay. And did you come across two articles by Douglas Axe appearing in the Journal of Molecular Biology?
A. I did.
Q. One was Extreme Functionality -- excuse me, Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors?
A. Yes. In fact, I e-mailed Dr. Axe to find out his position on whether those articles support intelligent design theory.
Q. And did you find an article by Douglas Axe entitled, Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds?
A. Yes. I found essentially all of Dr. Axe's publications.
Q. And so those intelligent design scientists have been writing in peer-review magazines, have they not?
A. Those are not --
MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection. Mischaracterizes -- it's an improper question. It lacks foundation. He's characterizing them as intelligent design scientists. I think Dr. Forrest is testifying there's nothing about intelligent design in those articles.
MR. THOMPSON: That wasn't my question, Your Honor. My question, those intelligent design scientists.
THE COURT: Well, you characterized them as intelligent design scientists, and Mr. Rothschild's objection is that they're not intelligent design scientists, all of them, at least.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
THE COURT: So I think the question in that sense needs to be rephrased.
MR. THOMPSON: I can change it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Those scientists that I just mentioned have been publishing in peer-review magazines. Is that correct?
A. They publish their legitimate scientific research data in peer-review magazines -- I'm sorry peer-review journals. Those are not articles that support intelligent design theory.
Dr. Axe's work, as I understand it, as my coauthor has reviewed and evaluated it, it's perfectly solid scientific work. There's nothing in it that supports intelligent design theory. And Dr. Axe himself declined to say that it did when I specifically asked him to do that or what was his position.
Q. Are you familiar with instances where peer review has been used to obstruct advancement of the intelligent design theorists?
A. I would not put it in your terms, but I'm aware of cases in which articles have been declined through the --
Q. Excuse me? I didn't hear that.
A. I'm aware of instances in which articles reportedly have been declined through the peer-review process, but I'm not sure that I would put it in exactly the terms that you just did.
Q. So there have been instances where articles submitted by intelligent design theorists have been declined from publication in peer-review journals?
A. Dr. Behe has submitted articles which were declined because they don't produce any data, did not produce any data to support intelligent design. What he typically writes is responses to his critics, which is not the same thing as a peer-reviewed science article.
Q. Are you familiar with instances where persons who have advanced intelligent design theory have been retaliated against by the scientific community?
A. No, sir, I'm not.
Q. Are you familiar with the instance involving a biologist by the name of Richard -- or Dr. Sternberg?
A. I'm familiar with the instance in which Dr. Sternberg published an article in the journal of which he was editor, the Dr. Meyer's article. I'm familiar with that.
Q. Right. And Richard Sternberg is a trained evolutionary biologist. Are you familiar with that?
A. Yes. He's also a member of a creationist organization.
Q. And he was an editor of the peer-review journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington?
A. Yes, sir. And I believe he's also on the editorial board of a creationist publication, as well.
Q. And one of his responsibilities was to oversee the publication of peer-reviewed technical articles?
A. That was his responsibility as editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. He was the -- I believe, the editor in chief, I believe.
Q. And he allowed the article by Stephen Meyer, who we know, entitled, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, to be published after a peer review. Correct?
A. There are quite a number of questions surrounding his allowing publication of that article, but, yes, it was published in the Proceedings.
Q. And as a result of that, there were allegations of retaliation against Richard Sternberg. Are you aware of that?
A. I am aware that Mr. Sternberg has made allegations. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that he has made allegations.
Q. Okay. And those allegations involve transfer to a hostile supervisor, removal of his name from the placard on the door, deprivation of work space, loss of his keys. Are you aware of those allegations?
A. I know that he's made those allegations, but that came up at a period when I was very busy preparing for this trial, so I did not specifically follow up on those allegations. I do know that on a television show he made allegations against the National Center for Science Education which happened to be false.
Q. Well, are you -- strike that. Do you know that those allegations were investigated by the United States Office of Special Counsel?
A. I do know that. I don't know that they ever issued a formal report about it.
Q. Well, are you aware that the report did substantiate claims of retaliation by Richard Sternberg?
A. I would not say --
MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. He's characterizing a document without giving it to the witness.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm just asking if she's aware, Your Honor.
MR ROTHSCHILD: He's not referring to specific statements in the report.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know that he has to show her the document. You can answer the question. If you need clarification, you can ask for it. I'll overrule the objection. You can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: I'm aware that allegations were made. I'm not aware that they have been substantiated.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Well, you indicated that one of the allegations was that the NCSE helped devise a strategy to remove Dr. Sternberg?
A. I didn't specifically say what the allegation was. I said he made allegations on the Bill O'Reilly Show, which was the show he was on, that were false.
Q. Do you know those allegations?
A. I believe he talked about the NCSE's working with the -- I don't have a transcript in front of me, so my memory may not be exactly accurate here. I think he was referring to an allegation that he made that the National Center for Science Education was instrumental in getting the article repudiated, I believe. I would have to go back and check. But I did watch the interview, and I do recall noting that what he was saying was not correct.
Q. Well, are you aware that the Office of Special Counsel did, in fact, confirm that there was retaliation sponsored by the NCSE?
A. The NCSE --
MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. And I renew my objection. I mean, he's characterizing a report that has presumably specific findings, and I'm not sure why he wouldn't make that available to the witness, which she has already said she hasn't seen.
MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, she can answer whether she's aware of it or not. There is a report out there. We can get it during a break. But I don't know if that's really necessary.
THE COURT: I think we're now right on the edge, if we haven't already gone afield, of what's appropriate with this witness's testimony. And we may be beyond direct, but that objection hasn't been interposed. I could raise it sua sponte, but I'm not going to do that at this point.
If you're going to ask questions generally, you may certainly do that. And to that extent, I'll overrule the objection. However, if you've got a document in your hand and you're asking questions from that document -- and it looks to me that at least at times you are -- fairness would dictate that you let the witness see the document and review the document so we don't play cat and mouse.
MR. THOMPSON: Right. Your Honor, I don't have the actual report in hand. I have some statements that were made regarding the reports. But I know the report is on the Internet, and I can get a copy of it. I don't know if we have to go that far at this point because I'm wrapping up my --
THE COURT: Well, you're stuck with the answers you get.
MR. THOMPSON: Right.
THE COURT: I mean, you're going to have your own case-in-chief, and you may or may not consider that something that you want to put in. I mean, we're into the yes/no realm as it relates to the question. So I'll overrule it. We've got to move through this witness. We've been on this witness now a day and a half almost. So let's keep moving.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Aside from Richard Sternberg, Dr. Sternberg, are you aware of any other allegations of retaliation against biologists, scientists, who have advocated the intelligent design theory?
MR ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, I will now object to exceeding the scope of direct. Thank you for the suggestion. It's going well beyond.
THE COURT: As I said, I think Mr. Thompson has walked it to the line. I'm going to let him finish this line of questioning. I'll overrule the objection, despite my invitation for you to object.
MR ROTHSCHILD: I'm a good listener, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Be careful what you wish for. You may answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Could you explain to me specifically what you mean by "retaliation"?
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Acts similar to what Dr. Richard Sternberg alleged.
A. I haven't seen anything that quite comes close to that. There have been cases in which a number of -- well, there are not that many. University faculty have received quite a bit of strong criticism for talking about intelligent design in improper settings.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you for your indulgence.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Thompson. That will complete the cross-examination. Any redirect, Mr. Rothschild?
MR ROTHSCHILD: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
MR ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you pull up the two graphs of comparing creationism and intelligent design.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR ROTHSCHILD:
Q. Dr. Forrest, is it accurate to say this graph indicates that "creation," or as you've used the word its "cognates," appears probably between 150 and 180 times in those first four drafts that you reviewed?
A. That's correct. That's what the graph shows.
Q. And I've placed before you a copy of P11, which is the 1993 version of Pandas. And could you tell me how many pages this published version has?
A. Counting everything with the index --
Q. Why don't we just go through the text before the references.
A. Just the text?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay.
Q. Or, actually, I'm sorry, why don't you include the references and glossary.
A. Everything, counting everything, index and everything, it's 170.
Q. Were the drafts that you reviewed of approximately the same length as the final version?
A. Pretty much, just about.
Q. So is it fair to say that "creation" appears about once per page in these drafts of Pandas?
A. Yes, on average.
Q. Mr. Thompson asked you about James Dobson and also Mr. Kennedy. Those are leaders of religious organizations?
A. Yes.
Q. And they are strong supporters of intelligent design. Correct?
A. They are.
Q. And they don't -- do they otherwise support scientific research generally as part of their mission?
A. Not as far as I know.
Q. Dr. Forrest, could you open your book -- or, actually, let me just hold that question for a moment. Mr. Thompson asked you about the concept of secular humanism.
A. Yes, he did.
Q. That's a philosophical position. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Should that be taught in science class?
A. No.
Q. Is the humanist manifesto that Mr. Thompson referred to also a philosophical position?
A. It is.
Q. Should those principles be taught in science class?
A. Certainly not.
Q. In your view, is intelligent design a philosophical or a theological position?
A. It's a religious position which overlaps philosophical, too.
Q. Should that be taught in science class?
A. No.
Q. As regards the theory of evolution, does the scientific community that studies it begin their research into it by looking at passages of Scripture and then looking for scientific evidence that's consistent with that Scripture?
A. No.
Q. Is that what major figures in the intelligent design movement have described themselves as doing?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Johnson?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Dembski?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you now open your book, Creationism's Trojan Horse, to Page 241. And, actually, if you see at the beginning of 240, when Mr. Thompson was asking you about the Santorum amendment, he had you read from the text beginning on Page 240 through the numbered items on 241. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And then he asked you to stop reading at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you read the next paragraph? It begins with the words, I will read.
A. Yes. This is Senator Santorum's words. Quote, I will read three points made by one of the advocates of this thought, a man named David DeWolf, as to the advantages of teaching this controversy that exists. He --
Q. That's enough. Who is David DeWolf?
A. David DeWolf is a law professor at Gonzaga University. He is also a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture and is one of the -- is integrally involved in the intelligent design movement.
Q. That's the same Center for Science and Culture that prepared the Wedge document?
A. Yes.
Q. The title, Creationism's Trojan Horse, why did you select that?
A. That was actually suggested by Oxford University Press. And my coauthor and I considered it and decided that that was an apt description.
Q. Why?
A. Well, the story of the Trojan horse is the story of the Greeks offering a wooden horse, a Trojan horse, to the city of Troy, ostensibly as a gift, something that would have positive value for them. And, in truth, what that gift contained was something that worked to the destruction of the city. That's the story.
Q. And why is that an apt title for your book about intelligent design?
A. Well, what the intelligent design movement is saying is that they are offering a cutting-edge, new scientific theory that will balance the curriculum and present an alternative scientific theory.
In truth, it is no such thing. It is a religious belief which is being described as a scientific theory, but, in truth, it is not. It would not be beneficial to teach this to children as science.
Q. When this book was published and you accepted the title suggested by your publisher, did you know that the book Of Pandas and People had, in fact, been drafted as a creationist book using the term "creation" and "creationist" throughout?
A. When I wrote this book?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I didn't know that.
Q. Is it fair to say that the metaphor is even more apt now?
A. I would say so.
MR ROTHSCHILD: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any recross, Mr. Thompson?
MR. THOMPSON: Just one bit, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There's not much scope to work within.
MR. THOMPSON: I know, the book.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. I want you to go to Page 241 that was referred to by your counsel. And you were reading a part of the report of the Santorum amendment.
A. Yes.
Q. I would like you to read the last paragraph, which purports to be comments by Senator Santorum.
A. Just the very last one?
Q. Yes.
A. (Reading:) I think there are many benefits to this discussion that we hope to encourage in science classrooms across this country. I frankly don't see any downside to this discussion, that we are standing here as the Senate in favor of intellectual freedom and open and fair discussion of using science, not philosophy and religion within the context of science, but science as the basis for this determination, end quote.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. That's all, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We thank you, Professor. That will complete your testimony. You may step down.