To the editor:

I believe that scientific progress requires vigorous criticism of even widely accepted ideas, so I initially harbored hope that a “trial” of evolution might prove valuable. The theatrics of a courtroom setting struck me as over the top, but perhaps, I hoped, they would serve as a good metaphor for the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the courtroom metaphor has done more to illustrate the flaws in the current proceedings than the strength of scientific principles.

A premise of justice is that each litigant should have an opportunity to present his own side of the case. This is precisely the principle that school board member Connie Morris called upon when she criticized members of the scientific establishment for boycotting the hearings, telling The Associated Press, “I am profoundly disappointed that (pro-evolution scientists have) chosen to present their case in the shadows. I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner.”

But despite Morris’ professed desire to hear arguments from both sides, she later contradicted herself. According to the Journal-World, Morris admitted that she had merely scanned Kansas’ pro-evolution teaching standards.

I am, sadly, left wondering how the courtroom concept can work as intended if school board members do not adhere to the principles of justice. After all, what appellate court in the country would allow a verdict to stand if the presiding judge admitted that she had read only one side of the case?

If only the courtroom metaphor extended far enough to allow such an appeal!

Thomas Seay,

Lawrence