Some time ago I mentioned that Professor Ian ("Telling Lies for God") Plimer
was taking a creationist, Dr Allen Roberts to court, ostensibly because of
a breach of the Trade Practices Act in allegedly misleading claims about
having found Noah's Ark.
While I did not condone false claims made by "Arkeologists", I expressed
concern that if Plimer one he could use the case as a precedent for other
attacks on creationism and Christianity.
Well Plimer failed in his main goal! It appears the judge saw through
Plimer's ruse and refused to let him turn it into a general show trial attack on
creationism (Plimer had Eugenie Scott standing by as an expert witness).
A precedent is now set (at least in Australia) that religious claims (even
if they are false) are not actionable under Trade Practice legislation.
I wonder if the judge had read "Darwin on Trial"?
God bless.
Steve
God's word stands in Ark trial
By science correspondent GRAEME LEECH
June 3: It was either a victory for free speech or a licence to
peddle snake oil, but yesterday's Federal Court ruling on the
evolution versus creationism debate showed one thing: mixing law
and religion is a dangerous business.
University of Melbourne geology professor Ian Plimer claimed a
victory for science, saying church elder and creationist Allen
Roberts had been judged to have used deception when delivering
lectures on Noah's Ark.
Dr Roberts, however, thanked God and claimed a big victory for free
speech.
Justice Ronald Sackville found Dr Roberts had made false
representations in his lectures by claiming rocky outcrops near
Mount Ararat in Turkey could be remains of Noah's Ark.
But he rejected Professor Plimer's argument that Dr Roberts had
acted in trade or commerce under provisions of the Trade Practices
Act.
Following the adverse judgment, Professor Plimer remained defiant.
He said the public would now be in danger of "snake oil salesmen"
who would "peddle poppycock" to schoolchildren.
Justice Sackville wrote in his main judgment that "considerable
care" had to be exercised before restraining statements on religious
or ideological beliefs, "at least where the motivation for making
such statements is not primarily commercial in character".
"Unless caution is exercised, there is a serious risk that the
courts will be used as a means of suppressing debate and discussion
on issues of general interest to the community," he wrote.
While Justice Sackville found Dr Roberts's brochures were not
deceptive, he said the creationist's claims in lectures that he had
carried out scientific tests on the site were false and ö had the
Fair Trading Acts applied to the case ö would have been deceptive
conduct.
However, he found that Dr Roberts had infringed the copyright of
David Fasold, a co-applicant of Professor Plimer's. On the
copyright infringement, he awarded a modest $2500 damages against Dr
Roberts.
Outside the court in Sydney, Professor Plimer said Justice Sackville
had found that Dr Roberts had "in essence" made misleading and
deceptive representations when lecturing about the ark site.
Dr Roberts said he was delighted he had been completely vindicated,
adding that the judgment had preserved free speech.
Later, Dr Roberts said that people who had something important to
say would not have to face harassment and pursuit through the courts
by those who disagreed with them on ideological grounds.
Professor Plimer, his solicitor, Greg Judd, and Barry Williams of
the Australian Skeptics expressed surprise at the judgment.
Mr Judd said he had a lot of difficulty in accepting the finding
that Dr Roberts's activities were not in trade or commerce.
"I also have a lot of difficulty in accepting, as His Honour found
that that wasn't a continuing course of conduct," Mr Judd said.
It was too early to say whether there would be an appeal, he said.
As a consumer as well as a lawyer, Mr Judd said as broad as possible
an interpretation of consumer protection provisions should be
applied.
Mr Williams said the Australian Skeptics were very disappointed
Professor Plimer did not win all aspects of the case.
"From our perspective, looking at all these pseudo-scientific and
paranormal claims made in society ö which can do nothing but
undermine the mental and intellectual health of society ö we think
it is important that public figures like Professor Plimer and other
academics stand up and challenge things that are far too often let
go without comment," Mr Williams said.
The debate had shone some very harsh light into some very dark
places. "People in Australia are now very much more aware of the
threat to their education system," Mr Williams said.
Professor Plimer said the case had highlighted an important issue.
The judgment did not change his view.
"The one golden thread in this case shows that misleading and
deceptive conduct took place," he said.
Science had been vindicated, Professor Plimer argued.
Five years after the dispute began, Dr Roberts claimed a major
victory and rejected any suggestion that he had committed scientific
fraud.
But he refused to discuss his beliefs about the rocky outcrops that
he once lectured were possibly the remains of Noah's Ark.
Noah's Ark was another issue that should be left until the site was
dug, Dr Roberts said.
He said public interest in what was really under the site was
something generated by the press.
On creationism Dr Roberts said: "I believe the account in the Bible
of creation is one in which a person can place credence and it has
served me very well, especially as it applied to the subject of
Noah's Ark . . . to help me set up my hypotheses that would be
useful in the sort of research one does archaeologically on such
matters.
"I would rather not be tagged as a creation scientist or a scientist
of any kind since I'm not qualified scientifically.
"But I do believe that creationism is worth placing one's credence
in and worth using in one's research."
http://www.australian.aust.com/australian/cgi-bin/news2?story=n03
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------