I've noted before that a significant number of lawyers not only to deny evolution but also appear to think that their training as a lawyer enables them to adjudicate scientific "controversies" (real or percieved). As Nick notes over at the Thumb, the Discovery Institute seems to agree with me by approvingly ("Arizona Republic Columnist Hit the Nail on the Head in His Dover Trial Analysis") quoting the following from an op-ed in the Arizona Republic:
Moreover, based upon the extensive expertise he [Judge Jones] professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial, he defined science and determined that the scientific claims of intelligent design were invalid, neither of which are exactly legal questions best decided by a single lawyer.
As Nick points out, the DI seems unable to remember that their self-proclaimed "Darwin's Nemesis" Phil Johnson claimed the following in Darwin on Trial:
Before undertaking this task I should say something about my qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make. Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman.
Such an attitude has lead Johnson not only to take on evolution but also the link between AIDS and HIV.
But hang on a minute. Which is it? Are lawyers (and thus judges) qualified to decide "big questions"? If Johnson is, so is Jones.
There is, I feel, a difference between Johnson and Jones. In Kitzmiller, Judge Jones evaluated evidence given by expert witnesses. Both sides had the opportunity to present their best case - not on evolution - but on the case for making Pandas and People available to students in conjunction with a disclaimer regarding evolution. The plaintiffs managed to show that Pandas was not a scientific text, that it started life as a creationist test, and that, by extrapolation, ID is religiously motivated (this failing Lemon). Jones did what he was supposed to do, that is, evaluate the evidence presented by both sides and make a judgement based on the law. While I don't think judges should be evaluating science or, for that matter, philosophy, once a case goes to court you have to accept the judgement. It is a sad indictment on this country that such issues do go to trial.
In contrast, Johnson picked and choose evidence to made a case that could not convince scientific reviewers. His inability to evaluate the evidence demonstrates that lawyers outside the courtroom hold no special abilities at evaluating scientific evidence, particularly where they have their own theological axe to grind. To paraphrase Johnson, a lawyer outside his field of expertise (the law) is just another layman while scientists within the field of evolutionary biology are not.
- Log in to post comments
Regret to come so late to this post.
As a lawyer, I don't think Johnson's views on evidence are impressive. Specifically, I don't think he brings any legal-style analysis to the science issues, and I think he plays extremely fast and loose with credibility issues.
Consider for a moment tht DNA evidence is the most powerful science evidence anyone has ever found, especially in the criminal courts system. On the basis of DNA alone we have taken off of death row and liberated at least a couple dozen convicted murderers>/i>. Don't miss the significance there: These people were convicted of capital murder in a fair trial, with an impartial jury and a fair judge; on the basis of DNA alone, we have decided that the rest of the legal machinery was in error.
Johnson, of course, specifically rejects DNA evidence in evolution.
To be fair, your post should be tempered with a list of lawyers who do not reject evolution, but instead hold very high standards of evidence, which reject creationism. There are some controversial people in that group, such as Clarence Darrow, who famously cross-examined William Jennings Bryan in a voir dire proceeding to determine Bryan's chops as an expert in scripture. But it would also need to include the lawyers in the 1967 Epperson case in Arkansa, the 1981 McLean case in Arkansas, the 1987 litigation in Louisiana, the 2005 Kangaroo Kourt in Kansas, and the trial in Pennsylvania in 2005. (And of course, I'd like to be included in that group of trained lawyers who accept the evidence for evolution.)
In the crunch, lawyers have performed some amazing service for the purpose of truth and evolution. The cross examination of creationist witnesses in the 1981 Arkansas trial included asking each of them whether, in their expert opinions, there is any scientific evidence to support creationism, and if so what. Each and every one of the creationists, under oath, said there was no science in creationism, that it is instead based on a particular interpretation of scripture.
Phillip Johnson's a great publicity hog, with the time on his hands as a retired professor to make trouble, not needing to worry about keeing within the ethical canons of his profession any longer (nor ever getting close to a legal proceeding on the issue, in fact).
Even as a lawyer, in his rejection of evolution, he's a bit of an oddball. Don't be unnecessarily tough on lawyers, especially the 95% who have never bothered to look at the evidence.