Verified answer

Well since there is no evidence for religion...only the omnipresent "faith" they all keep going on about...one would assume that Evolution would have to win hands down. Unless the jury were particularly susceptible, superstitious and prone to giving undue weight to circumstantial evidence, supposition and scare mongering.

There have in fact been a series of trials relating to this issue.

In 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that bannning the teaching of Evolutionary theory in schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the primary purpose of such Acts is religious.

In those days it seems the Separation of Church and State was taken quite seriously by the legal fraternity. Pity it seems to be going backwards now.

Tennessee had repealed the Butler Act in 1967..This was the Act under which a teacher called John Scopes from Dayton Tennessee had been brought up on charges in 1925 for teaching Evolutionary theory in Public Schools.He was defended at that trial by Clarence Darrow.

No one can prove that god does not exist...since proving the ABSENCE of something is a logical impossibility. However...we can prove the existence of the fossil record...and thus under the conditions you have outlined in your question I do not believe that any other verdict than one for Evolution could be possible.

There is only one impartial Judge.

Any human jury, impartial, religious or materialist would be fallible and the outcome would be no winner anyway.

Thats because the issues are so confused. It isnt a question of either or but a question of properly defining what you mean by each. Like weighing up the evidence between music and science.

Neither one is independent of the other. It depends on your capacity to embrace or critique one or the other. In fact the musician may simply lack the scientific mind to understand music in scientific terms.The scientist may not only be tone deaf, he may even think its out of his corner anyway.

So evolution expresses certain observable mutations but then makes a giant leap to propose everything evolved.Unfortunately the evidence so far is 99% contrived.

As for religion, its like music. You might well apply scientific ideas and discoveries but how do you prove it exists? Only humans have the capacity to appreciate it. Other creatures simply lack musical faculties apart from functional interpretaion.

Its a good attempt at objective study but I'm afraid its not a valid case to put before any court.

They are tow different courts.

You could never get a totally impartial jury - that would require a bunch of people who have never considered the idea before.

Just like none of us could be totally impartial (unless you grew up in a totally isolated place somewhere where the idea of origins of the world were never discussed).

So I don't think you're going to get an answer here!

Philip Johnson, emeritus professor of law at Cal-Berkeley and creationist goof, tried that with his silly book "Darwin On Trial". Since Johnson is judge, jury, prosecution and defense, of course he wins his imaginary case while leaving out massive amounts of pertinent data.

Science is not democratic and it does have a constant jury of peers- other scientists. If you only knew how exhausting a process it is to have a paper published in a journal, you'd have a better understanding. The outcome of the trials are evidenced by what you see in Nature, Science, and journals specifically targeted to other disciplines. It's an unfair, cold process. Far different from emotional scenes.

By the way, the verdict's been in for over a century: Darwin was right. New evidence in support arrives daily. See http://www.newswise.com/ for updates. Heck, sign up for the daily newsletter to see for yourself.

It would depend how rational and logical the jury was. If they were all very logical and rational, then they'd say evolution made more sense. If they didn't have any logic or rational thinking, then who knows...

Edit: I'm tired of people saying that evolution is just a "theory" and not actually proven. I think you should look in a dictionary the definition of the word theory. "A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations" It's not a half-baked, rough idea, you ignorami.

I guess they're both pretty flawed. The Catholic Church has acknowledged evolution so I guess that's Creationism out. Also, check out a book called Christian No More by Jeffery Marks for a total debunking of Christianity. Some very interesting concepts!

The ideas of evolution came about at a time when revolution was the "in thing" so the theory of evoloution may have been a means of discrediting revolution as a way forward and avoiding some decapitating of the aristocracry in countries where civil unrest may have headed in that direction?

Both theories of human origin (evolution and creationism) are based on assumed evidence.

Science and religion have their own biases they bring to the table in forming their argument.

Science is a study of natural events and occurances. By definition, miracles and divine intervention are not natural events, they are supernatural. Science cannot legitimately evaluate them, because science doesn't have the mechanism to evaluate them, nor imperical evidence to evaluate with. Those who hold to a scientific view of human origins point to data sets which show consistent results, which they are then able to apply back in time with a strong degree of confidence. They can never be 100% certain, but their theory, based on discerned scientific evidence, can stand quite credibly.

Religions, on the other hand, often do accept the supernatural - someone is healed of an incurable disease, delivered from 'certain death', or the like. Religious people who hold to a creationist point of view point to (at least in the Judeo-Christian setting) the words of a God they believe to be immortal and all-powerful, who says that he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Many, however, view science's certanties with more than a grain of salt. Some would argue that anything which has not been directly observed cannot be taken on anything but faith - the same grounds upon which the creationist accepts the idea of a supernatural creation of the heavens and the earth.

Nobody was around when the first humans emerged on the face of our planet. As a result, scientific theories on human origins and evolution have radically evolved over the past century, and continue to do so. No 'final explanation' has been given, and even if one was given, it would have to be accepted 'in faith' (so to speak) that science's discernment of the evidence was right.

In the end, what would a truly impartial jury say? I believe they would come to the conclusion that both sides are drawing conclusions based on a bias (Science in a natrualist bias, Religion in a supernaturalist bias) and would throw out the case.

The creationists are lacking the boat it style of feels to me. All they might ought to declare is that as quickly as God 'created' existence in the worldwide he used evolution to do it. end of argument. yet NOOOO ! ! ! they must take the script actually. Forgetting that as quickly as the Bible became written the literacy fee and the state of wisdom ordinarily became to no longer the point that the readers ought to draw close technological awareness like evolution. So a parable became written that must be understood and believed.

In a court of Law ?

Evolution would win of course.

The standards to prevail in court are based on a humans ability to perceive and is limited to his/her ability to comprehend the evidence and its relevance.

Haven't you ever seen "Inherit the Wind ?"

Now find a totally impartial jury of human beings. Good luck.

Find one that's willing to suspend disbelief and equate faith on an equal footing with a theory that seems on the surface to be the case, but has a history of revision.

Suddenly, its a horse race.

It would be difficult for them to disregard the knowledge gained concerning evolution.

It has already greatly improved our quality of life. It has produced tens of thousands of discoveries in genetics, epidemiology, archeology, agriculture, embryology, bacteriology… the list goes on.

Denying evolution now would be like denying the possibility of electronics after using a telephone, television and computer.

.