<<I was under the impression that the most successful lawyers appeal
to the emotions of the jury. And in the face of difficult evidence they
strive to obfuscate and complicate so the jury has that shadow of doubt
which ultimately benefits the lawyer's client. Call me naive.>>
It was Lincoln I think who came up with the famous dictum: "If the facts are
against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if
both are against you, pound on the table and cry for justice!"
Some truth in that. But the jury system has survived in great part because 12
people together almost always know when a lawyer is trying to snow them. Those
that try don't last very long as trial lawyers.
As to appealing to the emotions, Aristotle recognized this as one of the three
cornerstones of rhetoric (ethos, pathos & logos). EVERY successful argument
appeals to the emotions at some level.
Why do Darwinists label ANY critic of Darwinism an ipso facto "creationist"?
Because this loaded, emotion-laden term limits the credibility of the
opponent. We can see this in the reactions to Mike Behe's book. Even though
Behe says over and over he is NOT a creationist, that's what his critics call
him.
We have to recognize that the evolution debate is not pure science. It never
has been. It has been a public relations battle (as described in the wonderful
book, "The Darwin Conspiracy," by an attorney who shall remain nameless).
Jim