The Judge Rescues the ACLU

Morowitz's responses had established that leading evolutionists have only theories about how life began and, most importantly, that none of them work. Apparently Attorney Childs sensed that he had pinpointed a flaw in the ACLU case, for his next question to Morowitz was designed to refocus and exploit what he had just uncovered. Interestingly, Judge Overton was not about to let Childs probe this defect any further, as will be seen by the trial transcript:

Q	Let me repeat my question. Do you know how life evolved on the surface of the earth?
	THE COURT: He just answered that.
	MR. CHILDS: I think he said he had a theory.
	THE COURT: I think that is the answer. I think he has a theory. He doesn't know for a fact.
	MR. CHILDS: I think there has been a blurring in the distinction between a theory and a fact in this lawsuit, and that is the point I am attempting to make, your Honor.
	THE COURT: I don't know how it's blurred, but it doesn't seem to me like that answer blurred it.
	MR. CHILDS: I will move on, your Honor. [Smith 1982a, p. 601, ll. 2-14].

Thus, whatever climax Childs might have achieved in this phase of his cross-examination was effectively short-circuited by Judge Overton' s timely intervention in behalf of this ACLU witness. This was one of the critical points in the trial, generally unnoticed by media representatives.

[p. 106]

So the ACLU escaped from having one of the major defects in their case exposed; namely, the numerous failures to synthesize life constitute prima facie evidence that the uniformitarian principle is not now, nor ever has been, a sufficient basis for life to form. If it was, evolutionists long ago should have been able to reconstruct by design that which nature constructed only by chance. Evolutionists continue to fail in synthesizing life from inert matter because they are attempting the impossible—the duplication of a process that lies solely in the hands of the Creator.

The ACLU: No Science but Evolution

Morowitz's cross-examination had established that belief in a naturalistic origin of life, as required by evolution, has no scientific basis. To divert attention away from this truth, the ACLU used the clever strategy of depicting creation science as being unscientific. Generally the ACLU was able to have most of its expert witnesses (Geisler 1982, 92-99) affirm that creation science is not scientific without being challenged in their cross- examinations. This was one of the State's most costly shortcomings. In one instance, though, the State did expose just how far some evolutionists are willing to go in their opposition to creation. This occurred during Attorney General Steve Clark's cross-examination of the ACLU's biology witness, Dr. William V. Mayer, from the University of Colorado. Quoting Geisler (this part of Mayer's transcript was not available), in his direct examination this witness had earlier

objected to the term "evolution science" in Act 590 on the basis that it implied that there was such a thing as a science which was non-evolutionary, which he said is not true. (Geisler 1982, 99)

This statement effectively mandates that only evolution can be viewed as science. During cross-examination Attorney Clark inquired about this statement. Clark asked Mayer if he had said it "may well be that creationism is correct about origins." To this Mayer agreed, and added that he also had said "even if it were correct, it's not scientific." (Geisler 1982, 102)

This was a revelation. Over twenty-five years earlier I had accepted evolution based on what seemed to be scientific evidence in its favor. At that time I assumed all scientists were searching for the truth, always ready to modify their position if contrary evidence were found. Indeed, my quest for truth was initiated with the hope that evolutionists would fairly evaluate new data even if the outcome conflicted with the status quo, hence my long [p. 107] arduous efforts to inform them of my results in scientific journals. But it is difficult to see how Mayer's view represents an unbiased search for truth. Rather it seems specially geared to preserve the status quo of evolution regardless of how much evidence is discovered for creation.

This was another critical point of the trial—a point where the State could have decimated one of the foundations of the ACLU case. The ACLU had portrayed evolutionists as those dedicated to an open-minded search for truth in science, whereas creation scientists were represented as those who abuse science. But Mayer's responses exploded this myth. If, according to Mayer, there is no science but evolution, then searching for truth in science means that only those evidences in agreement with evolutionary theory will be accepted as scientific. I believe Attorney General Clark should have focused strongly on this issue during his cross-examination of Mayer.