Scientists would be better if they were lawyers... huh?

[Pete Harcoff]

Reading some posts in the Creation-only forum, I stumbled across a couple posts in this thread (posts 18 and 19):

I'm a prosecutor, so I guess I usually think in terms of evidence and competing interpretations of evidence. I think that theories that seek to explain history and origins are more akin to theories of a criminal case (i.e., the best interpretation of evidence) and very different than most other scientific theories that can be tested by repeating experiments.

Interesting that you say that. I am lawyer too. The scientists don't understand evidence and burdens of proof, and varying standards of proof. They are so woefully clueless, and yet indignant when you suggest that maybe their science degrees aren't enough to evaluate all the issues in this debate.

What I find particular odd about these comments is that if you look at court cases ever since the Scopes trial, creationism and ID hasn't exactly fared very well. In fact, real science has pretty much dominated the legal arena any time its faced with a challenge.

I just find it really odd when people with expertise completely outside the scientific arena act like they're more qualified to judge science than people with expertise within the scientific arena.

 

[Cabal]

I agree. There's some really irritating bully-boy lawyer who's high-up in the DI. And they've been pwned every time in court. And they still don't seem to grasp that the burden of proof is on them, which makes it even more laughable that they think we need to be doing it. Dunning-Kruger cases, maybe.

I'll stick to the old ways, thanks very much - not done us too badly so far!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I agree. There's some really irritating bully-boy lawyer who's high-up in the DI. And they've been pwned every time in court. And they still don't seem to grasp that the burden of proof is on them, which makes it even more laughable that they think we need to be doing it. Dunning-Kruger cases, maybe.

Are you thinking of Casey Luskin?

Of course, there's also Phillip Johnson. I wonder if Darwin on Trial has anything to do with the attitude that standards of law somehow apply to science.

I'll stick to the old ways, thanks very much - not done us too badly so far!

Agreed.

 

[Cabal]

Are you thinking of Casey Luskin?

No, perhaps the guy I'm thinking of isn't part of DI, but I'm sure I saw him in the DI segment on Expelled *shudders*

Of course, there's also Phillip Johnson. I wonder if Darwin on Trial has anything to do with the attitude that standards of law somehow apply to science.

Maybe he can have a judge fix it so that the AIDS virus doesn't exist anymore.

 

[laconicstudent]

My personal favorite aren't the lawyers, but the Pastors and people with Bible degrees who think they are qualified.

 

[Deadbolt]

What I find telling are those who tout themselves as creation scientists but in fact their training lies in Law, a profession were selling your point of view to people and making a case based on word of law are the name of the game. A thing many real scientists are not quite as apt at.

 

[Loudmouth]

I wonder what those lawyers would do if their client's DNA matched the DNA found at the crime scene. Would they try and argue that the DNA at the crime scene was not from a common source but put there by a common designer? Would they then demand that the prosecutor disprove the existence of this invisible, unevidenced, and untestable designer?

What these two don't seem to understand is that the science is the same. Past events produce evidence that can be analyzed in the present. It doesn't matter if that evidence is a fossil, a fingerprint, or DNA.

 

[pgp_protector]

I wonder what those lawyers would do if their client's DNA matched the DNA found at the crime scene. Would they try and argue that the DNA at the crime scene was not from a common source but put there by a common designer? Would they then demand that the prosecutor disprove the existence of this invisible, unevidenced, and untestable designer?

What these two don't seem to understand is that the science is the same. Past events produce evidence that can be analyzed in the present. It doesn't matter if that evidence is a fossil, a fingerprint, or DNA.

Waits for dad.

 

[Gracchus]

L-A-W-Y-E-R ... liar.

 

[Loudmouth]

Waits for dad.

Then perhaps the laywers should argue that the universe was created last Thursday, including invented evidence that falsely convicts their client. They would then require the prosecuting attorney to prove that the Universe was not created last Thursday complete with false memories and false evidence.

 

[Gracchus]

A lawyer is not ethically bound to determine truth or work for justice. A lawyer is ethically bound to present the best case for his client.

 

[pgp_protector]

L-A-W-Y-E-R ... liar.

No, not all.
EDIT:
(Yes I know you didn't say ALL are, just pointing out that not all are)

 

[Loudmouth]

No, not all.
EDIT:
(Yes I know you didn't say ALL are, just pointing out that not all are)

One could say that the best lawyers are the best liars.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Reading some posts in the Creation-only forum, I stumbled across a couple posts in this thread (posts 18 and 19):





What I find particular odd about these comments is that if you look at court cases ever since the Scopes trial, creationism and ID hasn't exactly fared very well. In fact, real science has pretty much dominated the legal arena any time its faced with a challenge.

I just find it really odd when people with expertise completely outside the scientific arena act like they're more qualified to judge science than people with expertise within the scientific arena.

That is quite interesting. I get to spend some time dealing with lawyers in my work in science. I am involved part of my day in intellectual property. So as a scientist it is an interesting chasm between science and law.

What is most interesting about the two quotes you posted is:

1. That any lawyer who thinks that science and law utilize some different ways to assess evidence is relatively uneducated in science. All you need do is look at an inferential statistics book to see that.

2. Any lawyer who thinks that science can only be defined by experiments that are repeated in the lab should quit his job or he'll never be able to hire a forensic expert in any field!

I am amazed how differently science and law approach the same points, but in the end they really do have much more in common than not.

Unless one is a "Creationist" lawyer, I suppose.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I find particular odd about these comments is that if you look at court cases ever since the Scopes trial, creationism and ID hasn't exactly fared very well.

This dispensation is slated to descend even further, according to Timothy.

So much so, in fact, that when Jesus returns, He will ask:

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

I used to wonder what people would leave Christian basic doctrine for.

Now I have no question as what they will go to: science.

It is science that is going to [supposedly] win, only to get a wake-up call at the last minute.

In fact, real science has pretty much dominated the legal arena any time its faced with a challenge.

That's as it should be --- but it's not going to catch God by surprise.

He has already made provision for it, with many science-defying acts waiting in the wings.

I just find it really odd when people with expertise completely outside the scientific arena act like they're more qualified to judge science than people with expertise within the scientific arena.

That runs both ways.

 

[random325nicaea]

"So much so, in fact, that when Jesus returns, He will ask: Originally Posted by Luke 18:8

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
​

I used to wonder what people would leave Christian basic doctrine for.

Now I have no question as what they will go to: science.

It is science that is going to [supposedly] win, only to get a wake-up call at the last minute."

"he has already made provision for it, with many science-defying acts waiting in the wings."


and "what" allows you this astounding capacity to prophesize about the future?

 

[AV1611VET]

and "what" allows you this astounding capacity to prophesize about the future?

Have a good day, random325nicaea ---

I won't spoil it for you.

 

[Split Rock]

So much so, in fact, that when Jesus returns, He will ask:I used to wonder what people would leave Christian basic doctrine for.

Now I have no question as what they will go to: science.

It is science that is going to [supposedly] win, only to get a wake-up call at the last minute.That's as it should be --- but it's not going to catch God by surprise.

He has already made provision for it, with many science-defying acts waiting in the wings.

So, is The Beast going to be a Scientist? I mean, we all work for him anyway.

 

[laconicstudent]

Why do some people persist in the bizarre belief that science in any way attacks God?

 

[MoonLancer]

So, is The Beast going to be a Scientist? I mean, we all work for him anyway.

av used to say that scientists are a gift from god. I think he just said that to get under atheists skin.

Lying for Jesus?