Pushing his
chair back as he arose, the lawyer for the prosecution - who looked, sounded and acted
like he came from a family of moneyed-gentry, walked to a point in front of the jury box,
about midway between the two ends. He placed his hands momentarily on the railing atop the
three-foot partition which enclosed the jury area and briefly made eye contact with
various jurors as he looked first to his right and, then to his left, while he surveyed
the members of the jury.
Removing his
hands from the railing, he began to address the jury as he slowly walked back and forth
along the front length of the boxed area. Every so often, he would stop and face the
jurors in front of him and speak as if he were talking just to them.
"Ladies
and gentlemen of the jury, some seventy-two years ago, a man by the name of John Scopes
was placed on trial for teaching evolution to his students. He was accused of promulgating
theories and ideas which ran contrary to established religious doctrines concerning the
origins of human beings.
"Today,
you are being asked to pass judgement on a case which, in many ways, is quite similar to
the Scopes case, but with a major difference. The defendant, Mr. Corrigan, has been
accused of teaching material which is contrary to the facts of evolution and in opposition
to established principles, practices and methods of science.
"I,
personally, find it very disheartening that just a few years from the beginning of a new
millennium, and some hundred and thirty-nine years after the publication of Charles
Darwin's classic study: The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, we find
ourselves unable, apparently, to put this matter behind us. I consider this situation to
be unsatisfactory because for nearly one hundred and forty years, there has been an
exponential growth of data from many different fields of scientific endeavor, all of which
points in one direction- namely, that evolutionary theory has been demonstrated to be a
valid, consistent, empirically grounded, rigorously examined and scientifically satisfying
account of the origins, not only of species, but of life itself.
"To be
sure, as is true in any area of scientific research, there are differences of opinion
concerning the value and use of different kinds of methods, techniques, and
interpretations in evolutionary theory. However, none of these differences has anything to
do with bringing into fundamental question, nor are they capable of undermining or
refuting, the shared understanding, and agreement, of scientists concerning the essential
character of evolution.
"At the
heart of evolutionary theory is one simple truth. The origin-of-life, the origin of
species, the transition from one species to another are all completely explicable in terms
of known, natural principles and processes.
"In
other words, the processes of physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, meteorology, and
climatology, when combined with a few simple principles such as natural selection and
sexual selection, provide a definitive, exacting and sufficient framework through which to
understand the origins of life along with the biological phenomena which such origins set
in motion. In short, the dynamic interaction which results from the interfacing of the
forces operating through these various principles and processes is all that is necessary
to be able to provide an adequate account of why certain phenomena and forms, rather than
other phenomena and forms, were selected to play crucial roles in the emergence and
perpetuation of different life forms.
"To
employ principles and forces beyond the natural realm is to violate what is known as
Ockham's razor. This long venerated tenet of scientific methodology advises us not to
multiply assumptions or concepts beyond what is needed to adequately account for any given
phenomenon.
"Translated
into more modern language, Ockham's razor is really the law of parsimony.
"Keep
things simple. Do not complicate matters unnecessarily.
"Evolutionary
theory operates entirely within the purview of this law of parsimony. Indeed, as far as
the issues surrounding the origins of life are concerned, evolutionary theory is the only
account which operates in accordance with this fundamental principle of rigorous
methodology.
"The
Scopes trial was caught up in emotion, dogma, and cultural biases. These influences
settled like a dense fog around the minds and hearts of the jury and made reaching a fair
and impartial verdict on the issues of that case very difficult.
"As a
result, John Scopes lost the case. He lost the case despite the fact that the overwhelming
character of the trial evidence revealed through testimony and cross-examination exposed
the charges against the defendant to be entirely without merit.
"You,
the members of the jury, have been selected because of your stated willingness to rise
above issues of emotion, dogma and cultural bias. You have been selected because of your
commitment to render a free and impartial judgement in the matter before us based solely
on considerations of facts, logic and reasonableness of deliberations.
"The
prosecution intends to demonstrate, within the limits which are being imposed on this
trial, that evolutionary theory has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
Consequently, anyone who, in this day and age, would teach material which stands in
opposition to a theoretical framework which has been developed and agreed upon during the
last one hundred and thirty-nine years can only do so by denying the facts of the matter
and by refusing to observe sound scientific practice and principles.
"This
is precisely the violation of which Mr. Corrigan is being accused. If the prosecution is
successful in the presentation of our case, as I believe we will be, then you, the women
and men of this jury, will, beyond any reasonable doubt, find Mr. Corrigan guilty as
charged."
Once again,
the prosecutor briefly ran his eyes down the two rows of impaneled jurors, stopping here
and there to engage the eyes of this or that juror. When he had finished, he said:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I want to thank you for the careful attention
which you have given to my opening remarks. I am confident you will give the same
considered attention to the evidence which governs the case before you."
Mr. Mayfield
turned and went back to his table. As he sat down, one of his assistants whispered
something in his ear.
Judge
Arnsberger turned to the lawyer for the defense. "Surf& #146;s up, Mr.
Tappin," she informed him.
Before
getting up, he picked up one of the sheets from the table top, looked at it for a few
seconds, and, then put the paper back down. He continued to sit for another five or ten
seconds, as if in thought, and then rose, quickly making his way to the jury area.
In speech
and manner, Mr. Tappin appeared to be the opposite of Mr. Mayfield. With the exception of
his thinking processes, everything about the defense lawyer was casual, informal and laid
back.
Like the
lawyer for the prosecution, Mr. Tappin appeared to be in his early thirties. And like Mr.
Mayfield, the defense lawyer was moderately handsome, but in a rough and ready manner,
and, therefore, somewhat at odds with the prosecution lawyer's aura of urbane
sophistication.
"Good
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury," the defense lawyer began.
"Good
afternoon," came a collective, somewhat mumbled response from the jurors.
"I
would like to thank my learned adversary for the wisdom of his comments," Mr. Tappin
stated. "With his well-known, and respected, capacity for conciseness, Mr. Mayfield's
introductory statement has focused on the most important elements of this case.
"The
legal matter before you is not about, or at least, it should not be about, emotion, dogma
and cultural biases. On the other hand, this case is about facts, logic and reasonable
deliberations.
"These
proceedings will not be about evolutionary science versus what some adversaries of
evolution refer to as "creation science". This is so because my client is not an
advocate of creation science, nor is this what he teaches in his classroom.
"My
client, Mr. Corrigan, does not find any philosophical, or even religious, inconsistency
between the vast majority of the tenets of evolutionary biology and a belief in a Divine
Being Who creates the material and physical world. Mr. Corrigan is willing to admit the
plausibility, if not tenability, of a position which says that evolution is merely the
manifest form of the means through which God creates physical/material reality.
"The
nature of Mr. Corrigan's faith is not so feeble that it depends on presupposing a
particular conception of creation which precludes the possibility of evolution. He doesn't
have a vested interest or axe to grind in this respect.
"Mr.
Corrigan's concerns lay elsewhere. He is worried about issues such as truth, proof,
logical argument, understanding, explanation, interpretation, and the integrity of the
exploratory process.
"The
case of the defense will not be about whether the second law of thermodynamics is
inconsistent with the theory of evolution. We are quite prepared to live with the entirety
of thermodynamic theory, including the relatively recent work on the phenomenon of
dissipative structures which, sometimes, arise under conditions in which a system is far
from equilibrium.
"The
defense will not involve any arguments about whether the fossil record does or does not
create problems for evolutionary theory. In addition, we will not try to exploit the
controversies surrounding punctuated equilibrium theories as a means of undermining the
framework of evolutionary biology.
"The
position of the defense does not depend on the raising of questions about the reliability
of dating methods based on radioisotopes. Furthermore, we have no intention of trying to
use, to our advantage, differences of opinion concerning the role which, say, lunar
samples, play in pinning down the time of events on Earth, or the way in which high
temperatures can affect the significance and interpretation of Carbon12 and
Carbon13 ratios as an indirect procedure for helping to establish the possible
presence of life at a given period of time in the early history of the Earth.
"There
will be no attempt by the defense to take quotes of noted evolutionary scientists out of
context and try to use these quotes as evidence against evolutionary theory. We are only
interested in taking a look at what the best science of our day has to say in support of
the case for evolutionary theory.
"Ladies
and gentlemen of the jury, so far, I have told you what the case for the defense will not
be. I have not, yet, indicated what our case will be, so let me take this opportunity to
rectify that omission.
"The
contention of the defense is as follows. When closely examined, evolutionary theories
concerning the origins of life consist of little more than a rather argumentative mixture
of: questionable assumptions, speculative conjectures, problematic inferences, arbitrary
interpolations or extrapolations, ambiguous evidence, and a wonderfully serendipitous
confluence of events quite beyond the ability of science to demonstrate with any degree of
plausibility except, perhaps, to the true believers among evolutionary theorists who are
more in need of faith to prop up their theories concerning the origins of life than are
many followers of religious traditions.
"The
defense will be asking you, the members of the jury, not to be dazzled by the technical
virtuosity of modern science. We will be asking you not to be intimidated by the use of
technical terms.
"However,
the defense will be asking you to keep in mind the importance of such basic, fundamental
questions as: how? where? when? what? and why? In addition, the defense will be asking you
not to shunt aside or marginalize the number of questions which go unanswered within the
evolutionary perspective.
"The
defense believes that if the members of jury are prepared to persist in asking simple
questions along the lines we have indicated, and if you are willing to keep a running
total of the questions which, after all is said and done, lack a satisfactory answer, you
will arrive at one conclusion, beyond any reasonable doubt. This conclusion is that my
client, Wayne Corrigan, is not guilty of teaching material in conflict with either the
facts of the matter at hand or with the methodological tenets and principles of scientific
investigation.
"Ladies
and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to thank you for your kind attention to my opening
statement. I also would like to leave you with one suggestion.
"Pause
for a few seconds, sit back, relax and take a few deep breaths. For, in approximately ten
to twenty seconds, you will not get the opportunity to do so again until these proceedings
have concluded."
Mr. Tappin
quickly, but methodically, scanned each of the jurors, looking into their eyes ever so
briefly as his gaze made its way down the jury box, and, then, he completed his opening
remarks with: "Thank you again for your patience." Turning, he walked& nbsp;
to his seat.
Approximately
fifteen seconds later, Judge Arnsberger announced: "The prosecution may call its
first witness."
