God On Trial

One session. All those having business with this court draw near and you shall be heard. Case 371, Science vs. God.

You may be seated. Will court come to order? Now, Ms. Prosecutor, I notice that you and your witnesses are present for this trial.

But where, may I ask, is our defendant and his counsel? Your Honor, we, the prosecution, have tried to contact the defendant on numerous occasions to appear before this court. Well, has the defendant been subpoenaed? We have attempted.

However, he could not be found. Here are the unsigned documents. So there the defendant's chair sits, Your Honor, empty. It is apparent that the defendant, God himself, has refused to appear before this court.

At the behest of my clients, prestigious members of the scientific community, who wish to silence once and for all the ludicrous acclamations that a supreme being exists, we simply cannot allow superstitious religious sentimentality to follow us into the 21st century. In light of the fact that the defendant to which God has not appeared, This court has no choice but to grant a judgment by default With a verdict of guilty God Guilty of non-existence Wait Step closer And who are you? I am defense counsel for God Counsel for the defense Must I remind you that your client, the supreme being Is not present before us at this time I am aware, your honor Then how do you propose to defend someone who apparently does not exist? Your Honor, how does one defend the existence of air solely on the principle of sight?

Air is everywhere, is it not? Yet we cannot see air, we can't taste it or smell it. Objection. The defense is evading the real issue.

Can he produce God or merely hot air? Objection sustained. Now, Counselor, are you prepared to prove the existence of God in this court of law? Yes, I am.

Well, very well, then. Prosecution may present her case. Thank you. Prosecution calls as its prime witnesses Professor Suna and Professor Dismotis to the witness stand.

Bailiff, please swear in the professors. Professors, raise your right hands. Do you both swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.

Objection! The very purpose of this trial is to determine whether or not a God in fact exists. Therefore, the use of the term God is in direct conflict with the interest of my clients. Sustained.

Now, professors, if you would be so kind as to answer the bailiff's question, disregarding the term, so help you God. I do. You both may be seated. Before we begin, Your Honor, I would like to enter into evidence the items that you see displayed on this table here.

For the jury's edification, we have various charts, bottles of chemicals, numerous volumes of science textbooks, books, and a model of the known universe. Court has noted. Proceed. Dr.

Dismotis, would you please tell the court the events that led to the creation of the universe, events that are substantiated by a multitude of scientific tests, data, and research? Gladly. Picture, if you will, before the beginning of time, all matter within the universe concentrated into a single point at an extremely high temperature. Suddenly, it exploded with tremendous force.

From an expanded, superheated cloud of subatomic particles, atoms gradually formed. Then stars, planets, galaxies, and finally, life. Thank you, Doctor. Now for a few words from Professor Suna.

Life itself has been traced to have arisen from a most primitive cell form, which evolved into multicellular forms through an evolutionary process called natural selection, whereby lower species adapt and change into higher species. These facts have been thoroughly researched by some of the greatest scientific minds in history, most notably, of course, Charles Darwin. Thank you, professors. Now, in all of these scientific investigations, has any scientist, including yourselves, at any time found evidence of a living creator, a god, if you will?

A god? Why, heavens no. Come to think of it, we can't seem to locate heaven either. Your witnesses, defense counselor.

No questions at this time. Not even a single question, Counselor? Well, since the prosecution demands so eagerly to see God, I feel compelled to call as my first witness Miss Prosecutor herself. Objection, Your Honor.

This is preposterous. Unheard of. Prosecution may decline if she chooses. No.

On second thought, Your Honor, that won't be necessary. I accept, for I know that the defense has no case and is merely bluffing. Very well. You may take the stand.

Your Honor, due to the informal nature of my questioning, this prosecutor need not be sworn in. Highly irregular, but as you wish. Now, before I begin, I would like to request complete darkness in the courtroom. Complete darkness?

This is quite insane, Your Honor. What possible relevance could darkness have with this trial? Defense Counsel, is there some judicial purpose to this, a, how shall I say, quirky escapade of yours. I intend to show the relevance, Your Honor.

Then let us see that you do. Bailiff, switch off the overhead lights. Thank you. Now, Miss Prosecutor, can you see me?

With all the lights out? Forgive me if I do not answer your ridiculous question. On the contrary, it's a rather simple question. Can you see me?

Answer the question. Your Honor, I refuse to allow the defense to play this child's... Just answer his question, Counselor. I cannot see you.

Can you see the judge? Or the jury? Or for that matter, can you even see yourself? No, I cannot.

Excuse me, but could you repeat that a little louder for the jury to hear? No, I cannot. Yet you say, show me God. I've just shown you how limited your power of seeing actually is.

We cannot even see the closest thing to our eyes, the eyelids. Nor can we view the stars in the daytime. Can we see gravity or the atom? They exist.

If there is a supreme being, then he must exist in a dimension beyond the material time and space he generates and controls. A dimension beyond our imperfect senses. That will be all. Bailiff, you may turn the lights back on.

Your Honor, there is no point in continuing with this. this ridiculous charade. Now, can the defense produce some tangible evidence as to the existence of God, or does he admit utter defeat? It's a rather simple question. Counsel for the defense, we have heard from the witnesses for the prosecution.

It is customary to cross-examine. Do you not agree? Yes, your honor. Defense at this time calls Professor Suna to the stand.

Professor Suna. So, Professor, life evolved from chemicals through a process of natural selection. Charles Darwin, am I right? That is correct.

Professor, how is your vision? My vision? Why, it's average, I suppose. Why do you ask?

I am now holding up in front of you a book borrowed from the table containing all your exhibits. I was wondering if you would please read this sentence for me. I... I can't.

You can't? But you just said your vision was average. You happen to be holding the book in the shadow of that ceiling fan that's whirling above us. Oh, I'm terribly sorry.

I'm now moving the book into the light. There, is that better? Much better. I can read it now.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Who wrote this? Your Honor, prosecution demands to know the source of this most unscientific remark. Yes, give me that book.

I want to see the author's name. Certainly. His name is right here on the cover. Charles Dar...

Charles Darwin? Yes, Professor. You have just read an excerpt from The Origin of Species written by Charles Darwin himself. Now, if you stop and think about it, how does something as complex as the eye evolve?

We have the iris, which opens and closes the pupil, admitting varying amounts of light into the eye. Specialized muscles adjust the focal length of the light onto the retina, which sends visual images via the optic nerve to the brain. So as you can see, the eye represents a highly sophisticated system that would obviously necessitate all of its parts being created at the same time. And that would require intelligence from somewhere, from someone, would it not?

Move to strike. Calls for speculation on the part of the witness. Motion granted. Professor, in your testimony concerning the theory of evolution, you mentioned a process by which the lower species adapt and change into higher species.

Yes. The technical term for that would be natural selection. Natural selection. But doesn't the word selection mean choice?

Obviously. So who is choosing the particular changes a certain species will take on in the next generation? For example, who actually decided when a mammal in the Ice Age got more fur in its future evolution? Did the animals all just huddle together in some cave during a snowstorm and complain, Hey, it's just too darn cold, guys.

We need thicker fur. Don't be ridiculous. Professor, if I might ask, what kind of car do you drive? Why, it's a Lexus.

Lexus? Oh, a fine automobile. I'd like to think it was worth the investment. I agree.

But suppose I were to tell you that one year, your eight-cylinder Lexus just decided on its own to upgrade itself to twelve cylinders. Your Honor, must the jury be subjected to this silly rigamarole perpetrated by the defense? Despite all appearances of being silly, defense may continue, provided this line of questioning leads somewhere. Well, I admit a self-evolving engine is indeed a silly notion.

But what if a group of intelligent people at Lexus Corporation had a meeting and decided to change the engine for the upcoming model? Makes more sense, doesn't it? So again, when you say natural selection, I ask, who is selecting? Do chemicals decide to alter themselves?

Yet again, that would actually require intelligence, not to mention the immense power to actually carry out that change. Your Honor, the defense is trying to sway the jury by means of faulty comparison. Why, equating evolution with automobiles is like... like comparing apples with oranges. I agree.

You've made your point, Defense Counselor. Now shall we move on? Certainly. But one more thing, Professor.

If higher species evolved from lower species, as Darwin and you claim, why do the lower species still exist? I'm sorry, I do not follow. Humans are supposed to have evolved from the ape, correct? Correct.

If that is true, then tell me why, at the present moment, we see both the human and the ape existing side by side. Why is the ape still here, unchanged? And why do we never see a monkey giving birth to a human? Because, sir, only some members of various species evolved, while others remained consistent with their ancestors.

This is technically called random variation. Oh, random variation. Very clever. But how do you explain the fact that not one paleontologist in history has ever discovered a fossil of one species turning into another species?

Not one. All you've got are theories. Darwin's statements are fact. Speculative possibilities without experimental confirmation is not fact.

It is not science. Are you questioning my integrity? Sorry, Professor. sounds more like you're just waving a magic wand. And presto, random variations.

No further questions. This is outrageous. Of all the nerve, really. Professor, you may step down now.

Speaking of waving a magic wand, perhaps the defense would produce his client for us. Now, that would indeed be magic. Until then, my client's testimony stands undefeated that the universe was created by an explosion and that life evolved from chemicals through a process of natural selection. In rebuttal to the prosecution's remarks, I wish to enter into evidence Exhibit B.

Very well. It's right here, somewhere in my attaché case. What seems to be the problem, Counselor? Well, it appears to be stuck in the case.

If I can just pull it out. Counselor, we are waiting. There! Oh, no!

He's got a stick of dynamite! Somebody do something! We're on the line! I demand you put that dynamite out this instant!

Please stop it! Bailiff! Bailiff! Drop it or I'll shoot!

It's all right, everyone. Calm down. No need for alarm. This dynamite in my hand is only a stage prop.

Bailiff, you can put the gun down now. See, the dynamite has a hollow bottom. Unless you have a good reason, and I mean an excellent reason, for pulling such a deplorable stunt, I'm going to have you sentenced for contempt of court. Now, do you understand?

I do. And there is a very good reason for my actions. In order to make my point more valid, I needed to exercise the element of surprise. And what point might that be?

That you are a lunatic far crazier than we first imagined? How can you justify frightening all of us like this? Why were you so frightened, Miss Prosecutor? In fact, why was everyone in this courtroom startled and shocked witless when I pulled out this fake dynamite?

My professor Desmodus here practically jumped out the window. I did no such thing. Could the reason possibly be that everyone in this courtroom knows that dynamite causes explosions? But why the alarm?

According to the prosecution and her illustrious scientists here, Explosions create order, logic, and ultimately a well-planned and self-sufficient universe Ladies and gentlemen of the jury Contrary to what these mentors of science would lead us to believe Explosions create destruction Havoc Chaos Devastation That is my point, your honor To assume that an explosion created this universe would be like saying that these college textbooks on the table here were created by an explosion in a printing shop. Besides, the Big Bang Theory leaves one major question unanswered. For an explosion to occur, there first must be something to explode. Where did that something come from?

Where? Believe it or not, this theory propounded by modern atheistic scientists is currently taught as fact in all the major colleges and universities throughout the world. And no one is questioning. No one until now.

How dare you stand there and attack the established academic institutions of science. Why, the theories taught in these universities... Theories? See?

You yourself call them theories. These are... They are an accumulation of centuries of investigation and form the very root of this nation's technological heritage. The audacity of such a challenge.

I am not attacking the scientific community as a whole. Actually, science has produced many wonderful discoveries. My battle is with atheistic scientists who deny the existence of a supreme intelligence responsible for the creation of this universe. You have your nerve.

Where is this supreme intelligence? Your God hasn't shown himself Therefore, we must conclude without a doubt That God does not exist Perhaps my next witness can remove all your doubts Finally Your Honor, if it pleases the court I call to the stand the President of the United States Objection! Overruled I strenuously object, Your Honor And I strenuously overrule, Counselor. Defense is entitled to call the President if he chooses to do so.

Prosecution requests permission to approach the bench. You may both approach. Your Honor, we all are quite aware that it is virtually impossible for the President to personally attend these proceedings. And why is that, Counselor?

Well, he is much too important to just appear on your order, that's why. Nonetheless, I don't see him. Therefore, I must conclude that the President does not exist. The President, sir, does indeed exist.

Where is he? I've asked him to appear. You've demanded that God himself appear in this courtroom or face charges of nonexistence. Why should the President receive better treatment than God?

This has gone far enough, Your Honor. Frankly, I find all this rather fascinating, to say the least. Now, shall we resume this trial? I wonder.

Did it ever occur to the prosecution that the primary reason the President of this United States hasn't shown is not because he's too important or too busy, but because I haven't established a relationship with him? Relationship? What nonsense is this? Let's say I had given the President a couple million dollars for his last presidential campaign.

Then would it not be logical to assume that he would appear on my behalf today? Well, under those circumstances, I suppose. Ah, then why can't we conclude the same with God? If we act favorably toward God, then he would be more inclined to reveal himself to us, would he not?

Unlike God, the president is a person. Oh, I see. I'm a person, you're a person, but whatever created us cannot be a person? Is that logical?

How can a creator of anything be less than his creation? If this so-called creator of yours is truly a person, might he have a form other than being invisible? What the prosecution calls invisible is merely another word for spirit. Spirit?

Sounds more like we're talking about ghosts and the paranormal here. Prove to us that spirit exists. If it's proof you want, then answer this one question. What is the difference between a living body and a dead body?

Anyone? Professor Suna? Technically, the heart would cease beating in the dead body, and the brain would stop functioning. Dr.

Desmodus? Well, it's obvious that the respiratory system of a dead body would be inactive, as would all motor functions. Well, that's all true. But the main difference is that there is no consciousness in the dead body, which is the exact reason why the heart, brain, and motor functions would cease.

I could chop up a dead body, and it wouldn't protest. But if I touch even one hair on Miss Prosecutor's head, what happens? A slap in the face. So this consciousness, which gives the body the appearance of life, is actually the symptom of spirit, and the supreme spirit is God.

The prosecution would like it noted that we have given numerous facts supporting our position, whereas the defense only gives vague terms such as spirit, and still we have no God. Give us the facts. Facts? You call the biased testimony of your witnesses facts?

As a matter of fact, I do. The only fact is that in your ignorance, you fail to see... For your information, I am the only one here with witnesses. Order!

Order in the court! I will not have another outburst in my courtroom. Do I make myself clear? Yes, Your Honor.

I'm sorry. And furthermore, might I remind you two combatant lawyers that it is the jury's duty to decide who has given the facts. Now, shall we continue? At this time, the defense would like to cross-examine Dr.

Desmodus. Dr. Desmodus, take the stand. Now doctor, you stated earlier that in the beginning all matter was concentrated into a single point It exploded, creating stars, planets, galaxies, and finally life These are your own words, are they not?

Yes, not only my words, but the words of the majority of the world's scientists Oh, I see So in essence what you and the majority of the world's scientists are saying is that everything, including life, came about by accident or chance, with no supreme intelligence behind it whatsoever. That is correct. On what authority do you base these facts? Why, by virtue of recent breakthroughs in cosmology, molecular biology, and genetic engineering, to name but a few.

Oh, I see. And it is from these breakthroughs, is it not, that science claims that all life arose from chemicals? Yes. If, indeed, life came from chemicals in the past, then why isn't life coming from chemicals now, in the present?

Well, because, sir, life evolved. Oh, I see. Formerly, life came from chemicals, but now life comes from living beings. These living beings you speak of, sir, are nothing more than a combination of chemicals.

Why, any high school biology teacher could tell you that. if we are simply a combination of chemicals as you insist would you be so kind as to demonstrate before this court how life originates from chemicals you wish for me to create something now yes that is your theory isn't it life comes from chemicals well prove it on this table next to you sit bottles of chemicals that you have brought as evidence to substantiate your creation theory. I see a vial of blue powder, and here's a flask of greenish liquid, and some yellow gel. Simply open these bottles, mix the chemicals, and create something. Anything.

An ant, or a leaf, or even one grain of rice. Are you not aware that through the science of cloning and extrauterine insemination, we already have created life? No, you merely take an egg or sperm from living humans. Living humans, do you not?

I'll take your silence as a yes. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, science has taken what was already alive, given it an artificial environment to develop and grow in, and this they call cloning or creating life. Life comes from life, and the supreme source of life is God. Now, professor, I'll repeat the question.

Can you create life now? As I said earlier, we are currently cloning animals by breaking the codes of DNA molecules, which are the very building blocks of life. Breaking the codes? But you said life arose by accident.

Now you speak of codes. I'm quite aware of what I said. You're just trying to juggle words to make me more and more confused. Really?

Are you then suggesting the existence of accidental codes? If it takes so many teams of scientists to unlock these genetic codes, then what makes you think no intelligence was required to make the same codes? I'll ask you one more time. Can you, Professor, create life now in the present?

Very soon in the near future, science will have... Sorry, Professor. No post-dated checks from the science community today, thank you. Just answer my question.

Can you create life? No, we cannot. Then how do you know for certain life evolved from chemicals? Isn't it true, Professor, that atheistic scientists are cleverly misleading the innocent public with these false theories?

No. And isn't it true that by claiming you will one day create life, science is, in effect, trying to take the position of God? That's a lie. And isn't that what this trial is really all about?

No. Objection. The defense is badgering the witness. Sustained.

Your Honor, it is clear that these scientists have failed to actually prove their theories Speaking of failure, the defense, like some cheap magician, has used every trick at his disposal to try and impress the jury From his darkness routine to calling on the President of the United States Oh, and let's not forget the most juvenile dynamite episode, as hollow a strategy as the dynamite itself. These tricks, as the prosecution labels them, were used merely to focus on the fact that scientists' theories lack logic and reasoning. All useless ploys if your own client, the mysterious Supreme Person, cannot be found. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my clients say the universe has no creator behind it, but that if any creator or God exists, then let it be called chance.

Chance? Not meaning to interrupt your little speech, Miss Prosecutor, but the term chance doesn't really explain anything about the creation. It merely tells of a condition. Take this coin, for example.

If I toss it in the air many times, chances are it will land 50% of the time on heads and 50% of the time on tails. We call this a 50-50 chance. But that term chance doesn't tell us anything at all about the construction of the coin or where it came from. Or more importantly, who tossed the coin in the air in the first place.

Prosecution grows weary and calls for the defense to produce one concrete witness to refute the arguments of our distinguished professors. Defense Counselor, do you actually have any real witnesses? Not at the moment. Not at the moment.

I didn't think so. The prosecution rests, Your Honor. Thank you, Miss Prosecutor. Now, defense counselor, do you at this time rest your case?

Not yet. There is one more thing. Defense requests that prosecutions exhibit number one, in particular the model of the universe sitting on that table, be now entered as defenses exhibit two. I strongly object to this request, your honor.

Any reason in particular? Isn't it evident that the defense is only stalling for time? He's blatantly trying to confuse and wear down the jury in hopes that they will give in to his twisted logic. I am finding it very difficult, given these laughable circumstances.

The defense has not produced one shred of evidence, not one witness, who can corroborate his position. He has persisted in making a mockery of the entire judicial system from the very moment he walked in through the front doors of this courtroom. Please, please contain yourself, Miss Prosecutor. Now just try and relax, and that is an order.

Now I understand your feelings. However, I am prepared to give the defense every possible latitude in order to try to prove his case. After all, we do have God on trial. Now let it be noted, and I hesitantly grant this motion, But the defense may use prosecution's model of the universe as his exhibit number two.

Thank you. Defense Counselor, just what does this model have to do with the case at hand? Well, your model of the universe closely resembles a model of the solar system that was in Isaac Newton's possession in 1704. Is that all?

Do you see, Your Honor, the futility of the defense's ludicrous strategy? Will prosecution please remain calm? I demand the defense reveal the reason, if any, as to why our model reminds him so much of the one built by Isaac Newton. Oh, I'm terribly sorry, but I distinctly do not recall saying that Isaac Newton built his model of the solar system.

You most certainly did. No, I didn't. I said this model resembles the one that was in Sir Isaac Newton's possession. As a matter of fact, according to Isaac Newton himself, his model came about by an accidental explosion in his laboratory.

An explosion? Stop insulting my intelligence. Newton must have been joking. And why is that, Counselor?

Because it's crazy. Crazy? Now you're calling Isaac Newton crazy? If you insist.

Why? Why, Counselor? Because an explosion couldn't produce a model of the solar system. It's impossible.

Go on. Please finish your sentence, Ms. Prosecutor. Yes, by all means.

Complete your sentence. The word you were trying to say was impossible, was it not? And if you find it impossible to believe that a mere toy model of the solar system could have been created by chance, then how can any intelligent person be expected to believe that this gigantic real universe also happened by chance? It is interesting to note that Isaac Newton did in fact use a similar model to make the same point to a number of colleagues who also believed that the universe had happened by chance.

And just as in this court, we can understand that behind every law there is a lawmaker, why then should there not exist a supreme lawmaker behind all the laws of nature that scientists have discovered with their fertile brains? Strange no one in this courtroom ever stopped to ask, who created the brain of the scientists in the first place? Your Honor, the defense rests. Very well.

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the testimony of both the prosecution and defense in the case of Science v. God. It is now up to each and every one of you to reach a verdict in these matters. We eagerly await your decision.

Court is adjourned.