sydney

A Sydney court was told last week that public lectures by Bible church elder Allen Roberts on his claims that he had found evidence for the existence of Noah's Ark in Turkey were scientific, not religious, in character, and should be judged as such.

David Bennett QC was presenting an appeal before three judges in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the University of Melbourne. Plimer had accused Roberts of misleading or deceptive conduct towards consumers, an offence for people in business.

The original trial judge, Ronald Sackville, had found Roberts was wrong in his scientific claims and would have breached fair trade acts if he had acted in trade; his verdict was that this was not proven (see Nature 387, 540 540 1997 & Nature 387, 837 837 1997). Sackville also said that publicity surrounding the case presented it as a conflict between science and religion, but resolving such matters had no place in court.

After the court hearing, Plimer said he had used his “last shred” of money to finance the appeal and would go bankrupt if he loses. Judgement is expected by the end of the year.

Bennett, who was not involved in the earlier trial, claimed that Sackville had erred in drawing various conclusions under the Fair Trading Acts of the various Australian states and the federal Trade Practices Act.

Summarizing evidence which he claimed proved that Roberts and supporters in the Noah's Ark Research Foundation (NARF) had acted in trade or commerce when selling tickets, tapes and publications, Bennett said the goal had been to raise A$1.95 million (US$1.4 million) to investigate the site of the supposed remains of the Ark.

Malcolm Duncan, a barrister acting for Roberts, described Plimer's claim that Roberts was acting in trade or commerce as “fundamentally silly” as it “would make the sale (whether for profit or not) of any religious tract actionable under the Fair Trading Acts”.

Challenged by Judge Catherine Bransden, Duncan appeared to concede that NARF was in trade. Bennett claimed this as support for the appeal, but the presiding judge, John Davies, did not see it as a concession.

After the original verdict, Roberts claimed that Sackville's verdict “preserved the free speech of anyone who has something important to say publicly”. He did not attend the appeal hearing.

Roberts had originally sued Plimer for defamation after expelling him and other geologists from his 1992 lectures for trying to ask questions. This case has yet to be heard. Plimer said he pursued his present action to forestall the libel suit.