Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1
(Direct examination of Dr. Michael J. Behe continued.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
All right, back to you, Mr. Muise.
MR. MUISE: Thank you, Your Honor. May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q Dr. Behe, I've handed you what's been marked as defendant's exhibit 220, which is a copy Of Pandas and People, the second edition. Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q I would like to direct your attention to page 99, please. I would like to read to you and oft-quoted passage in this case thus far. If you'll look at the bottom on page 99, it's going to continue onto 100 as well. It says, quote, Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appeared in the record with their distinctive features intact and apparently fully functional rather than gradual development.
And I would like to get your reaction to that section?
A Well, it says -- it says that some scientists have arrived at this view. I think that's a way of saying that this is a matter of disagreement and dispute.
I certainly do not think that intelligent design means that a feature has to appear abruptly. And I -- I certainly would have written this differently if I had done so.
Q Now, you say you would have written it differently. Is there another reference or another section in Pandas that you could direct us to to emphasize that point?
A Yes. I wrote the section at the end of Pandas which is discussing blood clotting. And on page 144 of the text there's a section entitled "A Characteristic of Intelligent Design." And it begins, "Why is the blood clotting system an example of intelligent design? The ordering of independent pieces into a coherent whole to accomplish a purpose which is beyond any single component of the system is characteristic of intelligence."
Q And why did you direct us to that particular section?
A Because I think it more clearly conveys the central idea of intelligent design, which is the purposeful arrangement of parts.
Q Do you see that then as a, perhaps a better characterization, or more accurate characterization of intelligent design?
A Yes, I like this a lot better.
Q Now I want to read you a couple of quotes regarding this notion of abrupt, or abrupt appearance. This one is from Ernst Mayr, from One Long Argument, which is one of the documents you had referenced in your testimony. It says, quote, Paleontologists have long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's partial of gradualism and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seem to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seem to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record, end quote.
I want to read you one more quote, and this is from a writing by a gentleman whose last name is Valentine. Quote, It is this relatively abrupt appearance of living phyla that have been dubbed the Cambrian Explosion, end quote.
Do you see those -- those references to abrupt that I just read to you comparable to the reference in Pandas?
A Yes, they seem to be talking about the same things.
Q Well, Dr. Padian, if my recollection is correct, testified that the two were speaking of different things, the quotes that I read to you were speaking of abrupt in the sense of geological time whereas Pandas is not speaking so much to that effect.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, it's mischaracterizing Dr. Padian's testimony.
THE COURT: In what sense?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Dr. Padian is referring to the appearance of fossils in the record, not to the abrupt appearances of creatures for the first time. He's not talking about, in the sense of geological, he's talking about the fossils -- when we find fossils.
THE COURT: Well, the precursor to your question assumed that you weren't sure if you had it right. If you're going to cite to Dr. Padian's testimony, you ought to be sure.
MR. MUISE: Your Honor, I can ask a question, I think, which I think I have a pretty decent recollection of what it was. But I can ask the question where I don't have to refer to Dr. Padian but I think it will achieve the objective.
THE COURT: That might resolve the problem. If you're going to try to paraphrase Dr. Padian without referring to a transcript I think you're going to get potentially some difficulty. So I'll sustain the objection on that basis. You can rephrase.
Q Dr. Behe, do you see -- well, those quotes that I -- that I read to you, and the quote out of Pandas which you read, you already testified that you see them similar in a sense. Do you see that they're similar in a sense that abrupt is speaking to this -- a concept in geological time?
A Yes. Pandas is speaking of the fossil record, from what I read. So how else can we tell about the appearance except the appearance in the fossil record? So I think it's -- it's exactly the same. It's the appearance, the abrupt appearance, as Mayr and James Valentine said, of these things in the fossil record.
Q You indicated that intelligent design doesn't require abrupt appearance, is that correct?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Does it say anything directly about the pace of change?
A No. Again, intelligent design simply is the theory that designed features can be detected from the physical -- physical evidence of nature, it's seen in the purposeful arrangement of parts, but it does not say anything directly about how fast such a thing might go, how slow such a thing might go, or other interesting questions.
Q And if there's an abrupt appearance of fossils in the record, would that be consistent or inconsistent with intelligent design?
A It's completely consistent with intelligent design. An abrupt appearance, a slow appearance; intelligent design does not speak to the pace of such things.
Q And I believe you testified previously you would have perhaps written that section differently.
A Yes. The way I would have put it is the way I did put it in the section on blood clotting.
Q I d like to ask you to turn to page 100 of Pandas. I want to continue down on that same section.
And it says, quote, This alternative suggests that a reasonable, natural cause explanation for origins may never be found, and then intelligent design best fits the data, end quote.
And I d like to get your reaction to that sentence.
A Well, it seems perfectly sensible to me. It seems quite correct. We currently don't have a natural cause explanation. We might never have one. But a natural cause explanation is not being ruled out. And the development of a natural cause explanation in the future is not being ruled out. And you know it s, again, it's likened to the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang theory did not postulate a natural cause explanation for the Big Bang. We don't currently have a natural cause explanation for the Big Bang. We may never have a natural cause explanation for the Big Bang. But nonetheless, the Big Bang theory is thought by physicists to best fit the data that we currently have. And right now I think intelligent design also best fits data that we currently have.
Q So Dr. Behe, do you think Pandas would be a good book, a good reference book for students to have access to?
A Yes, I do.
Q And why is that?
A Well, because in order to best discern the difference between facts and theories, it's extremely useful to be able to view facts from a couple of different theoretical perspectives. It would help a student separate theory from facts. It would help show a student that the strength of facts, the strength of support that facts lend to a theory can oftentimes depend on a theory -- excuse me, a theoretical perspective somebody committed to a theory might see the facts as more strongly fitting the theory than somebody else. It also might help the student see that difficulties with the theory -- the strengths of the difficulties are also relative to the viewpoints that people bring to the table, that somebody who views a theory as very strongly supported already like, for example, the ether theory of light, will view difficulties with the theory a lot differently and perhaps a lot more permissively than somebody who does not share the same theoretical perspective. So I think it would be very good for that purpose.
Q So you're aware that a statement is read to students at Dover High School?
A Yes.
Q And I would like to read to you the statement, and I'll represent to you this is the statement that was prepared to be read in January of 2005: "The Pennsylvania academic standards requires students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution, and eventually take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standard-based assessments."
Is it your understanding that's the statement that is read to the students?
A Yes.
Q Did I say anything in that short statement that in your expert opinion would cause any harm to a student's science education?
A No, I can't see anything.
Q Now, the first paragraph says, "The Pennsylvania academic standards requires students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually take a standardized test of which evolution is a part."
A If I were a student it would say that I was going to be tested on evolution, so if I wanted to do well that I should study hard.
Q The second paragraph, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."
A Yes, all those sentences sound exactly accurate, and the students should understand those.
Q "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves."
Do you have any problem with that paragraph?
A That sounds like -- sounds fine as well.
Q And finally, "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standard-based assessments."
A That sounds reasonable as well.
Q And do you think it's good advice to inform students that with respect to any theory they ought to be encouraged to keep an open mind?
A I think it's very good advice to pass on.
Q Now, Dr. Alters, who testified in this case, reviewing that same one-minute statement that I read to you, said this: Quote, Now, what this policy is doing is saying there is this other scientific view that belongs, it belongs in the game of science, and it's the one that most students will perceive as God friendly. It has as intelligent designer; evolution doesn t. Now, students are going to be in there discussing out in the playground, discussing in their class, among themselves, or whatever, that the unit that they're now about to hear about, the evolution unit that's now coming up, is the one that's not God friendly, the one scientific theory that doesn't mention God; but this other so-called scientific theory, intelligent design, is God friendly, because there's a possibility that God has this other theory. What a terrible thing to do to kids. I mean, to make them have to think about defending their religion before learning a scientific concept. How ridiculous. This is probably the worst thing I ever heard of in science education."
What is your reaction to that opinion?
A It's strikes me as, what shall I say, histrionic even. It seems utterly unconnected to the text of the statement that you just read a minute ago.
I can't see any connection between what Dr. Alters said and the statement that you read. You know, it makes me suspect that the reaction has more to do with Dr. Alters conceptions and misunderstandings and other things than it has to do with the statement itself.
Q Dr. Padian offered his opinion that this one-minute statement would cause confusion for students and have them wondering such things as what good is prayer and why is there suffering.
What is your reaction to those claims?
A It's hard to -- it's hard to know what to say to something like that. A couple things is -- again, you know, it strikes me as utterly unconnected to the text of the statement that was read, and I can't imagine where Professor Padian is getting this from.
I doubt that it's from his paleontological expertise. And, again, it makes me think that -- that it says more about where he's coming from, more about where -- what he's thinking, his frame of mind, than it says about the statement itself.
Q Sir, you're aware that a newsletter was sent out by the district that discussed some of the biology curriculum?
A Yes.
Q I want to ask you some section -- ask you some questions about some sections of this. Here is the first one. "Students are told of the theory of intelligent design, ID. Isn't ID simply religion in disguise? No, the theory of intelligent design involves science versus science, where scientists, looking at the same data, come to different conclusions. The theory does not mention or discuss God, Christianity, or the Bible in any way."
A That's exactly right. It's completely accurate.
Q And another one, "What is the theory of evolution? The word evolution has several meanings, and those supporting Darwin's theory of evolution use the confusion in definition to their advantage. Evolution can mean something as simple as change over time, which is not controversial, and is supported by most people. However, evolution in its biological sense means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed by natural means, namely, natural selection acting on random variations."
A Yeah, and that sounds clear. I might have phrased things differently but, you know, it's been my experience that people confuse the different meanings of evolution and think that because there's such a thing as change over time, that Darwin's theory might not necessarily be correct. So yes, that seems perfectly fine.
Q Here's another one. Quote, What is the theory of intelligent design? The theory of intelligent design, ID, is a scientific theory that differs from Darwin's view, and is endorsed by a growing number of credible scientists. ID attempts to explain the complexity of the world by interpreting the scientific data now available to modern biologists. Its principal argument is that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected causes such as Darwin's theory of natural selection.
That's the first paragraph in the answer. Do you have any problem with that section?
A That sounds reasonable.
Q And then the second paragraph. "In simple terms, on a molecular level, scientists have discovered a purposeful arrangement of parts which cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. In fact, since the 1950s, advances in molecular biology and chemistry have shown us that living cells, the fundamental units of life processes, cannot be explained by chance."
What's your reaction to that section?
A Well, I think I would have phrased things somewhat differently, but I think for a newsletter, it's fine. It speaks about the purposeful arrangement of parts, which is exactly right, that's the heart of detecting design. So I think it does a good job at getting across the idea.
Q Now, if something is in a newsletter, would that necessarily be something that you would endorse to be part of a science class or in a science text?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection. He has no basis to testify about that. He's making a -- he's asking for a statement about whether this is or is not part of the Dover science curriculum.
MR. MUISE: I don't believe that had anything to do with what my question was, Your Honor. I was asking him about the phrasing of these, whether they would be phrased similarly if he was going to provide similar explanations in a science class or in a science context, would he perhaps do it differently than he would in a newsletter.
THE COURT: Well, he objected to the question as it was framed, because he wouldn't have any basis as an expert -- anybody, I suppose, could give an opinion the way you phrased your question. So I'll sustain the objection, but you might be able to get at it through a different question. You'll have to rephrase.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If the question is, you know, take that same language, is this what you d tell the student -- is this what you d tell the students, I have no objection to the question.
MR. MUISE: That's not my question.
THE COURT: Well, he tried.
MR. MUISE: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: He tried.
MR. MUISE: He can ask that one on cross, Your Honor; this is my witness.
THE COURT: Mr. Muise has the floor, he'll figure it out.
Q Again, Dr. Behe, that last section that I read to you, I believe you testified that you thought that would be fine for a newsletter, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Well, as a teacher of science, if you were going to express something similar to that in a science book or in a science text, would you perhaps word it differently?
A Yeah, I would rewrite it more carefully, sure.
Q In terms for a newsletter you believe it's sufficient for the lay person?
A It, as I said, it gets across that core idea of the purposeful arrangement of parts, which I argued about extensively here. So I -- I think that's the most important point, yes, I think that's good.
Q And one more, Dr. Behe. Quote, Are there religious implications to the theory of ID? And here's the answer. Quote, Not any more so than the religious implications of Darwinism. Some have said that before Darwin, quote, we thought the benevolent God had created us. Biology took away our status as made in the image of God, end quote, or, quote, Man is the result of a purposeless process that did not have him in mind, he was not planned, end quote, or, Darwinism made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, end quote.
Is that question and answer accurate?
A Yeah, I probably would rewrite that one too. But it certainly is true that scientific theories oftentimes have what people think of as philosophical and theological implications. Philosophers, theologians all the time draw on scientific theories. I think that a number of the experts in this case have written books that impinge on the philosophical and theological aspects of Darwinism. So that's a perfectly -- perfectly correct statement.
Q Dr. Behe, should school districts such as the Dover Area School District make students aware of intelligent design as a scientific theory during their class instruction of Darwin's theory of evolution?
A I'm sorry, I missed the question.
Q I'm sorry. Should school districts such as the Dover Area School District make students aware of intelligent design as a scientific theory during their class instruction of Darwin's theory of evolution?
A Yes, I think that's a good idea.
Q And why?
A Because in order for a student to properly appreciate the difference between fact and theory, one needs at least a couple of different theoretical perspectives to view facts from. If a student is only given one theoretical framework in which to view a theory, then the danger is that the theory will blend into the facts and students will not be able to distinguish the two. Indeed, grown up scientists and philosophers oftentimes have the difficulty.
Additionally, the ability to view a set of facts from a different framework allows a student to judge whether some difficulties for one theory are either greater or lesser. It's been my experience that somebody who is convinced that a theory is true will view difficulties as minor annoyances, or maybe ignore them altogether. But somebody who is not convinced of that theoretical framework might see those difficulties as much more telling and weighty than the first person.
And the third reason is that the strength of evidence supporting a theory, or even whether facts brought to bear have anything to do with a theory, oftentimes depends on a person's theoretical perspective that a person brings to the table in the first place.
Sometimes a person who has a theoretical perspective will view data that is newly obtained as support for the theory, whereas somebody outside of that will think of it as either irrelevant or not -- or not supporting the theory as strongly as the first person.
So I think it's very useful for a student to view data from a number of different perspectives. And so I think it would be good for that purpose.
Q Does Dover's policy at issue in this case support good science pedagogy?
A Yes, I think so.
MR. MUISE: Turn over the witness for cross, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Muise. And Mr. Rothchild, you may commence cross examination.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If I could have one moment to get organized, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
Q Good afternoon.
A Good afternoon, Mr. Rothschild.
Q How are you?
A Fine, thanks.
Q Professor Behe, do you have a copy of your deposition and expert report up there with you?
A No, I don t.
Q And I'm also going to give you a copy of what we ve marked as exhibit 718, which is your reply to critics which we'll be referring to throughout the afternoon.
A Okay.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q And I saw that you had a copy of Pandas, but do you have a copy of Darwin's Black Box with you?
A No, I don t.
Q I am surprised you're ever without one.
A Hard copy.
Q I have the dog-eared paperback.
Professor Behe, there are many many peer-reviewed articles regarding the Big Bang theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q You commented on the newsletter, and I'm going to ask Matt to pull that up on our screen, it's exhibit 127. And if you would turn to the second page, which is where I would like you to be. And if you could highlight the first full paragraph under, What is the Theory of Intelligent Design. And it says in the last sentence, "Its principal argument is that certain features of the universe are best explained by intelligent cause rather than undirected causes, such as Darwin's theory of natural selection." Is that right?
A Yes.
Q But you told us earlier today that intelligent design has nothing to do with cause, correct?
A No, that's not -- that's not correct. In this sense I mean that it began in -- at some point intelligence was involved in the production of the designed feature.
Q Intelligence was the cause?
A Intelligence is not the -- well, in order to produce something, one needs a number of different -- of different events. One needs not only intelligence, but then one needs a way to carry it out. For example, similarly, say with the Big Bang, we can see that the universe began in a large explosion, but we do not have a cause for it other than that.
Q But here Dover is telling its community, intelligent design is about intelligent causes, correct?
A Yes.
Q Professor Behe, could you turn back to page 99 of Pandas.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And Matt, if you could highlight the text on 99 to 100 that we're all so familiar with.
Q And that's the text that says, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency." Correct?
A Yes.
Q It talks about the life beginning abruptly, not just appearing abruptly, correct?
A Well, that's certainly the word it used, but we can ask, how do we know it began abruptly? The only way that we know it began abruptly is through the fossil record.
Q But beginning is different than appearances in the fossil record, correct, Professor Behe?
A I don't take it to mean that way, no.
Q Now, you said you wouldn't have described intelligent design this way, correct?
A Yes.
Q But that's how it's being described to the students at Dover who go to look at the Pandas textbook.
A Well, that's one of the places, yes.
Q And would you agree with me that if one substituted the word "creation" for "intelligent design" there, Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, the statement would be equally apt?
A Apt?
Q Would make just as much sense as the sentence that's up there?
A Well, I think the sentence as it is drafted is somewhat problematic, as I said in my direct testimony, so I would not say that either one was apt.
Q That's not a good definition of creation or creationism?
A I don't think so, no.
Q Would it be a good definition of special creation, Professor Behe?
A I don't think so either.
Q You don't have a degree in education, do you?
A No, I don t. I have a degree in biochemistry.
Q And you have not taught at the primary or secondary level?
A No, I haven t.
Q And other than Pandas, you have not prepared a textbook for high school students other than Pandas?
A That's correct.
Q Before we leave Pandas, you said this was not a statement you would have signed off on, correct?
A Yes.
Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of Pandas, correct; that's what it says in the acknowledgments page of the book?
A That's what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.
Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?
A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.
Q So you were reviewing your own work?
A I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.
Q Which was your own contribution?
A That's -- yes, that's correct.
Q That's not typically how the term "critical review" is used; would you agree with that?
A Yeah, that's correct.
Q So when the publishers of Pandas indicate that you were a critical reviewer of Pandas, that's somewhat misleading, isn't it?
MR. MUISE: Objection. Assumes that he understands what their purpose for listing him as a critical reviewer.
THE COURT: He just answered the question that that's not a critical review, so the objection is overruled. You can ask that question.
Q Advertising you as a critical reviewer of this book is misleading to the students, isn't it?
MR. MUISE: Objection, that's argumentative.
THE COURT: It's cross examination. It's appropriate cross. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
Q Telling the readers of Pandas that you were a critical reviewer of that book is misleading, isn't it?
A I disagree. As I said, that's not the typical way that the term "critical reviewer" is used, but nonetheless, in my opinion I don't think it is misleading.
Q Professor Behe, are you aware that a new edition of Pandas is being developed called, The Design of Life?
A Yes.
Q Are you an author of that book?
A I am not an author of that book.
Q Are you aware that William Dembski is one of the authors of that book?
A Yes, I ve heard such, yes.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you pull up exhibit 621. And that's the expert report of William Dembski that was submitted in this case before he withdrew as an expert. Could you go to page ten, and highlight the first paragraph Of Pandas and People.
Q And you see there he's discussing the new version Of Pandas and People, The Design of Life?
A I'm sorry?
Q Do you understand him to be describing his work on a new book called, The Design of Life?
A Give me a chance to read this please.
Q Absolutely.
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Dembski, who is the author of Design of Life, described you as a co-author of the book, correct?
A That's what he does, yes.
Q That's false, isn't it?
A Again, I am not an author of the book, but William Dembski, several years ago, asked if I would contribute. And I explained to him that I did not have the time to do so. And he says well, perhaps, you know, in the future he could solicit material from me and then I would be one of the authors of the book. So, that's correct.
Q So that makes you a co-author right now, Professor Behe?
A I certainly would not have listed myself now as a co-author, however, I think that he was anticipating my future participation in the project.
Q So that's a true statement, Professor Behe, that you're a co-author?
A It is not now a true statement but it might be in the future.
Q Okay.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you pull up the deposition of Jon Buell.
Q Professor Behe, you know who Jon Buell is, correct?
A Yes, I do.
Q He's the president of Foundation for Thought and Ethics?
A Yes, that's right.
Q And they were the publisher of Pandas when you participated?
A That's correct.
Q And you're familiar with who the Foundation for Thought and Ethics is?
A Yes.
Q And you're familiar with their mission?
A I can't say that I'm familiar with the mission. I know Jon Buell, I ve spoken with him a number of times and met with him and participated in activities with him, yes.
Q And this is a deposition that was taken in this case of Mr. Buell on July 8, 2005.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you go to page 129, and highlight lines 11 to 13.
Make it easy on you, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q If you could turn to pages 129 -- to page 129 of the deposition.
A Yes.
Q And look at line 11. And Mr. Buell is asked, "Who are the authors of Design of Life as you understand it?"
A He says, "Kenyon, Davis, Dembski, Behe and Wells, Jonathan Wells."
Q So Mr. Buell thinks you're an author too?
A That's correct. I think he's working under the same impression as Bill, that he wanted to get together people who were most involved with the intelligent design movement to have a book which would be authored by them. And again, I told them that right now I was too busy. I told them that a couple years ago. But I said that perhaps in the future I could be involved.
Q Mr. Behe, this statement is false, isn't it?
A I'm sorry?
Q The statement is false, isn't it?
A What statement is that?
Q The statement that you're an author, and Mr. Dembski's statement is false too, isn't it?
A That's not what it says on the screen, sir. It says, "Who are the authors of Design of Life as you understand it?" And the way I read that is that he's seeing into the future and seeing when this actually will be published and anticipating that I will participate in the publication of the book at that point.
Q Seeing into the future is one of the powers of the intelligent design movement?
A I think --
MR. MUISE: Objection, argumentative.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'll withdraw it, Your Honor.
Q Towards the end of your testimony today you said that it's good to teach students about intelligent design so that they can look at the facts from several theoretical perspectives, correct?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Now, in the case of germ theory, you're not aware that students are taught some other theoretical perspective so that they can understand the facts and not confuse germ theory with germ fact, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And not -- the same would be true for atomic theory, correct?
A That's correct.
Q The theory of plate tectonics?
A But evolutionary theory is in many ways very much more involved than some of the other ones that you mentioned. In particular, as I tried to make clear in my testimony, it has a number of parts which are -- which are together, under an aggregate, considered Darwin's theory of evolution. But again, as I tried to make clear in my testimony, not all of them are as well supported as other parts of the theory.
So I think in this particular case, yes, it would make a great deal of sense for students to view the data from a number of theoretical perspectives.
Q You're not an expert in germ theory, are you?
A No.
Q Or atomic theory?
A I studied it but I wouldn't call myself an expert.
Q Take germ theory, you don't really know the nature of the controversies around germ theory, do you?
A I think the nature of the controversies around germ theory are pretty much past. I think it was controversial in the 19 Century, but I don't think there is a controversy in it in the present time.
Q Okay. And you don't really know if a germ theory or atomic theory, where there are gaps or unexplained phenomena?
A I don t, but I do know evolutionary theory, and I know there are gaps and unexplained problems in that.
Q Probably true of all scientific theories, right, Professor Behe?
A It might be true of -- yes, it's certainly true of many scientific theories.
Q Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.
A Yes.
Q But when you call it a scientific theory, you're not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does.
A Yes, that's correct.
Q You don't always see eye to eye with the National Academy?
A Sometimes not.
Q And the definition by the National Academy, as I think you testified is, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?
A Yes.
Q Using that definition, you agree intelligent design is not a scientific theory, correct?
A Well, as I think I made clear in my deposition, I'm a little bit of two minds of that. I, in fact, do think that intelligent design is well substantiated for some of the reasons that I made clear during my testimony. But again, when you say well substantiated, sometimes a person would think that there must be a large number of people then who would agree with that. And so, frankly, I, like I said, I am of two minds of that.
Q And actually you said at your deposition, I don't think intelligent design falls under this definition. Correct?
A Yeah, and that's after I said -- if I may see where in my deposition that is? I'm sorry.
Q It's on pages 134 and 135.
A And where are you -- where are you reading from?
Q I'll be happy to read the question and answer to you. I asked you whether intelligent design -- I asked actually on the top of 133, I asked you whether intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory using the National Academy of Sciences definition.
A What line is that, I'm sorry?
Q That's 133, line 18.
A Is that going -- question beginning, "Going back to the National Academy of Science?"
Q Yes. And you first said, "I m going to say that I would argue that in fact it is." And that's 134, line ten.
A Yes.
Q Okay. And I said, "Intelligent design does meet that?" And you said, "It's well substantiated, yes." And I said, "Let's be clear here, I'm asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can't satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."
A Yes.
Q So for those reasons you said it's not -- doesn't meet the National Academy of Sciences definition.
A I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I'm of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, "I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I'll say this." But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this.
So I disagree that that's what I said -- or that's what I intended to say.
Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?
A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."
That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A I'm sorry?
Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A It seems like that.
Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?
A Yes.
Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.
A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
Q Page 132, line 23.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?
A That's correct.
Q Not, it used to be, right?
A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.
A I'm sorry?
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?
A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.
Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.
THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.
Q Now, you gave examples of some theories that were discarded?
A Yes.
Q One was the ether theory?
A Yes.
Q And the other was the theory of geocentrism, right?
A That's correct.
Q And what you said yesterday was that there was some pretty compelling evidence for observers of that time that that was good theory, right?
A Yes, sure.
Q Look up in the sky, and it looked like the sun was going around us, correct?
A That's right.
Q And we know now that those appearances were deceiving, right?
A That's correct.
Q So what we thought we knew from just looking at the sky, that's not in fact what was happening, right?
A That's right.
Q So the theory was discarded?
A That's correct.
Q And intelligent design, also based on appearance, isn't it, Professor Behe?
A All sciences is based on appearances. That's -- what else can one go with except on appearances? Appearances can be interpreted from a number of different frameworks, and you have to worry that the one that you're interpreting it from is going to turn out to be correct. But in fact since science is based on observation, now that's just another word for appearance. So intelligent design is science, and so intelligent design is based on observation; that is appearance.
Big Bang theory is based on observation, based on appearance, so yes, it is.
Q The whole positive argument for intelligent design as you ve described it, Professor Behe, is look at this system, look at these parts, they appear designed, correct?
A Well, I think I filled that out a little bit more. I said that intelligent design is perceived as the purposeful arrangement of parts, yes. So when we not only see different parts, but we also see that they are ordered to perform some function, yes, that is how we perceived design.
Q Now, getting back to Pandas. You ve said this is a good book for students, correct?
A Yes.
Q And we know you wrote part of it, correct?
A Yes.
Q And you certainly vouch for that part of it?
A I do.
Q And we ve seen other parts of it that you're not as happy with, correct?
A Right.
Q Now, one thing you can't vouch for, however, is whether Pandas represents the fossil record correctly, can you?
A No, I can t, I'm not a paleontologist.
Q So, for example, when Dr. Padian testified on Friday that Pandas grossly misrepresents scientific knowledge on many issues including the evolution of birds, amphibians and various mammals in the fossil record about those animals, you have no way of responding to that, correct?
A That's outside my expertise.
Q Now, during the course of your testimony you referred to the writings of a number of scientists to make your case for intelligent design, correct?
A Yes.
Q You referred to Kirshner and Gearhart's article -- or book, I'm sorry?
A That was not to make the case for intelligent design, that was to explain how scientific books fit into the scientific community.
Q Very well. Dr. DeRosier's article, correct?
A Yes.
Q Bruce Albert's article?
A That's correct.
Q Richard Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker?
A That's correct.
Q Francis Crick, we heard a lot about him?
A Yes.
Q Jerry Coyne?
A I'm not sure. Did I refer to him as support for intelligent design?
Q You cited to his New Republic article on the issue of natural selection.
A Yes. That wasn't quite the same thing. I was just trying to make the point that there is only one mechanism that is proposed to be able to mimic design.
Q Franklin Harold, you cited him for support?
A I cited him to show that in fact Darwinian explanations have not yet been advanced for the complex molecular systems that have been discovered by science.
Q That's part of the argument for intelligent design, isn't it?
A That's a part of the argument to show that there is no other plausible explanation for what we perceive to be as design.
Q Which is part of the argument for intelligent design, correct?
A Yes.
Q And there actually was an article by Jerry Coyne in Nature you relied on?
A Yes, it was a review of my book; is that what you're thinking of?
Q That's right.
A Okay, yes.
Q And Andrew Pomiankowski?
A Yes.
Q Now, none of these scientists that you referred to advocate for intelligent design in those articles or books, do they?
A No, they don t.
Q Or in any other forum, correct?
A That's correct.
Q In fact, many of them are vocal opponents of intelligent design?
A Yes, indeed, just like, say, John Maddox is an opponent of the Big Bang theory and, for example, Walter Nernst was an opponent of the Big Bang theory and a vocal proponent of the infinity of the universe; yes, that's correct.
Q Professor Behe, I can't control your answers, but we're in biology class here, not physics, so let's talk about intelligent design.
A Okay, I think these are relevant to an understanding of what I'm trying to do.
Q So in any event, all of the scientists that I named that you referred to during the course of your testimony over the past two days are certainly not supporters of intelligent design, most of them are pretty active opponents of it, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And it's not just Ken Miller?
A No, there are many scientists, yes.
Q There certainly are, in fact, almost all the major scientific organizations that have taken a position on intelligent design have opposed it, isn't that right?
A Yes, a lot of scientific organizations have issued statements opposing intelligent design.
Q And, you know, you discussed yesterday that you ve attended many seminars, made presentations to various scientific departments and the like, correct?
A That's correct.
Q So over the past nine, ten years since Darwin's Black Box, you ve certainly gotten a hearing in the scientific community, correct?
A I -- I'm sorry, what do you mean by "hearing?"
Q Scientists have heard you out, heard your arguments, correct?
A A number of scientists have, certainly. I ve presented perhaps maybe 20, 30 seminars. I would present seminars pretty much to whoever would invite me. But even 20 or 30 seminars times 100 people per seminar or so on average, that's still a fairly small fraction of the scientific community.
Q Not nearly as big as, for example, the scientific societies you belong to.
A That's correct.
Q And you actually have also made numerous presentations on intelligent design in your book to churches and religious groups, correct?
A Yes, I try to speak to whoever invites me.
Q You mentioned that there have been many scientific organizations who have taken a position, one of those is the National Academy of Sciences, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q And you testified yesterday that's the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States?
A That's correct.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you pull up exhibit 192.
Q Go to page 20. That's the publication, Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences.
A That's correct.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And if you could go to page 25, please, and highlight the third paragraph, first sentence.
Q And it says, "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." That's the National Academy's position?
A That's correct, that's exactly the position that I argued against in my article in Biology and Philosophy. I disagree with it, as a matter of fact I think it's the inverse of what is true. I think that in fact Darwinian theory is very difficult to falsify, but that intelligent design is easily falsify -- or easy to falsify.
Q And I do have some more questions to ask you about that, but before we do that let's go to page 21 of this exhibit. And if you could go to the bottom paragraph, first sentence. It says, "Molecular evolutionary data counter a recent proposition called intelligent design theory. Proponents of this idea argue that structural complexity is proof of the direct hand of God in specially creating organisms as they are today."
More rebuttal to intelligent design, correct?
A I -- I think that particular sentence is just a wonderful illustration of the massive misunderstanding and mischaracterization of intelligent design. They -- they have this sentence, "Proponents of this idea argue that structural complexity is proof of the direct hand of God in specially creating organisms as they are today." I advocate none of those ideas. None of those ideas are found in my books. None of those ideas are found in my writings. I take this to be a political statement unsupported by any references.
If you look in that publication, you do not find any references to anybody in the intelligent design movement. In a number of sections here they certainly seem to have my ideas in mind, and they do not reference my book, they do not quote my book. In their list of readings for teachers, for teachers to understand this controversy, they do not even list a single book by an intelligent design proponent. How is a teacher supposed to understand this if they can't even read, you know, proponents of a theory making their own case in their own way, and they have to rely on mischaracterizations?
Q So you don't think that accurately characterizes your work?
A No.
Q You're not -- you're not all of intelligent design, are you?
A That's correct, yes.
Q Characterize some other intelligent design proponents writings?
A I disagree, no.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Matt, if you could go to page 28 of the report, and highlight the paragraph, "Don't many famous scientists reject evolution."
Q It says there, "The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming." And then it says, "Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution."
Do you agree that that's a problem, Professor Behe?
A Well, I have a couple things to say about that, those sentences that you just read. First of all, this is another wonderful illustration of the confusion of the different senses of the word "evolution."
"The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming." What is evolution? Is it Darwin's mechanism of random mutation and natural selection? Do they cite any writings by, say, Stuart Kauffman or the complexity theorists who object to that? I don't see anything there.
This is really -- well, let me just go on to the next statement.
And it's clear, I think, that many people have written on the question of evolution for it and against it. And if you look at those broad writings, I'm sure you'll find things that might take quotes out of context. But reading this here right now, the phrase that comes to mind to me is the pot calling the kettle black. We just looked at a quotation from that same book in which the National Academy characterized intelligent design in a way that I would consider utterly misleading.
Q Mischaracterizes you?
A It mischaracterizes intelligent design and certainly me and, like I said -- I hope I'm not being, you know, self centered here, but I think they had me in mind in a couple of these sections.
And they don't even list a reference. You know, talk about scholarly malfeasance or some such thing, they don't even reference -- and even these quotations, where are the quotations? Suppose a teacher wanted to show her students an example of these quotations. Where would she find them? The National Academy doesn't say; it just asserts. This is one long assertion.
Q Why don't we go onto the next long assertion from the American Academy of Scientists -- American Association of Scientists. And you're familiar with this resolution?
A Yes, I ve seen it.
Q Okay. And this is from the largest scientific organization in the United States, correct?
A That is correct, yes.
Q And there goes the whole outline, we can stop now.
And that statement also condemns the teaching of intelligent design, doesn't it?
A I can't read it. Could you blow up the section?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Could you highlight the whereas clauses?
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you blow up the next paragraph or the next two paragraphs? Thank you.
Q And in the second whereas clause it says, "The ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution." And "The ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims. Therefore be it resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory makes it improper to include as a part of science education."
That's the association's position, correct?
A That's what it says. And if I might comment, this is a political document. What scientific paper do you know of that says whereas, whereas, whereas, therefore be it resolved? This is a political document. There are no citations here. There's no marshaling of evidence. As I ve tried to show in my testimony yesterday and today, if you actually look at these things, we have marshaled evidence, we have proposed means by way our claims can be tested.
Like I said in my testimony earlier, not every statement by a scientist is a scientific statement. And that goes also for scientific organizations, not every statement issued by a scientific organization, even on science, is a scientific statement.
This is not supported by evidence. This is not worth one paper in the literature. This is a political document.
Q In any event, in the ten or 15 or 20 years, or if we go to Paley more than 200 years, intelligent design has failed to make its case to the scientific community, correct?
A I disagree. You're going into very, very big problems in the history of science, and one can't settle those in one-sentence answers or one-sentence questions. In the time of Paley, which you referred back to, a lot of people thought there was evidence for intelligent design, one of them was the young Charles Darwin, who remarked a number of times about his enjoyment of Paley's book. Since Darwin's theory was proposed as an explanation for apparent design, many people in the scientific community changed their minds and said, well, perhaps we have an explanation for this strong appearance of design. But science marches on and we have new data these days. And it's -- and observing the new data, we can ask again, is Darwin's explanation, does it continue to be a good explanation for this. And I think we can -- we can again reopen this question and ask -- ask whether -- ask whether it's a good explanation.
Q Ask the question, but you haven't convinced the contemporary science community that your idea has any merit, correct?
A If you look at these political statements issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, if you look at such statements in booklets issued by the National Academy, they are certainly very hostile to the idea of intelligent design. But it's been my experience that a number of people are interested in the idea. Nonetheless, it's the nature of bureaucracy, I think, to issue statements like this. So I do not consider these representative of the scientific community.
Q You're not aware of any major scientific organization that has endorsed the science of intelligent design or the teaching of intelligent design, are you?
A I'm unaware of any major scientific organization that goes into the business of endorsing scientific theories. When they get stirred up apparently they will oppose something. But, you know, no other scientific theory, you know, after a while is put on a list of the approved -- of approved sciences by any scientific organization that I'm aware of.
Q In fact, this isn't just a big scientific organization's bureaucracy that's taken this position, your own university department has taken a position about intelligent design, hasn't it?
A Yes, they certainly have.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you could pull up exhibit 742, Matt, and if you could highlight it.
Q This is a statement that was issued by the Lehigh Department of Biological Sciences?
A Yes, it is.
Q And what it says is, "The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and the recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, that has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position" -- and I think they're just referring to your department at this point -- "Professor Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of intelligent design. While we respect Professor Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
So you ve not even been able to convince your colleagues, any of them, Professor Behe?
A They all endorse this statement, but I would like to point out, if you would, the entire first paragraph is something that I would completely agree with: Committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function; unwavering support for academic freedom; the utmost respect for the scientific method; integrity in the conduct of research, and so on.
That's a wonderful statement. I agree with it completely. What does it have to do with the arguments that I make?
The department faculty is unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory. What does that mean? To commit one's self to a theory, to swear allegiance to a theory. That's not scientific.
If they could point to a paper in the literature, something that, say, Russell Doolittle overlooked which explains how complex molecular systems could be put together by gradual means, by unintelligent means, then I would be happy to agree that Darwinian evolution could explain this. But one can't issue statements and say that a theory is correct if one does not have the papers to back it up.
And you'll notice that even in this statement, you see no citations, no citations to explanations for these complex molecular systems. And in the absence of that, while that's fine for them to express their views, it doesn't mean -- it doesn't carry the weight of a single journal paper.
Q Journal papers are valuable.
A They sure are.
Q And they're just referring to the findings accumulated over 140 years, correct?
A Well, as I tried to make clear in my testimony, findings accumulated over 140 years that support the contention that Darwinian processes could explain complex molecular systems total a number of zero.
And so they -- this is another example of confusing the various aspects of evolutionary theory. It's a very difficult problem, which is why I think students should have it clearly explained to them that evolution is a complex idea, and support for change over time, or support for common descent does not run into supporting natural selection and random mutation.
Q Zero papers, Professor Behe?
A That's correct.
Q Let's turn to your understanding of intelligent design.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Matt, if you could return to -- or actually pull up Professor Behe's expert report please.
THE COURT: Mr. Rothchild, we'll go about five more minutes.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: This would actually be a great time for a break.
THE COURT: Why don't we do that. Let's recess here for about 20 minutes, and we'll return and we'll pick up the new line of cross examination after that. We'll be in recess.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
