The next step the narrator takes,
actually takes us right out of the realm of scientific investigation,
into the world of political posturing and nonsense.
Of course when religious apologists, New-Agers, Conspiracy Theorists (does anyone actually self-identify as this?), or Creationists, Intelligent-Design proponents, and Irreducible Complexity advocates dare to use the standard debating techniques, such as:
(1) Ad Hominem - attacking the person who is the source of an idea....whenever opponents use these popular tactics,
(2) Appeals to Numbers - suggesting that the majority is always right.
(3) Appeal to Authority - what the experts / authorities say must be followed.
they are shot down mercilessly and exposed,
mainly because "such methods of winning arguments are unscientific."
Secondly, everybody who has ever had experience in a courtroom (in ANY country),
knows that courtrooms are literally full of lies, nonsense, injustice, and obfuscation.
Only a fool would today claim that "truth" is best resolved, or in fact resolved at all in a modern courtroom. It matters not whether the case
is big or small, rich or poor, intelligent or moronic.
Courtrooms are of course run by lawyers, and without prejudice,
lawyers are human beings, most of whom are motivated mainly by money,
secondly by political passion, and perhaps as a limping third, justice and truth.
Or at least community justice, or perhaps pragmatism.
Yet when a court rules in favour of the cause of Evolution, we are suddenly
treated to the most amazing fairy-story of all:
Courts are now the "ultimate" arbiters of truth:
Perhaps even the best discoverers and establlishers of scientific truth.
Suddenly, the lawyers have become our heroes, accurately dissecting the bitter pill of Intelligent Design, to discover the horror of Creationism,
masquerading as 'science' and daring to "infect our children".
If a person born anytime during the post-war baby-boom knows anything,
he knows this is pure horse-manure.