Phillip Johnson on trial -
The difference between scientific and legal methods
The difference between scientific and legal methods
How can scientists ignore a book such as Icons of Evolution? Scientists understand this implicitly,
To begin with, in a trial the prosecution holds one prejudice and the defense holds another. This motivates lawyers to present misleading or even false evidence. Scientists begin with open minds and are trained to examine evidence before drawing conclusions.
Secondly a trial jury is selected from the general public. In science the whole scientific establishment is the jury. Emotions and prejudices influence the public. Scientists are trained to stifle prejudice and avoid emotions. Scientists who are swayed by emotion are quickly (often harshly) "corrected" by peers.
In a trial one side presents its complete case and then the other. In a science evidence is considered point by point. The failure of an important piece of evidence can halt the whole process.
When a jury reaches a decision, only by a lengthy legal process can undo the conclusion. Political power can influence decisions. The whole scientific community considers scientific conclusions. A subset of the community ruthlessly criticizes the conclusion. If the conclusion is wanting no group is powerful enough to salvage it. Usually a scientific conclusion suggests useful approaches to related problems. The success or failure of these suggestions determines the ultimate fate of the conclusion.
Evolution as a concept has passed the tests of science and still makes useful predictions. It can be displaced only by another concept which passes these tests and proves more fruitful than evolution. Evidence for the "falsity of evolution" (e.g Icons of Evolution) is as useful as evidence for a flat Earth. See Carpenter's 100 Proofs the Earth is not a Globe
