| Plimer - media mendacity |
|
|
Plimer-Roberts Court Case: Media MendacityPart 1The following is a report by one Leigh Dayton with a point-by-point response by the Creation Science Foundation [now Creation Ministries International], Brisbane, Australia. It was a feature article entitled ‘In the Beginning’ published in a major Australian metropolitan weekly newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, Friday, April 4, 1997. Before publication, this woman contacted CSF, but ignored virtually all our points. In contrast, she printed just what the sceptics told her, as if it was ‘gospel’. The paragraphs of original Sydney Morning Herald article are headed SMH; the Creation Science Foundation’s responses are headed CSF, and are in red. The introduction read:
CSF: Incidentally, Creation Magazine Vol. 19(1) pp. 35-38, 1996, published an analysis of the Scopes trial by Dr David Menton which refuted the distortions of the play Inherit the Wind
CSF: Of course, the typical loaded language: ‘science’ vs. Creationism. This ignores the creationist basis for modern science, the many great creationist scientists of the past, and the large number of qualified creationist scientists of the present. Also, as Dayton knows perfectly well, the case had nothing to do with putting creationism on trial. She was given CSF’s press release on the court case. But she, like many journalists who hold the evolutionary humanistic religion, doesn’t want to let mere facts spoil her propagandistic tirade. Dayton’s article proper starts:
CSF: This statement is true, because Plimer doesn’t sling a gun (at least not as far as we are aware) … However, as a member of the Humanist Society of Victoria, he would certainly be an atheist. Its membership application (1994) says ‘I subscribe to the objects and rules of the Humanist Society of Victoria in order to create a society in which a person may reach their full potential free from supernatural beliefs’ (emphasis in original). See why humanism is a religion!
CSF: Well, if he looks like a fanatic by Dayton’s own admission, acts like a fanatic, talks like a fanatic, one can understand how people might be fooled into thinking Plimer just might be a fanatic ….
CSF: **Does he really? ** Then why does he make so many crass scientific (and other) blunders in his book Telling Lies …? See Plimer’s Bloopers for documentation of a few of them. Plimer has made no effort, to our knowledge, to correct the pseudoscience permeating his book. None of his friends in the Australian Skeptics seem bothered either - as long as it’s anti-creationist, who cares about the bad science?
CSF: Not surprising - Bible-centred creation science is a severe threat to his atheistic religion.
CSF: Dayton was informed that neither Roberts nor Ark Search Incorporated have any connection with any acknowledged creation science organisation. See the main points of the trial.
Part 2
CSF: only some scientists claim this - see some scientists who are creationists. Anyway, none of us were there, so we should accept the word of One who was there (cf. Job 38:4), and tells us the world is young.
CSF: This is a caricature. Scripture indicates that the Ark only contained land vertebrate animals, because plants, marine creatures, invertebrates and microbes could have survived outside the Ark. Also, creationists believe that many of the ‘kinds’ aboard the Ark have given rise to several ‘species’. E.g. coyotes, wolves and dogs are probably descended from a ‘canine kind’. Creation scientists have shown how the Ark could have contained all the land vertebrate kinds.
CSF: Many other geologists who are at least equally well qualified disagree with Plimer. Plimer’s field of expertise is mineral geology, while the creationist Dr Andrew Snelling has considerable research experience in uranium dating and its assumptions, and Dr John Baumgardner, has developed the world’s leading 3-D supercomputer model of plate tectonics, which has implications for the Flood and the age of the earth.
CSF: Fasold has never been affiliated with mainstream creationist organisations. He is a former marine salvage specialist who was infatuated with the Ark site for about nine years. Fasold has since declared his opposition to Christianity. In his enthusiastic Ark-hunting days, he resorted to a technique akin to water divining, which mainstream creationists would obviously not endorse.
CSF: That remains to be seen. The artist for Roberts’ book claims his drawings are independent, and that there are significant differences. But it’s ironic that his co-applicant Ian Plimer has a notorious reputation for plagiarism … see the site ‘The Professor Plimer Chronicle’ at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4123/HYPFRAME.HTM … Part 3
CSF: That’s a loaded term. But obviously we are displeased with the **media’s deliberate misrepresentation!**
CSF: Another loaded term. Historically, fundamentalism has been used to identify one holding to the five fundamentals of the faith adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the USA in 1910. The five fundamentals were the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the inspiration of Scripture. Behind these is the doctrine that Christ is both fully God and fully man, and the Trinity. If this is what is meant by ‘fundamentalism’, then CSF is unashamedly fundamentalist. Dayton exploits the negative modern connotations of the term to attack those who hold to the original meaning.
CSF actually distanced themselves from Roberts in 1992 when Creation Ex Nihilo published Dr Andrew Snelling’ s 13 page article, Noah’s Ark Expose in Creation Ex Nihilo Vol. 14 No. 4.
CSF: Ritchie is the one talking ‘rubbish’. Wieland was simply stating the truth - Roberts and Ark Search have never been associated with CSF. It is true that CSF is ‘the main thread of creation science in Australia.’, but it doesn’t logically follow that we have anything to do with Roberts. Perhaps Ritchie needs to enrol in a course in introductory logic. … Part 4
CSF: there is generally another side to every story told by the sceptic spin-doctors. Creationist sources note Ritchie’s tendency to monopolise the question time, and start lecturing the audience rather than ask a question. Asking honest questions is one thing, but being disruptive is quite another. And please note, that to our knowledge, no one has been hauled out of his seat at any meeting organised by an Australian creation science group.
CSF: That’s an astonishing admission. The rest of this article pretends there is a sharp distinction between ‘scientists’ and ‘creationists’. But now Dayton is forced to admit that **Snelling has ‘impeccable scientific credentials as a geologist.’** In fact, if anything, they are better than Plimer’s. Snelling’s doctorate was awarded by the prestigious Sydney University, while Plimer’s was awarded by the relatively minor Macquarie University.
CSF: Check the refutation of this charge, and see where the real lies are …. The sceptics realise that Dr Snelling’s existence refutes their charge that no qualified geologist doubts evolution/long ages. So they have to try to find some mud to throw and hope that some sticks.
CSF: Not surprising, since the Herald has repeatedly shown that it would ignore what suits them.
CSF: Well, if Ritchie wants a debate, he can debate me on the proposition: ‘that Ian Plimer, in his book Telling Lies for God, tells lies, half-truths and outright lies; and shows gross incompetence in science, logic, mathematics, and biblical exegesis.’ I presume he would want to negate that proposition, since he has been so supportive of the book. The Clarrie Briese committee’s refutation of Plimer’s ethical charges and Plimer’s Bloopers would be a start for the affirmative side. Or perhaps we could debate the Embryonic Recapitulation theory, which was discredited in the 1920s — see Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit.
But the Australian Museum, where Ritchie is chief paleontologist, promotes something very similar, with the tired old myths that the human embryo has ‘gill slits’ and a ‘tail’. Well, why not - the most important thing is to convince the public that evolution is true, and who cares if the evidence has been discredited?
CSF: So they claim … Of course, creationists get their share of abusive letters too, as well as plenty of public abuse by Plimer, Ritchie and the sycophantic media. And it’s rare that CSF is permitted the customary right of reply, and if they are, the reply is usually heavily edited.
CSF: I would like to see some independent auditing of Plimer’s finances before taking that claim at face value.
CSF: The defamation action was brought by Allen Roberts, not a creationist organisation. And it was for allegedly defamatory comments made, not for an alleged ‘public defence of science.’
CSF: Again, some independent auditing would give Plimer some credibility.
CSF: Quite considerable funding from the estate of a reclusive miser millionaire and fanatical sceptic. … Part 5
CSF: I wasn’t aware that he ever was at the ‘leading edge.’
CSF: It was his choice to make defence of his humanistic faith his top priority, so he should stop whineing! …
CSF: Of course they are - I repeat, the Humanist Society of Victoria, to which Plimer belongs, says on its membership application form (1994) says ‘I subscribe to the objects and rules of the Humanist Society of Victoria in order to create a society in which a person may reach their full potential **free from supernatural beliefs’** (emphasis in original). If God is not supernatural, I don’t know what to call Him!
CSF: No, Ritchie doesn’t mind Christians, as long as they don’t claim their beliefs are actually objectively true and supported by evidence, and affect the real world …
CSF: Indeed, this has not changed much in the 1990s according to a recent survey published in Nature … Part 6
CSF: Fitzgerald, Plimer and Ritchie are simply wrong - CSF does not lobby for compulsory creation teaching in schools. I defy them to produce any evidence to the contrary. Anyway, why would we want an atheist to be forced to teach creation science, when it’s likely he will misrepresent it?
**CSF: Creation science is the scientific evidence which supports the religion of biblical Christianity ** evolution is the ‘scientific’ justification for the religion of humanism.**…
CSF: Oh, very ‘tolerant, liberal and inclusive’ - Fitzgerald doesn’t tolerate any challenge to evolution, teachers do not have the liberty to present any such challenges, and Fitzgerald doesn’t want to include them.
CSF: The concept ‘freedom from’ is usually no freedom at all - it usually involves repression of some sort. In this case, the information against evolution is repressed. How can people make informed choices if some information is withheld?
CSF: Fitzgerald evidently prefers an atheocratic society. The former Soviet Union, Albania, Cuba and Communist China are some examples … …
CSF: Actually, creationists would like to see evolution challenged, but Fitzgerald doesn’t want that. Fitzgerald has strange priorities - many children can’t read, write or add up, and Fitzgerald is on this anti-Christian crusade. No wonder many Australian parents are fed up with the State education system and opt for Christian schools or home schools. … |