Aren’t only science experts competent to judge such trial?
Judges may not be experts in all the fields upon which they preside. Experts submit the evidence. The judge must be unbiased to objectively weigh the evidence and render a just verdict. Judges, not computer experts, tried the Microsoft case. That case required the assessment of much technical computer science evidence. The Life Science Prize trial would examine scientific, objective, valid, reliable, calibrated, evidence and reach a verdict based upon the preponderance of that evidence. Evolutionists claim that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. Doesn’t a debate involve two experts? Isn’t a judge trained to weigh evidence? If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, isn’t it easy for a child to see, let alone a judge? Or are evolutionists afraid a judge would see that what is presented to school children as evidence doesn’t meet the qualifications? An evolutionist may say, “Sorry, but assessment of evidence relevant to this debate requires scientific expertise, not
