What do Trial Lawyers have in common with Creation Scientists?  Probably not a whole lot.  But I did think of a useful analogy the other day that ties these two groups together in a strange way.

For anyone who has kept up with the ongoing creation/evolution debate, you’ve probably seen hundreds of books and videos that claim to present “solid” evidence against the theory of evolution.  Obviously no scientific model can explain everything we observe nature, but good models can still be quite useful at helping scientists piece the data together in a coherent and scientifically satisfying way.  But not all scientists accept all scientific models.  Many creation scientists, such as those who work for ICR and AIG, who are real scientists with real PhD’s in science from real universities, are challenging the theory of evolution with scientific arguments of their own, and they are obviously free to do this.  But it’s important to understand what is going on here.  To help illustrate this, I’ll share with you my Trial Lawyer analogy.

If I may be blunt: the scientific case for evolution is very solid.  Whether we like it or not, or whether it is compatible with Christian theology or not, is a separate issue.  I’m not saying that theology and Scripture are irrelevant to the question of scientific Truth - far from it.  In fact, those of you who have read BTF know that I spend the entire first half of the book on theology, hermeneutics and the Christian worldview.  But if the theory of common descent were on trial, there would be more than enough corroborating lines of evidence to convince an impartial jury that somehow, despite our inability to fathom it, evolution must have taken place.  In fact, evolution has been on trial for 140 years and the evidence keeps supporting it.  Unfortunately, many Christians have been led to believe that evolution only hangs around so secular scientists can have an excuse to avoid creation, but this is simply not the case.  If all that scientists cared about was to avoid any implications of special creation, then they would have never accepted the evidence for big bang cosmology and would instead still cling to an irrational belief in a static and eternal universe.  In fact, the big bang theory was once referred to as the “Genesis Problem” in scientific circles.  But after roughly 40 years (1929-1969), the evidence supporting big bang cosmology became too overwhelming to deny and scientists everywhere had to admit that all of time, space and matter originated in a single event, a finite time period ago, ex nihilo.  Moreover, the singularity that gave birth to our universe ensures that science will never have access to the creation moment.  It will thus forever remain hidden from empirical analysis!  The point here is that while most professional scientists are indeed atheists, at the end of the day, after all of the emotional and philosophical dust settles, a scientific theory stands or falls on the evidence alone.  History bears this out. 

The evidence for common descent began simply as peculiar relationships between the species, inferred mainly by anatomical similarities and differences.  This was observed prior to any fossil evidence for or against common descent, and is still the basis by which we classify all living things, also known as taxonomy.  The fossil record could have easily painted a different picture of natural history, but the relationships between the species originally based on morphology were overwhelmingly confirmed by fossil evidence.  In fact, whenever the fossilized remains of extinct species are discovered, they always fit into the existing pattern between two established groups.  The relatedness of all living things was also confirmed by biogeography: the geographical distribution of different species accross the globe.  This is in part what led Darwin to propose a physical mechanism for evolutionary change, called natural selection.  But the real smoking gun was molecular genetics - something that the first evolutionists, like Darwin, were completely ignorant of.  DNA sequencing of living species could have unequivocally confirmed the traditional idea that each species was created individually and descends only after its kind.  If the genetic similarities and differences between the species did not match the relationships established by morphology, the fossil record, and biogeography, then scientists would have ditched the theory of common descent as quickly as they ditched the geocentric universe after Galileo observed the phases of Venus.  Just think, the whole debate over evolution could been settled once and for all over 50 years ago.  Atheists, who rely on evolution as an “intellectually fulfilling” alternative to creation, would have had to find something else to put their faith in - and Creationists would have had to find something else to argue about.  But this did not happen.  In fact, the more we learn about molecular genetics, the more it keeps confirming the relationships between species that were originally derived from other other lines of evidence.  

 Here is just one recent example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

So what about all of the “creation scientists” who keep publishing books and producing videos that claim evolution is crumbling?  A theory in crisis?  Are these Christian brothers of ours lying?  Are they stupid?  Ignorant?  These are all good questions, but I would have answer them all in the negative.  There is probably no more lying, dishonesty, or ignorance in creation science than exists anywhere else in the scientific community.  So then what is going on here?  This is, I think, where my analogy is helpful.

Let’s say that on the way home from work, you get nabbed for speeding by the police.  You were doing 56 in a 45.  You didn’t think you were speeding.  In fact, you seem to remember that your speedometer only said 50 and not 56 (yes - technically still speeding but not as bad as they said!).  However, the evidence against you is pretty solid.  The speed trap got you going 56 with two independent radar devices, the high-tech “laser” kind.  Your primary concern is really not justice (let’s be honest here) but the fact that you don’t have $250 bucks to pay the fine.  But a lawyer who specializes in getting people out of these kinds situations has offered to represent you for $100 and a refund if you lose the case.  So you take him up on the deal.  You tell him your side of the story, he believes you.  Your case goes to trial.

At the trial, the prosecuting attorney and your lawyer both have legitimate law degrees and credentials.  They are both “Lawyers” but they each have different agendas.  The prosecution feels that they have a solid case against you and their job is obviously to enforce the law by prosecuting violators.  And they also depend on the revenue raised by traffic fines so they need to win every case.  Your lawyer, on the other hand, is representing you.  His job is to make sure that you don’t get steamrolled by the prosecution.  And if he sincerely believes you, he will pull out all of the stops to ensure that none of the charges stick - even if he knows his arguments are fundamentally flawed. 

The prosecution presents their case.  You got busted by two separate scientific instruments that both gave consistent results using two different methods of measurement.  The scientific case against you seems pretty solid.  Most reasonable people, seeing only the prosecution’s case, would probably side with them.  But your lawyer is good.  He immediately questions every weak link in the prosecution’s case.  He presents every instance ever documented of radar devices being wrong, despite the fact that they are right 99.99% of the time.  He even questions the science behind the instruments themselves. 

“Measuring speed with light?  Does that make sense to you, the jury?  And what is light anyway?  Is it a wave or a particle?  Is is true, that even the smartest scientists can’t figure out whether light is a wave or a particle?  And yet, the prosecution would have you believe that they can accurrately measure the speed of a vehicle with a scientific instrument, when scientists themselves don’t even know what the heck light is?  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do not be persuaded or intimidated by these fancy instruments, the state only uses them to raise revenue by extorting money from hardworking people like us!  Is it true, that the state stands to gain financially from the outcome of this case?  Ah, you see!” 

Now of course, you can see that this line of reasoning is ridiculous.  Even though it is true, scientists do not know if light is a wave or a particle, and it is true that the state needs people to speed to raise money, none of that has any bearing on the fact that you were driving too fast!  Most people would see right through a defence like this.  But if the jury is uninformed and can be easily persuaded, a good trial lawyer will use this to his advantage.  If he can confuse them enough, they will waffle, and the guilty will walk.  Unfortunately, these are the same tactics used by creation scientists.  They are not evil or dishonest people, but they are rigidly convinced of the truth of their position and they will go after any weak link in the scientific armor of evolution to make a case - even if they know their arguments are fundamentally flawed.  This is why you don’t see their work in professional journals where other scientists can evaluate them scientifically, but you do find plenty of it in Christian bookstores where there is a ready and willing audience that unfortunately lacks the ability to understand what is going on.  Despite the converging lines of evidence in favor of common descent, scientists from ICR and AIG have seized upon the most difficult or incredible details and have confused the general public with ominous statistics and red herring arguments.  And unfortunately, the jury already wants to believe them for philosophical reasons, so the scientific case for evolution gets dismissed a-priori without any thoughtful consideration of the evidence.

Again, no analogy is perfect, but this one comes pretty close. 

-GJG

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm and is filed under Random Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.