There's this lovely guy called Kent Hovind. He's an American preacher with a diploma mill doctorate that he seems to be very proud of. He's regarded by some creationists as a good debater since he literally covers his opponents with tons of arguments supporting his theories. Of course his arguments are rarely scientific and mostly completely false. So false that even Answers in Genesis disclaims their use.
Anyway, mPower Ministries here in South Africa have organised for "Dr" Hovind to come visit our country in order to preach before them. They are denigrating South African scientists who refuse to "debate" with him, a usual tactic. Because holding a fake debate, which is actually a sermon, in front of a fundamentalist church group against a guy with zero scientific credibility sounds like such a compelling thing for a busy scientist to do...
I found out some information about Mr. Hovind that I thought the nice people at mPower should know, so I logged onto their blog and told them. I was polite, did not swear, my comment was on the post topic and yet, due to comment moderation, my comment is not visible 4 days later.
The reason? I can guess. I said something they didn't want their loyal parishoners to hear. It appears that Mr. Hovind will not be coming to South Africa, as his passport has been confiscated by a US federal court. You see, he was arrested on 58 charges including income tax evasion, making threats against investigators and filing false complaints against IRS agents. His wife was also included on 44 of the charges. Just to add insult to injury it appears that his lawyer, Glen Stoll is also in legal trouble for falsely claiming to be a lawyer, and selling fraudulent schemes where he claimed that one could avoid tax by claiming to be a religious organisation.
This is the quality of the man that mPower Ministries wish to bring to South Africa, the man that they're attacking scientists for not debating. Then, to add insult to injury, they attempt to hide the fact that this is happening. Not one mention of it on their blog or web page, and supression of comments that point it out. It seems to me that they're not being very honest at all. However, I don't use comment moderation, so please, if your views are being supressed by this church, you're welcome to post here. In the interests of decency I will delete posts that contain foul language, but I promise to repost them as myself, with attribution, with the obscenity edited out.
Hasn't it come to a pretty pass where the only place you can get the truth out of some churches is to visit the blog of an avowed atheist? The last sentence on the mPower post about Hovind says "The object of these debates is not to host some kind of Jerry Springer show, but in fact to allow truth to be exposed!". Really?!? Truth to be exposed? Such noble sentiments! Such an ethical high ground! Perhaps you'd get more truth exposed if you stopped supressing it yourselves. Frankly, when I posted to their blog I expected them to be hypocrites about this, but it's so sad to see it actually substantiated.
Update
According to the Southern Poverty Law Centre Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books such as Fourth Reich of the Rich and "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion". To be fair to Hovind, I couldn't find the second in his store.
Update 2
It's confirmed that Hovind will not be coming to South Africa due to him being a flight risk. Adding some pretty insane fuel to the fire is Andre Immelman (he of the censored mPower blog), who said South Africans "do not react very nicely to disappointment". Wonder what that means..., is he trying to threaten a U.S. judge? He also stated that his ministries members "will be seeking asylum in the U.S." if Hovinds trip is cancelled. I wonder on earth why the U.S. would accept people so detached from reality that they think that a way of protesting a countries actions is to attempt to flee to it? Makes me laugh. A lot. Not just me, Ed Brayton seems to be amused as well.
"In what has been a very controversial decision here, our new democratic government is poised to introduce evolution into the public school system in the stead of creation after some 47 years of creationism practice," Immelman wrote. "To say that this debate has sharply served to divide the country is really no understatement at all."
Really? Is this what is dividing South Africa these days? Not crime, or the Zuma trial, or race, or what the hell we're doing about the World Cup, or the Gautrain? No, creationism. Strange, I haven't heard a word about this on the radio, nor seen anything about it on TV, or read anything about it in the newspapers. Gosh, I must really, really out of touch.
Alternatively, perhaps Mr. Immelman is a pompous bufoon, who, when denied his treats degenerates into a squalling infant making up stories and threats to try and protect his fragile ego.
Update 3
Now that mPower have actually admitted on their website, but not their blog, that Hovind will not be coming to S.A. they've started a poll where they ask the question "Do you believe that people who have paid for their tickets should donate them?", with the two answers being "No - all ticket holders must claim a refunded of their tickets", and "Yes - ticket holders ought to donate their tickets to the creationist cause".
Let me not get into the legalities of selling someone a ticket to an event, cancelling the event, and then using the money for something else. However, I do feel that this poll appears to show where mPowers interests lie, in the money. I think that they were hoping that a majority of people would vote Yes, allowing them to expropriate the money of the ticket holders. Sadly for them, the results are the opposite.
Update 4
mPower have finally admitted on their blog that Hovind will not be coming to South Africa. I suggest you read the post, since it's quite a good insight into the reason for why creationists are against evolution. It has nothing to do with the evidence per se, and everything to do with a fear of damnation for believing in the evidence. He claims that without a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation that the foundations of Christianity are destroyed. He makes the argument that if we accept that Genesis is incorrect that we must therefore discard the rest of the Bible as well.
You see there are three major possibilities for the authorship of the Bible:
1: The Bible was written by men - it therefore has no real value beyond being a book of history/philosophy/mythology. Obviously Christians of all stripes would be unhappy with this interpretation.
2: The Bible was written by men, inspired by God - In this case the Bible is not neccesarily inerrant, but does contain the gist of Gods message. This interpretation requires a lot of thought to try and separate what is God's Word from the biases and preconceptions of it's writers. Most Christians in the world are happy with this interpretation. The acceptance that the creation story in Genesis is wrong therefore does nothing to denigrate the message in other passages.
3: The Bible is the direct Word of God, complete in all details - In this case if any evidence (i.e. evolution, astronomy, geology, physics, maths) contradicts the Bible, then the evidence must be at fault, somehow. This is the approach favoured by creationists. In a sense, becuase they believe the Bible is the literal Word of God, they have to believe in creationism, and will contort themselves mightily to do so.
This leaves Christians at a bit of an impasse, do they accept a literal and inerrant Bible or not. Contrary to what Mr Immelman and many others believe it is possible to be a true, believing, and good Christian while not agreeing 100% with the Bible. I know because I have met such people, far better and more honest than the impression I get from such guys as Hovind or Immelman.
One way to perhaps look at this is where the literal/inspired approaches agree. Both agree that God was the Prime Mover, that everything we see around us is His creation. They disagree about how this was accomplished, but not about whether God did it. As such, one would have to accept that the Creation itself would be the final word from God. We have no way of influencing in any great degree the wonder of the Universe, but it is well within human power and motivation to tamper with a book.
Given that the Universe does not fit the description of creation in Genesis, one would have to argue that the pure, unadulterated Word of God is contradicting the Bible. As such, I would posit, that the Bible cannot therefore be inerrant. If you insist on this, you call God a liar in His Creation. If you insist on Creation being the truth, then the Bible must be flawed. If the Bible is flawed, then it cannot be inerrant. Therefore the Bible should be open to interpretation. The question that then scares many fundamentalists is how open to interpretation is it? My suggestion would be that one could see it as open to interpretation only where is is contradicted by the Universe itself. This would leave room for a very literal reading of the Bible, except in a very few small areas.
One place that causes a lot of grief is Original Sin. If Adam and Eve were just one end of an evolutionary path, two people amoungst all others, then what is their primacy amoungst people? A Catholic priest I knew described Adam and Eve as the first humans ensouled by God. Before them, humans has the same kind of souls as animals. Adam and Eve, however, were ensouled by God with souls in the image of Him. That, he claimed, was the meaning of "in my image", nothing so crass as physical form, but the soul itself.
Yes, I'm an athiest, but I still find this kind of debate fascinating, especially when it traipses into making scientific claims, as creationism does.