Matthew Chapman

I thought that Matthew Chapman was the most engaging part of the article. I found his involvement in the trial refreshing. He provided his objective view of the components of the trial, analyzing the individuals based on demeanor, and in some cases interviews. He provided an interesting connection to the trial that neither plaintiffs nor defendants could mimic. His relation to Darwin makes his view on the topic distinct from any other, and it was nice to see that he could view the trial as dissociated as he seemed. He was able to observe the trial without his genetic tie to Darwin interfering with his observations on the constituents. He seemed to be a pleasant, polite person that was more interested in writing about the trial than defending his name. Chapman tried to get the views of as many people as he could on the subject, and in the process, finding some very interesting people. I would find it hard to believe that his view on the issue wasn’t shaped by each of the interviews he performed. Most notably would be the talk he had with Scott Mehring. Fortunately, Chapman doesn’t openly state his opinion on the matter, but rather expresses it through his views of the interviewees, and his observations of the trial. He seems to have a view most like that of Mehring, and furthest from advocates of intellectual design. I find it unfortunate that Chapman had to see this side of Americans, and really disappointed in my fellows for letting him down.