I recently crossed swords on X with whoever (is that you Casey?) runs the Intelligent Design The Future account, a mouthpiece, pun intended, of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, over the spectacle of Lawyers pontificating on scientific subjects.

Here’s how it went:

IDF: In this new interview, an attorney evaluates the evidential strength of the arguments for intelligent design.

Me: Why not ask an electrician or an office manager? Lawyers don’t have any training, as lawyers, in evaluating scientific issues.

IDF: You miss the point of connection. Lawyers don’t need to be trained specifically in scientific matters in order to apply their training in evaluating evidence for scientific claims. In addition, they also have skill in making complex ideas easier to understand.

Me: No, I understand the rhetorical point you’re trying to make, I simply reject it as being merely that, rhetoric. Lawyers are advocates who operate under very different rules than those of scientists. I could go on but I think Genie Scott did a better job than I could in a piece she wrote in 1993 in response to similar arguments made by Phillip Johnson in his book Darwin on Trial (1991) and I would direct those who are interested to read that: Darwin Prosecuted: Review of Johnson’s Darwin on Trial by Eugenie Scott

This little exchange got me thinking.

Creationist lawyers like to style themselves as noble truth-seeking prosecutors working tirelessly to indict the perfidious theory of evolution (or Charles Darwin etc.), for being fraudulent and leading the innocent astray.

But that’s not what they are.

They’re not prosecutors at all. They’re defense attorneys —and not particularly ethical ones— working on behalf of a client who never hired them and would prefer they stop talking: evolution itself (and every other science rejected by creationists).

Now, stay with me here.

Evolution (and I will focus on that since it is my forte) is guilty. Guilty as sin. The evidence against it is overwhelming.  There’s the testimony of the rocks (my apologies to Hugh Miller 1802-1856) i.e. the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, systematics, biogeography. Every witness for the prosecution points the same way and delivers the same verdict:

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — of being the best scientific explanation for the change and diversification of life on Earth through time.

Enter the defense: the creationist attorneys.

They’ll argue almost anything —no matter how absurd or misleading— to get evolution off the hook. They endlessly try to poke superficial holes in the insurmountable evidence again their unwilling client.

They argue that we should ignore the smoking gun of reliable forensic evidence against evolution in favor of hearsay testimonials in ancient texts that an “intelligent designer” (wink, wink) did it through some unknown and unknowable process, for reasons, and in a manner, known only to itself.

And they’ll denounce as “unfair” and “unjust” the scientific rules of evidence, such as a reliance on methodological naturalism, for disallowing their preferred theory of the “crime”, “God did it”, due to a lack of testability.

Sorry, creationist lawyers, only two explanations consistent with the evidence:

A) Evolution really did it.

B) Or God has gone to extraordinary lengths to stage a cosmic frame-up so perfect that mere mortals cannot hope to see through it. Is that the story you want to go with?

Of course, none of their machinations have a prayer of working on a jury of scientific peers, but this is not the true target of creationist lawyers, rather their rhetoric is aimed at two other groups. 1) Those unfamiliar with either the workings of science or the particulars of the evidence in question that they hope to sway to their cause and more importantly, 2) those that care not about science or the evidence, who are already convinced of evolutions innocence and wish to have their prejudices reinforced.

But in all seriousness, history has shown repeatedly that lawyers taking up the antievolution cause get things just as wrong as creationists from other backgrounds. If lawyers really had some special insight into this subject, then history should reflect that, it doesn’t.

My thanks to Wesley Elsberry for some comments and suggestions.