And on the seventh day...

For seven days during April, Federal Court 23C in Sydney, Australia was packed out for a civil trial over alleged breaches of fair trading laws. The unusual size of the audience was not because of any huge sums involved; the company being sued had gone into voluntary liquidation a week before and the other parties were already bankrupt. No, the reason the international media had flocked to Sydney was to witness a battle of ideas between science and religion.

A Professor of Geology, Ian Plimer, from the University of Melbourne, has already sold his house to take a group of creationists to court. He intends to stop them from misleading consumers with their "gospel of deceit". The case centres on the claims by Dr Allen Roberts of Sydney and his organisation Ark Search Inc. that the remains of Noah’s Ark have been discovered in Turkey. Ian Plimer wants to prevent Roberts from using "junk science" to back up his claims about the Ark in brochures, tapes and videos that have been sold to raise money for expeditions. He is joined in court by a former creationist who is suing Allen Roberts for using drawings from his book ’The Ark of Noah’ without his permission.

The trial is the outcome of a highly publicised war of words between Professor Plimer and Dr Roberts. Roberts first came to media attention in 1991 when he was held captive by Kurdish guerrillas while in Turkey. After his return in 1992 he began a lecture tour of Australia to raise funds for Ark Search Inc. as their ‘archaeological research consultant’. Plimer was thrown out of three lectures when he tried to ask questions about the nature of the scientific evidence for the Ark. The courts first got involved in May 1992, when Roberts sued Plimer for remarks made during a Melbourne Radio program.

In 1994 Plimer visited the site of the alleged Ark near Mount Ararat in Turkey. He subsequently published his own book, ‘Telling Lies for God’, in which he accused the creationists of scientific fraud.

The controversial boat-like structure first appeared during an earthquake in 1948 and it has been known for years that it has the same dimensions as Noah’s Ark detailed in Genesis. Plimer’s geological studies led him to conclude that it was an unremarkable rock formation caused by folding of the ancient sea floor over 110 million years ago. He found no evidence of petrified wood, iron rivets, stone anchors and fossilised animal dung and hair that Roberts and Ark Search say they discovered at the site. Plimer hopes the courts will denounce the assertions by Roberts that he has carried out any scientific studies.

Plimer and Fasold have tried to extend the scope of the trial from the narrow limits of commercial law by calling witnesses from religion and education. Plimer fears that creationists are misleading young people with their ‘pseudo-scientific nonsense’. He says he was motivated to take the case to court by surveys that show one in five Australian science students hold creationist views.

On the first day of the trial the Judge ruled out statements by an American anti-creationist campaigner. Nonetheless Plimer hopes a favourable judgement will draw attention to the growing number of private fundamentalist Christian schools that teach creation theory.

Religious supporters of Plimer include the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane who wrote in a preface to Plimer’s book that creationism is "anti-knowledge, anti-religious and anti-science". Another Anglican rector and physics graduate, was ready to argue in court that science cannot be used to ‘prove’ the existence of God. But theological arguments were not allowed by the Judge.

The nature of scientific enquiry and evidence were central to Plimer’s case against the creationist idea that evolution is unproved ‘theory’ and not fact. During discussions about the methods and philosophy of science, the Judge made sure the court had lessons in Darwinian evolution, Lamarckian inheritance and Karl Popper’s theory that science advances by falsification. Plimer also attacked Roberts’ academic credentials. It was revealed that his doctorate in Christian Education came from a correspondence Bible College in Florida, that is not accredited. Roberts admitted that he had not personally carried out any scientific tests at the Ark site. He also tried to distance himself from claims made by Ark Search Inc. by denying any knowledge of the sale of their products at his lectures. However he had to admit that the company was registered at his home address.

The trial hearings ended on April 17th and the Judge is expected to give his conclusions in a few weeks. If the judgement goes Plimer’s way, it will be the first time creationist beliefs have been challenged using consumer protection laws. The authorities have always been reluctant to prosecute traders who make dubious scientific claims, because of the difficulty in deciding whether statements are given as fact or opinion. A positive result for Plimer may have an impact on new age crystal healers as well as creationists.

Few observers in the Federal Court are prepared to predict the outcome of the trial. On the last day the Judge questioned whether the law should be used to settle disputes of this kind and if Plimer’s case was an attack on freedom of speech. In his defence Plimer says he got sick of being sued for expressing his views (eight other writs have been served and withdrawn by creationist groups) and decided to go on the attack, "You shouldn’t treat a crazy, religious cult with kid gloves". In fairness, Roberts’ had little respect for freedom of expression during his lecture tour, throwing out anyone who challenged his views.

Whatever the result of the trial, the battle between creationists and evolutionists will continue to rage. Ever since the world-famous ‘Scopes trial’ in 1925, when John Scopes, a teacher from Tennessee, was convicted for teaching evolution, both sides have made frequent trips to court, but it seems unlikely that the dispute will ever be settled in a court room. Sarah Tomli