sydney

Plimer: faces high bill for legal costs. Credit: PETER POCKLEY

Australia's ‘creationism’ trial ended dramatically last Monday (2 June) when the judge dismissed the main plank of the case that had been made by Ian Plimer, a geologist at the University of Melbourne, against Allen Roberts, a fundamentalist church elder who claimed to have found scientific evidence for the remains of Noah's Ark.

The verdict in the case, which had been closely watched in Australia and abroad, is likely to widen the gulf between scientists and Christian fundamentalists over biological evolution versus the literal truth of the biblical story of creation (see Nature 386, 529; 529 ;, & ; 1997).

Plimer and his US co-applicant, David Fasold, lost the case primarily because the judge rejected their argument that Roberts had acted in trade or commerce and had therefore illegally misled those who had provided him with financial backing.

But Judge Ron Sackville expanded this into a wider principle. “Courts should not attempt to provide a remedy for every false or misleading statement made in the course of public debate on matters of general interest,” he concluded. “Some issues — no matter how great the passions they arouse — are more appropriately dealt with outside the courtroom.”

Roberts: could face further actions. Credit: HUNT-FAIRFAX PHOTO LIBRARY

Sackville accepted that Roberts had infringed the copyright in a drawing of the supposed Noah's Ark by Fasold, a former believer in the existence of the Ark. But Fasold described the award of A$2,500 (US$1968) in damages as “a slap in the face”, pointing out that he had won US$40,000 and US$42,500 in two US cases for similar breach of copyright.

After the verdict, Roberts said that he and his supporters had been “completely vindicated when it comes to this nonsense that's been set up under the Fair Trading Act”. He claimed the verdict “preserved the free speech of anyone who has something important to say publicly”, and hoped that the judgement would deter people from being “harassed and pursued through the courts” by someone “who disagrees with them ideologically”.

But the judge had described as “false” Roberts's statements in lectures that he had carried out scientific tests on objects retrieved from the ‘Ark’ site in eastern Turkey. “Had the Fair Trading Acts applied, [these remarks] would have constituted misleading or deceptive conduct on Roberts's part,” said Sackville.

In the five years before the court hearing, Plimer had devoted much time to presenting a public assessment of Roberts's ideas. Although Plimer has lost the latest round, he has already promised to fight on at a press conference held in more supportive territory — the fossil gallery of the Australian Museum in Sydney.

Vowing a renewed fight in public against “snake oil salesmen” and fundamental literalism which he sees as “a dark force in today's world”, Plimer argued that free speech had been inhibited by the judgement and by the refusal of Roberts and other creationists to debate openly with scientists.

At a separate press conference, Roberts said: “I thank God that my colleagues and I are at last free.” Casting doubt on Plimer's investigation of the supposed Ark site in 1994, he remains undeterred by scientific evidence. “The only way to settle the question is to get on the site with the Turkish scientists and archaeologists and others from all over and dig the thing responsibly and well,” he said.

In his verdict, Sackville dismissed Plimer's allegations that Roberts's references to his doctorate in Christian education from Freedom University, Florida, as evidence of his academic qualifications in presenting archaeological results and conclusions constituted misleading or deceptive conduct.

Roberts's lawyers are preparing a submission for legal costs, likely to run to many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Plimer has stated that such costs would make him bankrupt. His solicitor says there may be grounds for appeal.