This paper explores how a recent “Creation Science” case from the Australian Federal Courts was used by an informal alliance of science popularizers (science litigant Ian Plimer, science journalists, and the Australian Skeptics) as a vehicle for the celebratory “boundary working” of “public science,” despite the case's contingent and messy processes and unfavourable legal outcome. This “boundary working” was pursued mainly through the mass media, in which a narrow range of narrative strategies involving well-worn metaphors and clichés conforming to the ideology of science dominated the case's coverage. The dominance of these narratives resulted in a marginalized coverage of the legal/policy ramifications of the case, particularly the role of the courts in preserving/limiting freedom of speech. We will conclude our analysis by identifying some similarities between the Ark case and the Science Wars, nothing that both instances show how the “boundary working” of “public science” can be pursued in a cultural space located at a significant distance from contexts where more tangible science policies are being negotiated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Fasold v. Robets, Federal Court of Australia, NG942, 1992, before Sackville J (hereafter Trial). Trial transcript available through Auscript, Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth Et, Sydney, 2000. Judgements available at Australasian Legal Information Institute, available electronically at http://www.austlii.edu.au/ (hereafter Sackville judgment) (1997).
2.
T. Gieryn , Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
3.
T. Gieryn , G. Bevins, and S. Zehr, “Professionalization of American Scientists: Public Science in the Creation Evolution Trials,”American Sociological Review50 (1985): 392-409.
4.
See transcript of Australian Broadcasting Commission Television Science Special Quantum, “Telling Lies for God? One Man's Crusade” 17 July 1997, available electronically at http://www.abc.net.au/quantum.
5.
“The Law Report,”Radio National, Tuesday, 19 August 1997. Australian Broadcasting Commission Transcripts A.B.C. Online, available electronically at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpts/storeis/lr970819.htm.
6.
Radio National Transcripts, “The Religion Report,” Wednesday, 9 April 1997, “Creation vs. Evolution,” available electronically at http://www.abc.net/au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/trr9715.htm.
7.
Available electronically at http://www.skeptics.comau/features/news/ip-home.htm.
8.
Available electronically at http://www.christiananswers.net/aig/aighome.html.
9.
We should note in this context that Ian Plimer was provided with an earlier draft of the paper for comments. In response, he was concerned that we acknowledge footage that had appeared on television showing him and Fasold drilling and excavating the alleged Noah's Ark site. This is discussed in more detail at a later point in the paper. Plimer also claimed the draft had inaccuracies but would not specify what they were. We have tried to address his concerns as far as possible in the current draft of the paper. We also answered a request from a journalist who covered the case, Australian corespondent to Nature Peter Pockley, to view a draft of the paper; he acknowledged reading the paper but declined to provide substantial feedback on its content.
10.
Plimer's vigorous approach has not always won support from other anti-creationists. For a critique of Plimer's approach see, Jim Lippard, “How Not To Argue With Creationists,”Creation/Evolution11[2] (Winter 1991-1992): 9-21.
11.
I. Plimer , Telling Lies for God: Reason vs. Creationism (Sydney: Random House, 1994). Plimer also uses this text as something of a political manifesto outlining the need for creationism to be challenged by the use of tough confrontational tactics, or to use Plimer's turn of phrase, the need to adopt the “the Broken Hill [an Australian mining town] approach: you don't put up with bullshit, and you take no prisoners” (186). This approach is also extended to addressing his noncreationist critics such as Lippard (198-201).
12.
Trial, p. 280.
13.
Roberts' qualifications are: BA (1962) University of New England; M.Litt (1964) University of New England; M.Ed (1976) University of Sydney; DCA [Doctor of Christian Education] (1981) Freedom University, Florida, USA.
14.
The responses from Plimer are takne from an e-mail questionnaire, 20 May 1997 (hereafter, Plimer 1997).
15.
The Trades Practices Act is federal legislation designed to afford consumer protection. “Section 52 (1): A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.”
16.
D. Fasold , The Ark of Noah (New York: Wynwood Press, 1988).
17.
Trial, p. 281.
18.
The extent to which Plimer had been threatened by litigation from Creation Science groups has been open to differing accounts; see Plimer, Telling Lies for God. The Creation Science Foundation had denied that they have usedlitigation to suppress Plimer. Available electronically at http://www.christiananswers.net/aig/aighome.html.
19.
Plimer, 1997.
20.
See The Skeptic (16 April 1997).
21.
Interview with Barry Williams, The Australian skeptics (15 April 1997), (hereafter Williams, 1997).
22.
L. Dayton , “In the Beginning,”The Sydney Morning Herald 4 April 1997, 5.
23.
The Creation Science Foundation Ltd (Australia) made the following claims in a press release at the opening of the trial: “To the best of our knowledge, neither Roberts nor Ark Search have ever held themselves out to be `creation scientists' or part of the creation science movement, nor would we or any other creation science organisation have labelled them as sucb.... We are of the view that various `researchers' made misleading claims upon which Roberts and Ark Search relied in good faith.”
24.
Apparently Plimer was not completely happy that hehad not been provided with a greater opportunity to “educate” the court and the public in scientific matters; “I prepared a cross examination of Roberts based on simple school science, and I was strongly advised by the lawyers not to proceed as the court would not understand.” (Plimer, 1997).
25.
Sackville , Judgment, 72.
26.
David Fasold and Anor vs Allen Roberts and Anor [1997] 933 FCA, 11 September 1997.
27.
Ibid.
28.
Ian Rutherford Plimer vs Allen Roberts and Anor [1997] 1361, FCA, 5th December 1997; Plimer v. Roberts and Anor s144/1997(19th June 1998), Australasian Legal Affairs Institute, High Court of Australia Transcripts.
29.
“The Law Report,”Radio National, Tuesday, 19 August 1997. Australian Broadcasting Commission Transcripts, A.B.C. Online, available electronically at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpts/stories/lr970819.htm.
30.
A partial exception to the media's predominant acceptance of Plimer's and the Skeptics' framing of the case could be found in some newspaper editorials after the judgement (these will be discussed at a later point in the text), in some niche market radio coverage, and on the Internet. While “The Religion Report,” a weekly radio feature broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Commission's Radio National, was broadly sympathetic to Plimer's case, it did canvass alternative interpretations of the case's significance: see Radio National Transcripts, “The Religion Report,” Wednesday, 9 April 1997, “Creation vs. Evolution,” available electronically at http://www.abc.net.au/rn.talks/8.30/relrpt/trr9715.htm. Some of the few examples of hostility towards Plimer's stand appearing in public forums appeared on the Web page of The Creation Science Foundation Ltd., available electronically at http://ww.christianansweres.net/aig/aighome.html.
31.
R. Shepherd , “Selectivity of sources,”Journal of Communication31 (1981): 129-137.
32.
J. Dearing , “Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing,”Public Understanding of Science4 (1995): 341-362.
33.
T. Gascoigne and J. Metcalfe, “Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media,”Science Communication18 (1977): 265-282, 269.
34.
Plimer, 1997.
35.
T. Shinn and R. Whitley (eds), Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985).
36.
J. Goodfield , Reflections on Science and the Media. (Washington, DC: American Assocation for the Advancement of Science, 1981).
37.
K. Prewitt , “The public and science policy,”Science, Technology & Human Values7 (1982): 5-14.
38.
J. Crewdson . ` “Perky cheerleaders': without adequate checking science writers do a disservice to the public,”Nieman Reports (Winter 1993): 11-17.
39.
D. Berry , “Science in society,”New Statesman, (28 October 1983): 10.
40.
Nelkin , Selling Science, 174.
41.
Goodell , “The role of the mass media in scientific controversy.”
42.
Gregory and Miller, Science in Public, pp. 110-111.
43.
J. Green , “Media sensationalism and science: the case of the criminal chromosome” in Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985) 139-161.
44.
Nelkin , Selling Science, 10.
45.
and M. LaFollette, “Creationism in the news: mass media coverage of the Arkansas trial,” in M. LaFollette, Creationism Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983), 189-208.
46.
Compare G. Edmond and D. Mercer, “Manifest destiny: law and science in American,”Metascience10 (1996): 40-58.
47.
The judgment was later overturned on a legal technicality.
48.
M. Ruse , Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Company, 1982), p. 288.
49.
R. Numbers , “The creationists” in But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, ed. M. Ruse (New York: Prometheus Books, 1996), 227-256.
50.
L. Dayton , “In the beginning,”The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 1997, 5.
51.
S. Balogh , “Creation v evolution: Professor accuses Noah's Ark explorer,”The Australian, 8 April 1997: 1.
52.
L. Dayton , “Fraud or copyright, science or faith—it's simply about basic beliefs,”The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 April 1997: 6.
53.
P. Pockley , “Creationism `Ark' trial opens in Australia,”Nature386 (1997): 529.
54.
P. Pockley , “Science, fundamentalism for Noah's Ark,”Search28 (1997): 147-149.
55.
Trial, 325.
56.
McLean v. Arkansas 529 F. Supp 1255 (1982), Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
57.
M. Shermer , Why People Believe Weird Things. (New York: W.H. Freeman & Co, 1997).
58.
W. Broad and N. Wade, Betrayers of the Truth (London: Century, 1983).
59.
T. Pinch , “Opening black boxes: science, technology and society,”Social Studies of Science22 (1992): 487-510.
60.
G. Leech , “Creationist claims win for free speech,”The Australian, 3 June 1997: 1.
61.
G. Leech , “Zealot gambled all in defence of science,”The Australian, 3 June 1997: 6.
62.
B. Clifton and D. Conway, “Lord giveth, Lord taketh: Scientist loses Noah's Ark battle,”The Daily Telegraph, 3 June 1997: 5.
63.
In her comprehensive survey of the image of scientists in Western Literature, Roslyn Haynes identifies various cliched representations and stereotypes that reappear in relation to the character of the scientist: Haynes, From Faust to Stragelove, 4. While a number of these have been negative, the media representation of Plimer would appear to be quite consistent withe the popular image of the “scientist as idelist”: “This figure represents the one unambiguously acceptable scientist, sometimes holding out the possibility of a scientifically sustained utopia with plenty and fulfillment for all, but more frequently engaged in conflict with a technology-based system that fails to provide for individual human values.”
64.
Leech , “Zealot gambled all in defence on science.”
65.
L. Dayton , “In the beginning,”The Syndey Morning Herald, 4 April 1997: 5 [italics in original].
66.
B. Clifton , “Noah's Ark hunt just a fund-raiser,”The Daily Telegraph, 16 April 1997: 8.
67.
D. Mercer , “Science technology and democracy on the STS agenda, Prometheus (review articel) 16 (1998): 81-91.
68.
Trial, 329.
69.
G. Leech , “Geologist's `duty' on Ark deception,”The Australian, 11 April 1997: 7.
70.
Editorial, “Creation Science is education problem”The Weekend Australian, 12-13 April 1997: 20.
71.
Sackville , Judgment, 32.
72.
As a matter of balance it should also be noted that Justice Sackville expressed some reservations in relation to the quality of Alan Roberts' evidence: “The point is that his interpretations of events are apt to be coloured by his own beliefs and attitudes. As I have said, this does not necessarily imply that Dr. Roberts' evidence should be rejected. But it does suggest that some of his evidence should be viewed cautiously.” (Sackville Judgment).
73.
P. Pockley , “Creationism `Ark' trial opens in Australia,”Nature386 (1997): 529.
74.
Plimer, 1997.
75.
R. Sackville , “speech to Launch Vol 20(1) of the UNSWLJ,”University of New South Wales Law Journal20 (1997) 477-480.
76.
For an example of the use by creation scientists of method discourses and similar discursive patterns to their opponents, see S. Locke, “The use of scientific discourse by creation scientists: some preliminary findings,”Public Understanding of Science3 (1994): 403-424.
77.
P. Pockley , “Ark evidence challenged in Sydney Court,”Nature386 (1997): 638) (italics added).
78.
L. Dayton , “Ark or no Ark, what were the golf tees doing there?”The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 April 1997: 6 (italics added).
79.
Trial, 262-263.
80.
Compare L. Dayton , “Ark or no Ark, what were the golf tees doing there?”The Sydney Morning Herald (11 April 1997): 6; “Professor Plimer kept a straight face when he told defence counsel, Mr Alex Radojev, that he'd found `golf tees and bits of plastic' stuck in the supposedly biblical mud covering the supposedly biblical boat.” Dayton portrayed the interaction as one in which Plimer's evidence is definitive and framed in relation to a clash between Radojev and Plimer, even though Justice Sackville was asking the questions. Like Plimer, Dayton parodies her “rival's” claims rather than explaing their deficiencies.
81.
Trial, 314.
82.
H. Collins and T. Pinch, The Golem at Large (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 57-75.
83.
Trial, 306.
84.
Plimer indicated that it would have been inappropriate during the official occasion on which he was attending Bayraktutan's university.
85.
Trial, 306.
86.
Ibid.
87.
Trial, 304.
88.
Trial, 305. [italics added].
89.
P. Pockley , “Ark evidence challenged in Sydney Court,”Nature386 (1997): 638.
90.
S. Solomon and E. Hackett, “Setting boundaries between science and law: lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,”Science, Technology & Human Values21 (1996): 131-156.
91.
See also discussion in G. Edmond and D. Mercer“Recognishing Daubert: what judges should know about falsificationism,”Expert Evidence, 5 (1997): 29-42.
92.
D. Lindberg and R. Numbers, eds., God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).
93.
Mulkay , The Embroyo Research Debate100.
94.
L. Dayton , “Squeaky clean as the geologist digs in,”The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 April 1997: 6.
95.
L. Dayton , “Fraud or copyright, science or faith—it's simply about basic beliefs,”The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 April 1997: 6.
96.
S. Lee , “Man of God rejects Bible,”The Daily Telegraph, 15 April 1997: 19.
97.
Plimer1997. It is also worth nothing that in the background to major stories and in some of the Skeptics publicity there were some occasional references back to Plimer's Christianity and to his being unopposed to Christianity per se but rather to bad Christianity, such as fundamentalism and Creationism. No one in the media, nor Plimer himself, seemed to pick up on the irony that Plimer was extending his “boundary work” beyond establishing the central public status of science to include what were acceptable formsof Christianity.
98.
L. Lamont , “Religion gives some physicists a Big Bang,”The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 April 1997: 6.
99.
Sackville Judgment, 73. This theme was reinforced in one of the judgments rejecting Plimer's later appeal to the Federal Court by Hon Justice Branson, “It is, I consider appropriate to note, that were s52(1) on the Trade Practices Act (Cth) and s42(1) of the Fair Trading Act (N.S.W) to have the broader operation contended for by the appellant, they would, in my view, provide a significant deterrent to intellectual and religious debate in this country, so long as it is carried out through commercial avenues.”
100.
P. McGuiness , “Some judicial silence please,”Sydney Morning Herald, 7 June 1997: 38.
101.
Interview with Richard Lead, Australian skeptics, 15 April 1997.
102.
Plimer, 1997.
103.
Ibid.
104.
A similar approach to the issue of freedom of speech was adopted in a posttrial report posted on the Internet by Barry Williams from the Skeptics: Barry Williams, “Post Trial report No.2.” 5 July 1997, available electronicall at http://www.skeptics.comau/features/news/ip-home.htm.
105.
Gieryn , et al., “Professionalization of American Scientists”.
106.
One example of this was Plimer being made an honorary fellow of the U.K.-based Geological Society for his public stand against creation science, “Honour for anti creationist,”The Daily Telegrapy, 25 June 1997: 16.
107.
Plimer1997.
108.
Gregory and Miller, Science in Public, 81-86.
109.
P. Gross , “Characterizing scientific knowledge,” Letters, Science275 (10 January 1997), 142.
110.
B. Martin , “Social construction of an attack on science,”Social Studies of Science26 (1996): 161-173.
111.
D. Mercer , “The higher moral panic, academic scientism and its quarrels with science and technology studies,”Prometheus, 17 (1999): 77-85.
