Ultimately, a jury BELIEVES that a defendant is guilty or not guilty based on the EVIDENCE provided. Obviously BELIEF in EVOLUTION?
..is formed similarly by pondering over the EVIDENCE provided and being swayed to believe it or not believe it as the case may be.
But here is a question. How many defendants who were not guilty in reality were sent to prison or hanged based on EVIDENCE? And how many defendants who were guilty in reality escaped justice because the jury did not have enough evidence provided with which to form a strong opinion?
So EVIDENCE by itself is not always a certainty in proving something. The truth of some matters may always be open to question. How say ye?
- Anonymous1 year agoFavourite answer
I say it's all a question of belief, not the veracity of the evidence. A jury, or any body of people, or even individuals will make a decision on the evidence presented, based how they believe it. A drunk in a crowded bar, boasted that he was clever enough to murder his wife, hide the body and get away with it. A few months later, his wife and baby disappeared, their bodies were found in a drain. He was arrested and charged with murder. At the trial, his landlord gave evidence, that he had heard the man threatening to murder his wife and baby. The evidence was overwhelming, the man was found guilty and hanged. The reality was, the man was innocent, it was the landlord that committed the murders, which simply shows that it isn't the evidence which is key, it is the individual's personal opinion of that evidence.
- Chris AncorLv 71 year ago
I don't know how many. I guess no one does.
- Jeffrey KLv 71 year ago
The term "evidence" has very different meanings in science and in law. Eyewitness testimony is not evidence in science. Science requires repeated experiments and observations. Law only asks for one observation. Jury's make a decision based on their beliefs. Science makes a theory based on indisputable proof.
The legal system is very flawed for the reasons you stated.
No theory in science is ever considered 100% proven. There is always a chance that new evidence will falsify it. But a theory in science is millions of times better supported by evidence than a verdict in court of law.
- tizzoseddyLv 61 year ago
I agree with, and find no fault in, your statements here, and I think your analogy is good. As I see it, the only thing a person can know is their own mind. That being said, the evidence for evolution seems overwhelming to me, and I feel that my belief, that the theory is correct, is well-justified. Interpretations of the evidence, and some of the so-called evidence, that people use to justify their denial of the theory's accuracy seem contrived. How many times has a clever lawyer misled a jury with contrived "evidence", and interpretations? Too bad those juries weren't able to look into things a little deeper.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Elaine MLv 71 year ago
Evolution is provable fact, it's not part of a jury case.
- All hatLv 71 year ago
I think some people like to go around untying other people's shoelaces. There's "evidence" that jumping in a lake will make you wet. Do you want to go verify that today?
- ♜Ⓢⓚⓨ ❍ Ⓓⓞⓥⓔ ♜Lv 51 year ago
To some extent people must decide to believe.
I am not one who would decide to think no evolution is taking place. My internal models of various qualities will not allow me to deny it.
I believe in chemistry. In cosmology. Biology.
Why? My internal models of various qualities continue to develop. For one I like the amount of detail. I like learning about the brain. Pondering physics. There is a quality to the explanation that I agree.
I am an artisan of my own mind. Somewhere down the line I decided to modify my internal models to make me a wiser person. The design of my mind I continue to better.
The other explanations for the presence of plants and animals are too ludicrous. They fail my standards.
- 1 year ago
This is an example of the circle jerk logic of people who never really understand science, but prefer religious dogma and lawyering.
There is really no comparison between the two, you're just saying "people can be wrong, thus evolution is wrong, despite all the evidence which supports it, because I prefer to claim Skygod make us."
Congratulations, you've just made the stock argument for Faith, but instead made it for Doubt.
- choko_canyonLv 71 year ago
Standard, dishonest, hypocritical, anonymous post from the 'what say ye' troll.
- A Nonny MouseLv 71 year ago
Again, evolution isn't connected to religion. Post your "questions" in the correct forum if you want an answer. Oh, I notice it's not an actual question, is it?
You people astound me.
- Climate RealistLv 71 year ago
Do you have any evidence that Earth is 6000 years old? I thought so.
Or how about evidence that a pile of clay can become a man or that a rib can become a woman?
If you have a better theory, let's hear it. Publish your theory in Nature and book a flight to Stockholm to collect a Nobel Prize.
People deny evolution because they haven't figured out that the Genesis passage was written to people who were herding sheep 3000 years ago. These sheep herders did not know about quantum relativity, string theory, Higg's boson or time frames of billions of years. The purpose of the Genesis account is about who (God) made the Universe, not about when or how He made it.
The Time line of Creation