 Ross Buchanan (ret.)
 Susan J Blanco
 Billy-George Hertzke
 Jon J Olafson
 Ian J. Kellogg
As you may know, the Scopes trial was a so-called “trial of the century” (the 20th Century) and this will be the 100th Anniversary. Ms. Wineapple is likely to discuss in her keynote the need to understand the past in order to plan for the future. A large theme of her book of course was the discussion of evolution but there is an underlying theme of whether we are actually evolving as a society. There is an unstated question of how much courtroom disputes are changing (or not) and their impact on society.
The Scopes trial pitted science versus religion but the science never actually made it into the courtroom in that case. The story of the trial presents some interesting issues that could be discussed among the judges on the panel, from the judge’s perspective (and not from any religious or political perspective):
• The “experts” in the Scopes case that testified were religion experts – would experts be permitted to testify on the central tenets of religion in today’s courtrooms? Would the conflict between science and religion enter the courtroom today?
• Our use of experts today is focused on scientific evidence – do the disputes all seem to now come down to science vs. science?
• Does the courtroom mirror society where everyone wants to believe in their own “version” of science?
• What does your courtroom experience reflect about whether society believes in science anymore?
• How does science work in the courtroom in an anti-science world?
• How do you handle anti-science views in the courtroom?
|