Griffith University Skeptics and Freethinkers

Archive for the ‘Creationism/ Intelligent Design’ Category

Evolution vs. Creationism on ABC Southern Queensland

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, Ethics in Schools, GUSSF Events!, Helping our community., Responses to the media, Science on October 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Yesterday an on air discussion was held between ABC Southern Queensland Morning presenter Robert Blackmore, Creation Ministries International’s Dr Don Batten and myself.

The topic was ‘Creation vs. Evolution’ with particular focus on The University of Southern Queensland’s recent decision to cancel a seminar based around this very topic at their Fraser Coast Campus.

The reason I was invited to participate was the letter I sent to academics and staff of the University of Southern Queensland informing them that a CMI event was to take place with what appeared for all intents and purposes to be support and endorsement of USQ.

Over the course of the interview it became apparent that I was being accused of stifling free speech or in someway being undemocratic in voicing my concerns.

As the letter in question clearly states, my concerns were as follows;

• CMI are a religious organisation, not a scientific one, and while their membership does include some scientists, the organisation they represent has no standing in the scientific community and their stated goals are far from the advancement of the scientific enterprise.

• The primary aim of CMI is to promote its particular version of Young Earth Creationism and to undermine the theory of evolution wherever and whenever possible.

• That USQ appeared to be giving implicit endorsement to CMI allowing and encouraging them to distort, misuse and misapply science, to pursue a religious agenda that is both divisive and not representative of mainstream Theology.

Rather than offer my opinions alone, I provided a quotation from former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane and Governor General of Australia, Peter Hollingworth, in which he stated that growing numbers of theologians and many other thoughtful Christians have found that there is no inevitable conflict between evolutionary theory and the belief that God created and continues with the creation of His universe. I also provided 19 position statements from premier scientific academies and organizations globally, none of which I hold any association with.

Dr Batten advised listeners that my assertion in the letter that

“neither of the speakers advertised have any professional credentials in Biology, Evolutionary Biology or Theology”

was untrue, yet on the CMI website, Dr Batten’s qualifications are listed as:
• 1969–72: B.Sc.Agr.(First Class Honours)—University of Sydney
• 1973–76: Ph.D.—University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science.
Thesis: Induction of adventitious root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)

While his co-speaker at the event, Dr Tas Walker has the following qualifications listed:
• Bachelor of Engineering with first class honours (University of Queensland)
• Doctorate in mechanical engineering (U of Qld)
• Bachelor of Science majoring in Earth Science, followed by First Class Honours in 1998 (U of Qld)

So it is true that I could have been clearer that Dr Batten has studied specific aspects of plant biology, I was taking a broader view of biology. In hindsight I should have written:

“It may concern you to know that neither of the speakers advertised have any professional credentials in Evolutionary Biology or Theology. While Dr Batten has studied and consequently researched specific aspects of plant biology, his work with CMI extends beyond his professional specialization.”

It’s also important to note that at no time over the course of the interview did Dr Batten advise listeners that the event was still going ahead, now in the more appropriate venue of Fraser Coast Baptist Church. I encourage readers to inquire of Dr Batten himself why this seemingly important detail was emitted.

Despite the somewhat ironic labeling of a member of the public voicing legitimate concern in the form of a letter “un-democratic”, of equal concern was the uncritical acceptance of the tactic:

“Teach the controversy”

As has been written many times time before, equivalent arguments can and have been made by other fringe groups such as Holocaust deniers, Aids deniers, Flat Earth proponents, Anti-vaccination groups such as the Australian Vaccination Network, the list goes on. What all these groups have in common with Evolution deniers is that they do not work within scientific channels, using recognized scientific methods to accumulate evidence, make predictions or provide any testable and/or falsifiable hypothesis.

In other words they don’t ‘do’ science and any claim that despite lacking these essential attributes of any scientific enterprise, proponents of such fringe groups are performing ‘science’, is simply false.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a six week trial in which it was established that teaching “Intelligent Design”(a re-branding of Creationism), constituted teaching religion in public schools, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that what Dr Batten refers to as ‘science’;

“violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.”

Judge Jones, himself a man of faith and churchgoer also stated:

“It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

Judge Jones ruling matches my own thoughts on this issue and is mentioned for being established on the best available evidence.

I do not ‘believe’ in evolution as much as I accept the overwhelming evidence from an overwhelmingly diverse range of disciplines, all confirming the scientific validity of evolution by natural selection.

It is for this very reason alone that I and the overwhelming majority of experts do not accept CMI’s brand of pseudoscience, not due to any atheistic agenda as Dr Batten states during the interview.

Jayson D Cooke

Griffith University Skeptics and Freethinkers

Climate ‘Sceptics’ contributed nothing but confusion and annoyance to Skeptics and the public.

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, GUSSF Events!, Helping our community., Science, Uncategorized on October 13, 2010 at 1:40 AM

I was fortunate enough to attend a talk by Professor Tim Flannery tonight, hosted by my local public library. The only downside to a great presentation launching Professor Flannery’s latest book “Here On Earth“, were a couple of rude, incoherent  climate ‘sceptics’. During the Q and A following the presentation, they drew attention to themselves by raising their voices unnecessarily, not relinquishing the microphone and speaking over the top of other audience members as well as the guest speaker.

When my time came to ask a question and I introduced myself as a representative of the Griffith University Skeptics and Freethinkers, many in the audience groaned and it was clear visibly and audibly that they were wary of more of the same rudeness and intolerance.

I calmly explained that in my opinion the evidence supporting human caused climate change was overwhelming and freely available to anyone willing to look, however my question related to the social habits of certain ant species (namely democratic process in some Ant colonies, you really had to be there). I hope at least some of the large audience now have less cause to equate the term “skeptic” with rude, flailing, oddball denier, but I know with certainty that I tried to get this point across.

I point this out because the embarrassing ‘sceptics’ in the audience were clearly not looking to evaluate evidence or discuss findings; they seemed to just want to be heard and to be believed/correct, regardless of the answers given. The evidence for human caused climate change, is there to be evaluated, accepting it or dismissing it is each of our prerogatives, as is establishing personal standards of proof, however what was witnessed tonight was just the latest in a long line of noise masquerading (transparently this time) as real scientific debate.

It is incorrect that there are two sides of a scientific controversy regarding the validity of Climate Change and/or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). There are the overwhelming majority of the scientists in the field who are gathering, analysing and verifying evidence, publishing their research in peer reviewed journals and getting on with their work. They are sharply contrasted with the fringe groups that contribute nothing more than empty rhetoric, threats and denial.

I believe the same rejection of evidence applies within the AGW denial community as does it does with those who deny the evidence that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before humans existed. There are strong evidential reasons to accept the science in both cases, and in both cases it is being illogically overlooked, ignored, mocked and derided by those whose ideological agenda permits if not demands such behavior.

Now to be really, clear I do not mean every single person who harbors questions and/or doubts (AGW agnostics for instance). I mean the loud public voices of dissent like Ian Plimer and those who cherry pick the research rather than actually following the many converging lines of evidence, from diverse and varied fields, diverse and varied institutions and diverse and varied scientists.

For example it’s really worth checking out the great resources NASA has available here, here,
and for more details and the most up to the minute data, here.
Some good detail on the A in AGW can be found here.

On face value I understand people’s reluctance to put stock in scientific consensus, knowing full well that science while being many things, is not a democratic process. Therefore it’s easy to reject a consensus as something put forward in lieu of evidence, but there would need to be evidence in favor of the assumption that this was indeed what was occurring too!

The very idea of a scientific consensus being supplied to the media and governments to the world is unusual and I can only recall one other time that it has been deemed necessary by the academies of science to issue such a thing; in defense of science from Creation Science and ID. The scientific community in general is not accustomed to having to engage in political public debate, rather expecting the evidence to speak for itself.

The idea of a consensus did not impress me at all, until I considered what it actually was and meant in this case. That these organisations and individuals in the tens of thousands are willing to stake their academic reputations on this topic, what could possibly compel them to do that?

For instance the 2005 position statement from the National Academy of Sciences begins

“Climate Change is real”

and is endorsed by no less than the National Academy of Sciences, United States of America (obviously), the Chinese Academy of Sciences-China, the Royal Society-United Kingdom, the Russian Academy of Sciences-Russia, the Academia Brasiliera de Ciências- Brazil, the Royal Society of Canada-Canada, Academié des Sciences-France, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher-Germany, Indian National Science Academy-India, Accademia dei Lincei-Italy and the Science Council of Japan.

Not to be outdone, the Royal Society (UK) released a statement declaring

“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes”.

This one was endorsed by Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists : Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, the Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and of course the Royal Society (UK).

Of course this in no-way counts as evidence on its own, it merely represents an overwhelming certainty amongst the best and brightest scientific minds of all time.

As we all know the gold standard of scientific credibility is the peer review journal.
Now if there was a genuine (by which I mean verifiable, evidence based) rejection of the vast evidence for AGW, peer reviewed journals would be where this would take place right?

While I didn’t have time to trawl through a database search myself, Naomi Oreskes from the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego did!
Naomi performed an ISI database search with the keyword phrase “global climate change” and surveyed the abstracts she found that had been published between 1993 and 2003 in refereed scientific journals.
She then divided the 928 papers she found into six categories:

1. Explicit endorsement of the consensus position (Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities)

2. Evaluation of impacts

3. Mitigation proposals

4. Methods

5. Paleoclimate analysis

6. Rejection of the consensus position (Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities)

Naomi found that none of the papers fell into the last category while 75% fell into the first three. I should also point out that the start date of the analysis was prior to the 1995 IPCC report, let alone the more recent IPCC reports.

I can’t recommend highly enough this excellent talk given by Peter Ellerton (winner of the 2008 Australian Skeptics prize for Critical Thinking) on the Climate Change debate. You’re encouraged to examine the way in which the debate is being run and scrutinise your own convictions as to why you may have taken the position you hold, if any!

Personally I would much prefer Climate Change and AGW to be an error, a hoax, a conspiracy, or any one of the mundane explanations put forward by others that would also prefer it not to be true, however I’m unable to be intellectually honest and do that on the balance of the copious evidence available.  As the Australian Skeptics position statement on “climate change skeptics” says:

It has always been the Australian Skeptics’ position that people should make up their minds based on the evidence. This position becomes even more important when what should be a completely scientific issue is used by politically-motivated groups to further their causes, often in the face of contradictory evidence.

People who are not experts in fields related to climate science should seek the best available evidence, as judged by those who are experts in relevant fields. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not everyone is entitled to be taken seriously. On the very important and very complex questions of climate change and its causes, only the carefully formed opinions of relevantly qualified experts should be taken seriously.

As in all fields of science, expertise emerges out of experience and through the peer-review process, not through media appearances or political connections.

Jayson D Cooke

The Aims of the Australian Skeptics, and why you should join!

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, Helping our community., Homeopathy Awareness Week, Modern Day Witchcraft, Responses to the media, Science on September 23, 2010 at 10:50 AM

I often find it beneficial to look back over what the various groups and organisations I associate with are doing, and what they stand for. This morning while preparing for an opportunity to talk skeptical to the mainstream media, I found myself reading the Our Aims section of the Australian Skeptics website. It’s been awhile since I’ve stopped to read this page, but I was glad I did today. Feeling compelled to share this with all of you; I’m also going to ask something in return. If you find yourself agreeing with these aims, if you want to do something to help out or want to find out how, why not join? You don’t even have to be Australian, but you get to be an informed part of something great. Bargain!

The following aims were drafted in 1989 at a national committee meeting
The aims of Australian Skeptics are:

* To investigate claims of pseudoscientific, paranormal and similarly anomalous phenomena from a responsible, scientific point of view.
* To publicise the results of these investigations and, where appropriate, to draw attention to the possibility of natural and ordinary explanations of such phenomena.
* To accept explanations and hypotheses about paranormal occurrences only after good evidence has been adduced, which directly or indirectly supports such hypotheses.
* To encourage Australians and the Australian news media to adopt a critical attitude towards paranormal claims and to understand that to introduce or to entertain a hypothesis does not constitute confirmation or proof of that hypothesis.
* To stimulate inquiry and the quest for truth, wherever it leads.

These aims will be pursued by:

* Establishing a network of people interested in critically examining claims of the paranormal,
* Publishing a periodical, the Skeptic and distributing relevant information.
* Publishing articles, monographs and books that examine claims of the paranormal.
* Maintaining a library.
* Preparing a bibliography of relevant published material.
* Encouraging and commissioning research by objective and impartial inquirers.
* Conducting meetings, seminars and conferences.
* Acting as a public information resource by making informed members and relevant expertise available to the news media and other interested groups.

The sceptical attitude involves:

* Seeking all relevant evidence concerning any extraordinary or putative paranormal event, claim or theory.
* Keeping an open mind and not rejecting paranormal claims a priori.
* Refusing to accept as true theories and explanations for which there is insufficient or ambiguous evidence and recognising that withholding belief is a preferable position to accepting claims for which there is insufficient evidence.
* In seeking explanations, to prefer the ordinary to the extraordinary, the natural to the supernatural and the simple to the complex.

Update on CMI in Hervey Bay: The Empire Strikes Back.

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, GUSSF Events!, Helping our community., Responses to the media, Science on September 21, 2010 at 11:51 AM

The Creation Ministries International Website now reads:

“Stop press! The arrangements for the seminar in Hervey Bay have changed. Several community organisations have expressed a wish to take a leading role in hosting the event and USQ Fraser Coast is working with these organisations to manage a smooth transition. Details of the venue will be available soon.”

In place of the more humerous:

“Stop press! A concerted campaign of vitriolic and deceptive opposition from persons outside the University of Southern Queensland has resulted in the USQ Fraser Coast campus no longer sponsoring the seminar.”

Is it to early to assume that “community organisations” is code for “church?“, or that this science fiction/right-wing fundamentalist Christian movement will be preaching in a school near you? Will a fellow skeptic be frozen in carbonite and taken away by Ken Ham? I know I’ll be keeping an eye out for the sequel.

Stop press! A concerted campaign of vitriolic and deceptive opposition from persons outside the University of Southern Queensland has resulted in the USQ Fraser Coast campus no longer sponsoring the seminar.

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, GUSSF Events!, Helping our community., Responses to the media, Science, Uncategorized on September 20, 2010 at 6:52 PM

…or at least that’s how Creation Ministries International are viewing it!

We actually managed to shed enough light on the situation involving the University of Southern Queensland’s apparent support for a Creation Ministries International run full day seminar, that they have suddenly withdrawn support. That’s two big win’s in the space of a month.

From now on every complaint will be responded to be a rigorous letter campaign first!

Boom!

Jayson D Cooke

Thank you all for the support!

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, GUSSF Events!, Helping our community., Responses to the media, Science on September 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Thanks guy’s and gal’s for all the support with the USQ Creationism Invasion, you all know who you are and I really wanted to let you all know I really appreciate the support. The letter has now been sent to almost every member of staff at every campus of USQ. Already I’ve had heaps of really positive responses such as thank you messages from staff at each campuses who are furious at the implied association and are going to take action.

I don’t know what the outcome of all this will be, but it’s great to be able to do something about making people aware it’s happening, before it’s too late.

Jayson D Cooke

Open letter to USQ, RE: Implicit endorsement of Young Earth Creationism.

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, Helping our community., Science on September 19, 2010 at 8:45 AM

Dear Staff, Associates and Representatives of USQ,

I am writing to you to inform you of concerns raised by a proposed seminar to take place at USQ’s Fraser Coast Campus , titled

“Creation and Evolution: scientific evidence, myths and challenges”.

The USQ produced flyer (Creation Seminar flyer_v2) advises that two expert scientists, Dr Don Batten and Dr Tas Walker of Creation Ministries International will challenge society’s largely uncritical commitment to the theory of evolution.

“This seminar forms part of our continuing commitment to engage intellectually with our community. We see it as part of our role to engage in debate about the most significant and sometimes controversial issues of the day. In 2011, we shall provide even more opportunity for such debate.”

The advertisements produced by CMI however advise that

“The only presenters at this event are CMI scientists”

and states that this is the first time in the history of Creation Ministries International that they have been invited to speak at a “secular” university. It may concern you to know that neither of the speakers advertised have any professional credentials in Biology, Evolutionary Biology or Theology. I point this out as a professional courtesy, and by the same token, feel obliged to point out that Creation Ministries International’s ‘Statement of Faith’ as seen on their website clearly states:

“The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.”

CMI are a religious organisation, not a scientific one, and while their membership does include some scientists, the organisation they represent has no standing in the scientific community and their stated goals are far from the advancement of the scientific enterprise. More precisely, the primary aim of this group is to promote its particular version of Young Earth Creationism and to undermine the theory of evolution wherever and whenever possible. They are also outspokenly opposed to abortion, gay rights, ‘pornography’ etc. and adopt the standard Religious Right position on a range of other social issues.

Former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane and Governor General of Australia, Peter Hollingworth has stated that growing numbers of theologians and many other thoughtful Christians have found that there is no inevitable conflict between evolutionary theory and the belief that God created and continues with the creation of His universe. He goes on to warn in the foreword to Professor Ian Plimer’s “Telling Lies for God

“If creationists argue that the Genesis account of creation is to be taken literally and that accordingly, science is wrong, then empirically minded students, when persuaded by the general theory of evolution, are very likely to conclude that the Bible itself must be correspondingly wrong. Thus instead of offering dialogue between Biblical faith and evolutionary science and then seeking a contemporary understanding of creation as a dynamic and evolving process, there is likely to be further estrangement between groups of people within our culture.”

My own concerns are that a University such as USQ appears to be giving implicit endorsement to CMI allowing and encouraging them to distort, misuse and misapply science, to pursue a religious agenda that is both divisive and not representative of mainstream Theology.
Please find below relevant position statements on the scientific validity of ‘Creation Science’ from peak scientific research organisations within Australia and internationally.

Australian Academy of Science
http://www.science.org.au/policy/creation.html

Geological Society of Australia Inc
http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/management/POL_intel%20design_2008.pdf

The Australian Museum
http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Editorials-and-opinions/Evolution-Statement

The Interacademy Panel on International Issues (IAP)
http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/1017_DD_FILE_IAP_Evolution.pdf

National Academy of Science (United States)
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

The American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

American Anthropological Association
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/evolution.htm

American Association of Physics Teachers
http://www.aapt.org/Resources/policy/evolutandcosmo.cfm

The Biophysical Society (United States)
http://www.biophysics.org/Policy/PolicyIssues/PositionStatements/tabid/450/Default.aspx#Evolution

The Union of Concerned Scientists (United States)
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/statement-on-science.html

The Paleontological Society (United States)
http://www.paleosoc.org/evolutioncomplete.htm

The National Science Teachers Association (United States)
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

The Geological Society of America
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (United States)
http://www.vertpaleo.org/education/index.cfm

The American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/evolution.shtml

National Association of Biology Teachers (United States)
http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92

The American Institute of Biological Sciences
http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/20050805_aibs_criticizes.html

Association for Women Geoscientists (United States)
http://www.awg.org/about/evolution.html

The Botanical Society of America
http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration,

Jayson D Cooke

University of Southern Queensland presents: Creation Ministries International?

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, Helping our community., Science on September 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM

I just received a troubling email with a subject heading that reads

“University–sponsored Creation Seminar at Hervey Bay”

Allegedly, the University of Southern Queensland is organising a day long event under the title ‘Creation and Evolution, Scientific Evidence, myths and challanges’ featuring speakers from Creation Ministries International (CMI).
This is the same group who publicly state as the first point in the’What We Believe’ section of their website

“The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.”

The press release conveys the same surprise I feel, that a public, secular university would host a day long presention by this renowned evangelical evolution denial group, yet does not seem to share my concern. The release states:

“it is entirely the university’s event, and at its own initiative. The uni is covering costs, and receiving all registrations and fees.”

The speakers are CMI regular Dr Don Batten, author of such classic Creation Magazine articles as:

Frankenstein foods? Genetically modified foods and the Bible

Did Noah need oxygen above the mountains?

Modelling the size of Noah’s ark

Sandy Stripes: Many layers don’t mean many years

Alongside fellow full-time CMI staffer Dr Tas Walker, and we’re advised these two CMI scientists are the only speakers.

Details some questions the speakers will address, such as

* Is the fish really our ancestor?
* Are we just a bag of chemicals?
* Should school science lessons focus on evolution?
* Is the world really millions of years old?
* Would the evolution arguments stack up in a court of law?

Unable to find any reference to this presentation anywhere online (with the exception of the CMI page), I decided to call the University and find out what was going really on and how this could possibly happen, but unfortunately haven’t been able to get in contact with anyone at all. I’ll keep trying though as this is an Australian first that I was not anticipating anytime soon, but I’m still optimistic there is much more to this than meets the eye. Please feel free to join me in getting to the bottom of this weirdness, you can contact the USQ Fraser Coast campus here.

Roll out,

Jayson D Cooke.

Genetic Structure of First Animal to Show Evolutionary Response to Climate Change Determined.

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, Responses to the media, Science on September 17, 2010 at 11:34 AM

A recent scientific discovery is certain to drive climate deniers/skeptics and creationists/intelligent design proponents mental!
Scientists at the University of Oregon have determined that a Pitcher plant-dwelling mosquito shows an evolutionary response to rapid climate change.

You can find the full story here, enjoy.

Jayson D Cooke

The High Court Challenge against National School Chaplaincy announces its legal team.

In Creationism/ Intelligent Design, Ethics in Schools, GUSSF Events!, Helping our community., Responses to the media on August 4, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Representing Ron Williams in the court action will be high profile barrister, Bret Walker SC (Senior Counsel). The importance of having the case represented by such a leading figure in Australian law cannot be overstated. Walker is …one of Australia’s leading barristers. He has been president of both the NSW Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia and Governor of the Law Foundation of NSW. He is Editor of the NSW Law Reports and Director of the Australian Academy of Law.

Walker will be supported by Gerald Ng, Barrister and the law firm, Horowitz and Bilinsky. The next step in the legal process is approaching, and further details will be released when it occurs.

People, this case is going to be huge and I’m expecting some jaw-dropping revelations to be made about our politicians and education systems. Be a part of it. Please donate whatever you can afford at the High Court Challenge website. Note – money raised goes into a trust for the payment of legal fees, not to Ron Williams and his family. Ron has put the financial future of his family on the line for this and really needs our support. Besides, for a small (or large) investment, this is a chance to be a part of Australian history.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.