Posted by Judge Lance Ito on August 24, 1999 at 13:15:36:
In Reply to: Einstein v. Darwin: Einstein 1, Darwin 0 posted by blue on August 23, 1999 at 20:48:23:
> (blue said): hypotheses are only given credibility, and promoted to "theory," when verifiable (repeatable) supporting evidence is found. The key is the verifiability.
The following discourse took place in my courtroom recently. I couldn't believe it either. Democracy is still a bit better than theocracy I suppose even if it isn't easy to tell why based on what I experienced...
(Johnny Cochran) Your honor, gentlemen, and ladies of the fundamentalist jury I submit to you that unless you can recreate the events that transpired (macro-evolution can't be true unless it is repeatable) on the evening of my client's wife's murder then this trial is unscientific, based on faith, and not only should my client be set free but he should be proclaimed completely innocent (if evolution has any shortcomings then creationism must be true).
(Me) Mr. Cochran, you know as well as I do that science doesn't require the re-creation of events when not feasible or even remotely possible based on their historical nature.
(JC) Your honor, I know that and you know that, but the fundamentalist jury is deciding this case and they believe what I say when it comes to interpreting science. Strike my words from the record if you must, but they will remain in the minds of my jury.
(JC) Now then, unless the prosecution can raise Ms. Simpson from the dead this trial should be short and sweet. Never mind the fact that we have Mr. Simpson's DNA evidence on the scene (genetic evidence of evolution), his gloves and bloody socks (fossils), his probable motive (genetic variation, selection pressure, etc. resulting in automatic evolutionary change), eyewitness accounts from Kato, the limo driver, and others (observed instances of speciation), and his previous history of beating his wife (similarities in closely related yet unique species). The fact of the matter is that since we can't raise Ms. Simpson from the dead, we can not repeat the original action and therefore, there is no science to this case. If a case is not built on science it must be based on faith. Faith is all well and good when it comes to your hope in salvation, an afterlife, and all those other things I promise will be yours if you will but do what I say and give me some money to help fund my ministry... I mean my justice-producing law practice, but for this court of law things must be scientific. Obviously, there is no science involved in this case since only repeatable experiments are verifiable.
(The fundamentalist Jury) Your honor, we find the defendant not guilty. In fact we find him totally innocent (if macro-evolution can't be demonstrated in real time and repeated over and over again when anyone asks to see the macro-evolution experiment then the God of the Bible must have created humans and everything else out of dust before setting their reproductive systems into high gear).
