Intelligent design
As part of his mission on Earth to bring elightenment, hope and freedom to all, George W Bush now wishes to see the "theory" of "Intelligent Design" taught in schools in America. (
Link). This "theory" - which is not a theory at all, but the religious dogma of creationism in a new guise - says that Darwin's evolutionary theories are not sufficient to explain the wonder and the complication of life as it exists in the world and that there must have been an "intelligent designer" for this to have come about. "Intelligent Design" is the same argument as proposed by the Rev William Paley in England in 1802. He called his argument "The Watchmaker" - it went something like this. "You are going for a walk in the countryside and you come across a watch on the path. You pick it up, and you see immediately how complicated it is, and how perfectly it is fitted for its purpose, which is to tell the time. Such an object could not have come about by chance, it must have had a design, and logically then it also must have had a designer, a watchmaker. When you walk along this same path, and you see the immense variety and utter complexity of life around you, from the blade of grass to the unfathomable workings of the human eye, and how perfectly each is designed for its purpose, then this too must have had a designer, a maker. We know the maker as God." In the same way, "Intelligent Design" presupposes that the innate complexity and design of life cannot be explained completely through any scientific process but that there must have been a purpose for this complexity, a design and an intelligent designer.
Richard Dawkins, scientist and writer of popular books on evolution, constructively and emphatically dismisses this argument in a book which pays some homage to the Rev. William Paley, by being entitled "
The Blind Watchmaker". I have read this book and others by Richard Dawkins, and can thoroughly recommend it to any one with any interest at all in evolution and our place in the universe. You can in fact read the first chapter of this book
here. Of course Richard Dawkins entitles his book "
The Blind Watchmaker" to emphasise the blindness or randomness of nature, that there is no
intent in evolution. There is
design of course, but the mechanism of this design did not require a
designer. That is Darwin's revolutionary theory of evolution. There is a discussion about George Bush's proposal
here.
Of course the problem with George W Bush's theory in supposing that an "intelligent" designer created us all is explaining how He (She) could have made such a fundamental error in creating George W Bush. His existence is all the proof that most of us would need that evolution truly is blind. (Cheap shot, I know, but irresistable.) However for an even better explanation of how the world was created, see this
site - a deeply felt and profoundly reverent paean to the inchoate and ineffible universe of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (thanks to Tomas Ribeiro for directing me).
Report on the Parliamentary Justice Committee on the petition for a Royal Commission on the Peter Ellis case
I have also posted this article under my
Miscarriage of Justice page, but I thought I would also place it here as it is topical.
(Added 18/8/05) A Parliamentary review of the Peter Ellis case has just reported. (The full report can be found
here.) The petition for a Royal Commission of Inquiry was declined. While this is very disappointing, the committee have admitted that there are many aspects of the Peter Ellis trial with which they are uncomfortable, and have made quite a number of recommendations because of these concerns. It is a shame that the logical conclusion of these concerns, the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, was not then forthcoming.
For instance they admit the public disquiet about the declining of legal aid for Peter Ellis's council. They make recommendations about this.
Concerns raised by the petitioners in regard to a) interviews with the children b) the "protected" status of expert witness testimony c) issues around the credibility of the childrens's evidence not presented to the jury were all acknowledged. Recommendations were to examine the operation of amendments to the Evidence Act of 1990 and 1999 in regard to children's evidence, and consider a more inquisitorial approach to criminal cases involving the alleged sexual abuse of children, as in the Family Court.
There seems to have been a lot of correspondence to Judith Ablett-Kerr QC from who the committee had not received a reply. For instance the Ministry of Justice suggested that if Peter Ellis was unhappy with the videotaped evidence he could have challenged this under section 231 of the Evidence Amendment Act 1989.
Issues related to the police investigation were examined, but the Committee seems to have been happy to accept Ministry assurances and thought this was a secondary issue and remote. I think this is something of a fob-off.
Issues related to criticisms of the Eichelbaum Inquiry were examined, I am not sure that I follow the logic of the Committee's conclusion that the concerns related to the enquiry were because of the failure of the Inquiry to overturn the convictions, rather than the nature of the Inquiry itself. This is self-evidently not true.
In regard to future legal remedies, these are examined fully. A letter from Judith Ablett-Kerr QC was received later by the committee. In this she stated that she thought it would be correct to pursue leave to appeal to the Privy Council. There is a useful summary of the committee's main concerns in regard to this case, which are significant and important. There is a recommendation that the Attorney-General not oppose an application to appeal to the Privy Council, and that legal aid should be available.
At last, there is acknowledgement the New Zealand justice system is not presently capable of examing issues in regard to public concerns about miscarriages of justice through its present formal and restrictive legal framework. The Committee make the recommendation that a Criminal Cases Review Authority be established, along the lines, I imagine, of the similarly named organisation in the UK. Thank goodness. I hope that this recommendation is quickly taken aboard by all the political parties in New Zealand, and is supported wholly by the legal fraternity in New Zealand (perhaps nowadays in New Zealand I should say legal sorority). As such, this body would be able to examine historical cases, then this might allow people like Peter, and my other mentioned victims on this web site, to seek thorough review of their cases. There can never be such a thing as foolproof or absolute justice, but a Criminal Cases Review Authority will go a long way to improving justice in New Zealand and mitigating the closed shop justice system that presently exists here. However I would add that it would be better to get proper justice from the very start, and an independent Courts Office or prosecution service should also be considered along with any review of the appeals system or Criminal Case Review Authority.
There is a single minority opinion which disagrees with the findings of the Committee. He feels the Committees recommendations are inappropriate. He also points out with the passage of time, that two of the petitioners' main concerns have been partly addressed, with the introduction of a new Evidence bill, relating to statements of opinion by expert witnesses and children's evidence, and with the introduction of the Legal Service's amendment bill, in regard to legal aid.
