| Part 1 | Part 2 |

| Table of Contents for Evolution On Trial |

"Alright, Mr. Tappin," Judge Arnsberger said, "you may offer your summation."

The defense counsel rose from his chair and began speaking almost as soon as he was standing. He continued to speak as he gradually made his way to the general area of the jury.

"Mr. Mayfield would have us all believe the issue which is to be decided by you, the members of the jury, is whether or not Mr. Corrigan has taught students in a manner that is in conflict with the principles of evolutionary theory and scientific methodology. One of the problems with this perspective of the prosecuting attorney is that no one, least of all him, has been able to demonstrate just which specific principles of either evolutionary theory or scientific methodology are, allegedly, being contravened by Mr. Corrigan.

"When you look through the curriculum materials that have been introduced as People's Exhibit 'A', you will find that Mr. Corrigan is advocating nothing except the following. An individual should not accept conclusions, scientific or otherwise, until there is a demonstrable chain of evidence which is capable of lending plausible support to the claimed link between the premises of an argument and the conclusions which are said to follow from those premises.

"In addition, you will find in those curriculum materials that a wide number of methods have been developed and elaborated which are designed to help students engage evidential claims from a variety of analytical, reflective, contemplative, experiential and interpretive vantage points. Those curriculum materials, in fact, constitute, and I'm sure you will agree, once you have had an opportunity to examine those materials, a rather intense investigation into the varieties, possibilities and problems of methodology.

"Difficulties arise, however, at least as far as Mr. Mayfield is concerned, because Mr. Corrigan has the audacity to suggest scientific methodology is not the be all, and end all, of epistemology. Mr. Corrigan, in other words, is questioning the legitimacy of the tendency of many scientists to arrogate to themselves the role of being final arbiters in all matters involving analysis of, critical reflections on, and interpretations about the meaning, value, significance, tenability, truth and rigor of scientific statements.

"For someone to say that such-and-such is what scientists do or that so-and-so is what scientists have agreed upon, is one thing. To make the claim that because this is what scientists do and this is what scientists agree upon, then, therefore, anyone - especially someone who has not gone through the validation and accreditation process of professional science - who is critical of what scientists do or say must be dismissed as a fanatic, is an entirely different matter.

"Science is but one approach to dealing with, and understanding, various facets of the phenomenon of lived experience, and, quite frankly, it is an extremely limited way of trying to understand the breadth and depth of what is entailed by being human. Science is but one kind of activity among many possibilities such as law, art, music, literature, philosophy, religion and mysticism which are all capable of deepening human awareness of the many, many factors that can affect how we perceive, interpret, value and act upon experience, including scientific experience.

"Science, in fact, knows little or nothing about a variety of tools which it presupposes in all of its endeavors. More specifically, science knows virtually nothing at all about the processes of consciousness, creativity, thought, insight, interpretation or understanding that frame, color, orient and shape every cubic nanometer of scientific activity.

"Moreover, individual scientists are as vulnerable to bias, prejudice, error, distortion, and dogmatism as any other group of people. In addition, collectively, scientists have demonstrated throughout their illustrious history that just because the generality of scientists agree upon something is no guarantee of the truth of whatever it may be on which agreement has been reached.

"Many of the most vociferous opponents of Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Planck, Einstein and so on, were eminent and respected scientists of their days. Scientific revolutions are called this because of the vast upheaval which they introduced into the thinking, methods, ideas, practices and understanding of, among others, scientists - many of whom were extremely resistant to what was being proposed by a given revolution in science.

"The activities of scientists that help shape the nature of science have their share of politics, pettiness, lack of vision, inertia and blindness. Furthermore, scientists and science are not autonomous entities which are independent of the cultural, social, political, economic and religious milieu in which they operate.

"Scientists, each according to her or his ability, may be dedicated to truth. Yet, many of them also tend to become entangled in a variety of: associations, networks, vested interests, processes of marginalization, and value judgements which frequently have fundamental effects on who and what gets funded, published, hired, and taught.

"Mr. Corrigan believes in teaching his students to be skeptical of, but open to, a variety of possibilities. He encourages his students to be: analytical, reflective, contemplative, critical, fair, honest, creative, eclectic, practical, idealistic, thorough, experimental, as well as dispassionate but committed.

"He wants his students to become aware of their own assumptions, prejudices, and biases. He tries to help his students come to a fundamental realization that the dynamics of perception and interpretation are shaped and colored by a lot of individual, professional, cultural, historical and philosophical factors.

"Mr. Corrigan is interested in trying to instill in his students a deep awe, respect and love for the pursuit of truth and understanding. He does whatever he can to inspire his students to work toward acquiring a sense of joy and excitement concerning the exploration of human existence.

"He teaches his students to take the issues of methodology seriously and not to leave the subject matter in the classroom. He wants his students to understand that a judicious methodology has implications for self, life, meaning, values, and community.

"If any of this is in conflict with the principles of science, then, perhaps, the time has come to get rid of those aspects of science which are in conflict with the kinds of thing which Mr. Corrigan is attempting to teach his students. If anything, he has run into difficulties because he has held up a mirror to the way evolutionary scientists go about plying their trade and questioned whether such practices constitute satisfactory epistemology, let alone sound science.

"What does it mean to say a given chain of evidence is a plausible one? The curriculum materials, that constitute People's Exhibit 'A', attempt to explain why Mr. Corrigan believes there are major, not minor, problems with the chain of so-called evidence which is cited by many scientists and biologists as justification for the conclusion that natural evolutionary processes adequately account for, among other things, the origin-of-life.

"During cross-examination a very extensive sampling of evolutionary thought has been investigated in some detail. We have taken a look at: cosmological theories concerning the origin of Earth; asteroid bombardments; interstellar dust clouds; interplanetary dust particles; carbonaceous chondrites; differentiation of the Earth's magnetic core; ocean formation; atmospheres of various kinds of reducing and non-reducing composition; ocean-vaporizing impacts; photic-zone vaporizations; interpretation of carbon-12 and -13 isotopes in the Isau rock formation; the faint early sun paradox; run-away greenhouse effects; ocean pH values; ultraviolet radiation; shock-wave synthesis; processes of photolysis, hydrolysis, and pyrolysis; possible synthetic pathways for hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, amino acids, ribose sugars, nucleic bases, phosphates, fatty acids, and phospholipids; the nature of membrane functioning; porphyrin pigments; issues of chirality or handedness; cross-bonding potential in prebiotic condensation reactions; Strecker synthesis in the Archean era ocean; Fischer-Tropsch mechanisms; formose reactions; alleged simulation experiments; problems of polymerization involving proteins, DNA, and RNA; issues of replication; the RNA-world hypothesis; ribozymes; natural selection; evolutionary pressure; transposable genetic elements; the possible role of random events; origins of the genetic code; protocell formation; co-evolution, and the operon model.

"At each and every stage of our investigation there were major, unresolved questions concerning the tenability and plausibility of the evolutionary model. There is no consistent, rigorous chain of evidence that starts from first principles concerning known facts about the natural processes of cosmology, geology, hydrology, meteorology, thermodynamics, inorganic chemistry, or organic chemistry, and which permits one to see that, in principle, if not in broad detail, there is a plausible path which is capable of leading any reasonable individual to understand how the origin-of-life arose through purely natural processes under what we believe to have been Archean era conditions.

"This is not a matter of two people looking at the same glass of water, and one person seeing it as being half empty, while the other individual perceives it to be half full. This is a matter of too many assumptions, problems, questions, ambiguities, uncertainties, unresolved dilemmas, and unbridgeable, at least at this time, conceptual chasms.

"Now, an evolutionary researcher may look at the mounds of data, experimental results, technical models, or mathematical formulae and believe this is all great science. In reality, however, this kind of science not only fails to demonstrate the validity, or even tenability, of a plausible evolutionary account concerning the origin-of-life, but anyone, given what is currently known and understood, who should try to claim that the available evidence supports, beyond a reasonable doubt, a natural account of the origin-of-life, is engaging in both bad science as well as terrible epistemology.

"There have been a great many books, articles and so on that have been written by scientists and others who have been severely critical, and rightly so in my opinion, of the attempt by creationists to try to pass creationism off as a science. People degrade the magnificence of creation by reducing it to the very limited, narrow preoccupations of the world of physical, material science.

"On the other hand, almost no criticism has been directed toward scientists for attempting to pass off evolutionary theory as a disguised form of faith. Ultimately, however, evolutionary accounts of the origin-of-life require one to have faith in the great deities of chance and assumption.

"The deities of chance and assumption render all things possible. Whatever your theoretical problems may be, these deities can resolve them.

"There is no process, reaction, event, or possibility for which provisions cannot be forthcoming from the infinite powers of chance and assumption. Whatever theoretical rivers need to be forded, or whatever conceptual mountains must be scaled, or whatever evidential chasms need to be bridged, the deities of assumption of chance are there waiting for the faithful to call out in supplication.

"The miraculous, the inexplicable, the amazing, and the incredible become the commonplace by the grace of the holy writ of the law of large numbers and the givens of assumption. Seek, and you shall find; ask, and it shall be given to you; knock, and all doors will become open to you.

"Little is required of you to adopt this faith. All you need to do is take advantage of the opportunities that chance provides and assume everything turns out O.K..

"The faith is simplicity itself. For those who are prepared to submit, beauty and meaning shall flow into their lives like manna from heaven.

"The litanies are easy to learn. Just say: "if", "given", "possibly", "conceivably", "assuming", "probably", "theoretically", and "plausibly", and all manner of things will be added unto you.

"I would love to play golf with evolutionists. I can see myself standing at the 18th hole at Augusta and saying: "If we assume that I hit this just right and, then, get a few, chance, lucky bounces in my favor, I believe I could hole out ... what do you think?" I'm sure they would treat it as a "gimme".

"We could play a round of golf and never leave the clubhouse. All we would have to do is assume our way through eighteen holes.

"We could shoot 18, or less, every time out. Who could argue with us since we would have consensual validation on our side.

"Of course, people might begin to suspect something was amiss with our consistently, incredibly low scores. They even might want to make a federal case out of it.

"If this were to happen, however, neither I nor my evolutionary golfing buddies would have anything to fear. We would just get Dr. Yardley to testify on our behalf as to how plausible our account was despite the numerous improbabilities, problems and questions surrounding our theory of what was happening out on the golf course.

"Mr. Corrigan has made the mistake of stepping on the toes of those who are deeply committed to their faith. These zealots take umbrage with anyone who would ridicule their faith as being merely a myth told to impressionable children in order to help the youngsters make sense of, and feel at home in, a bewildering, mysterious, and, sometimes, frightening universe.

"Their deities are jealous gods who do not tolerate worship at any other alter. The guardians of the faith and the keepers of the ark of the chance covenant with assumption are quite certain that all those who do not bow down to the idol of evolution will surely be condemned to an eternal doom in the outer darkness where there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have an opportunity to stop this nonsense. Some day, somebody may come along and be able to demonstrate, in a plausible fashion, and beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is an unbroken chain of evidence which links first principles of science with a purely natural account of the origin-of-life."

"Today is not such a day, and no one, so far, has provided anything remotely approaching such a plausible chain of evidence. Consequently, we need to demand that the classrooms of our nation be made safe for the teaching of science uncontaminated by matters of faith.

"The teaching of biology is a wonderful thing. However, including evolutionary theory as part of the biology curriculum is a violation of the Constitution's separation clause between the state and matters of faith.

"I ask you to find Mr. Corrigan innocent of all charges. I ask you to make the sort of judgement on this issue before the court which you know in your heart is the right thing to do.

"Thank you!"

| Part 1 | Part 2 |

| Table of Contents for Evolution On Trial |