Goku: As acting defense attorney I would ask the court to note that in common law any defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof lies with the prosecution (this may be a kink). Normally the defense is privy to the evidence the prosecution will bring to court beforehand so as to ensure a fair defense, but so long as the bench allows ample recess to flesh out new evidence as they arise I will waive such privilege.
Objection, your honour. (Judge Dave).
Judge you must hear me out; there is a presumption here that by default evolution will be regarded as innocent/true. This may place an unfair burden-of-proof upon your humble narrator.
Part of the logical problem with this is that this one rule may colour the entire trial. In the past I have actually objected to this rule. I objected to it in the trial of Oscar Pistorius on logical grounds. I only agree with this rule where there is a mitigating exception, which will take some explaining, members of the
mischief party, jury.
I believe on the balance of probability, this particular rule does apply where probability is applicable. So by analogy, if there was a crime today similar to Jack The Ripper and Goku simply lived in the city it happened in, it would be reasonable to presume his innocence and prove his guilt given there are millions of people in a city. Therefore how logically absurd would it be to presume all 55 million suspects guilty until proven innocent. And even if they had some evidence against Goku it might still reasonably be enforced because of that problem.
However where there is an event such as the Pistorius killing, where the suspect admits to the killing, and it seems from all of the obvious, straight forward facts which both sides acknowledge exist, such as bullet holes in a bathroom door, and all the rest of it, I believe in such a circumstance, the burden of proof should switch.
That is to say, according to common sense, and high probability, 100% of ordinary citizens don't unload a gun into a bathroom door, whoever is behind it, be it an intruder or a spouse, without the intent to even kill given a closed door doesn't threaten anyone. Most ordinary peoples view of that case was that it was absurd to presume him innocent. And that rule is a poor rule where guilt is highly, highly probable. Think about it, it's like saying this, "all of those solid reasons why the person murdered don't count, because he is presumed innocent, so even if those reasons are almost as good as proof he did it, you have to find something more."
Like what exactly? The invention of a time machine so we can go back and see the murder? Because sometimes the evidence is so strong in favour of guilt to put any burden of proof on the prosecution just comes off as absurd. So I cannot take part in a court which predicates it's rules on secular technicalities that depend on a lack of wisdom.
Furthermore, I have always argued the axiom that where there is a great claim the greater the burden of proof.
So my argument is that with a case such as evolution, there are different circumstances at play.
To read more I wrote a blog on this in the year 2013, proving my objection existed long before this post;
Furthermore, in history design (William Paley) and it's obvious anatomical presence was initially accepted as obvious fact. Indeed even today a description of the obvious design of anatomy from such a book as Paley's, would suffice to the default. That is to say, in ordinary circumstances, nobody would ever question that all of the parts in an eye are arranged that way on purpose so that the eye can see. So to my mind, I would say that historically, and based on obvious facts of anatomy, the default position is that teleology in nature is what was accepted as obviously true, factually. The overt facts show that nobody should have to prove that an eyes parts are arranged in the way they are so as to see. That would be no different from requesting I prove a cars brakes and it's parts are arranged so that the vehicle can viably drive.
Also with the burden of proof being on me, sometimes it's not possible to prove a negative beyond providing an absence of evidence; http://evolutionfair...ing-a-negative/