Australian Court Case: Appeal Denied
AiG’s Response to the Appeal Verdict
The Federal Court of Appeals in Australia has ruled against Plimer, 3-0. That is, they accepted Justice Sackville’s verdict in the ‘Noah’s Ark trial’. The Court of Appeals also ordered Plimer to pay the court costs of Allen Roberts.
The result would only be a surprise to those who placed their faith in the Skeptics-fed secular media (see an example), rather than having read our Comment on Justice Sackville’s verdict, which took care to read His Honour’s judgement.
Typical of the Skeptics’ approach is their current boast that we changed our name ‘in response to the Plimer court case’ and that therefore it is a victory for them. The facts are:
Our company name has not changed—we have adopted a different ministry name so that we would not generate the confusion with ‘Christian Science’ and ‘Scientology’ among churches.
The sister ministry which we commenced in the USA changed its name to Answers in Genesis around three years ago, well before the Plimer court case was an issue.
Once we observed that it had been well accepted, we started using the name for our seminars, etc in order to smooth the inevitable transition. It is laughable to suggest that Plimer had anything to do with it.
What on earth would changing a name have to do with any court cases, anyhow? It has no legal force of any sort.
Recently, Dr Carl Wieland was told by an ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) radio show that Barry Williams of the Australian Skeptics would be claiming that they were victorious in getting us to change our name. Dr Wieland told them of the above facts, so they asked him to respond to Williams on air. When he did so, Williams (presumably tipped off) backed away from having made such a claim, yet the next day it appeared with his imprimatur in the newspapers in Sydney, and others since!
Finally, we must never forget that the case never involved Creation Science Foundation/Answers in Genesis in the slightest, however much Plimer, the Skeptics and their many media friends would like us to forget it.
It’s likely that Plimer only took Roberts to court on what has been shown to be flimsy grounds as an attempt to force Roberts to withdraw his defamation action against Plimer. This has yet to be heard, but Plimer’s two losses so far may well count against him.
Return to Plimer-Roberts Court Case.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.