Before we proceed I must point out the importance of one set of rules.

If the evidence is going to gain or lose merit based on what it may imply then Intelligent Design implies a supernatural being; or at least one far more intelligent than any man or group of men.

However, evolution seems to imply that there is no God.

If we teach evolution through the public school system we are forcing the majority of the Americans who believe in God, or at least their children, to be taught a religious viewpoint contrary to their own and on that basis we should stop teaching religion in class.

On the other hand, if this debate is not about religion but about the merit of evidence irregardless of the implications of that evidence, so be it but we cannot dismiss one side if it implies there is no God or if it implies there is a God. It just must apply to both sides.

Also, since we have a clash of expert opinions we cannot assume the majority number is correct.  We are only interested in what either side presents as evidence. Assuming this courtroom is not rendering a decision based on a raising of hands or votes, we must ignore numbers and go with only that which is provable evidence.

Since is not merely an innocent or guilty verdict but more of what appears to be a competition of conflicting ideas, I would suggest some type of point system. With so much emotion, philosophy and uncertainty about what is true, what is scientific, what is religious, and what is downright untrue we need some concrete basis for rendering points or decisions in this case. That should be clearly known by all up front.

If we are not going to censor evolution on the basis of its religious implications and equally not censor Intelligent Design on the basis of its implication than here is my suggestion for a case for science.

The scientific method has long endured the challenges of myth-makers by demanding proof; is this not similar to the criteria of any fair courtroom? Hearsay and opinion are considered but certainly not considered evidence. No matter what either side says they believe, the court will grant more “points” to that which is provable evidence.

And if you will bear with me, just one more important consideration; there is a difference between a weak theory and a theory that is in contradiction to that which is proven. Therefore, I urge the court to conclusively reduce in importance that which is contrary to scientific fact and give more importance to those theories consistent with observable evidence and of course, grant the most importance to that which has been clearly proven as true. These three categories may well assist in determining the outcome here and fair judgment.

In conclusion, there is not one trial here but two: one is evolution versus the scientific method and the other is Intelligent Design versus the scientific method. This is the only way in which to grant equal treatment to both and render a concrete conclusion rather than a political or religious conclusion and the most respectful to science itself. The votes must go only with the evidence and equal rules must apply equally.

Excerpts, Table of Contents, photos, book cover, and many downloadable articles on the intelligent design controversy and more at www.BestChapter.com