…and this is a 
Schism!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 21, 2006 2:57 PM, by PZ Myers
Some dirt is being unearthed in the tale of the biggest creationist group around, Answers in Genesis, led by Ken Ham. There were two branches of AiG, one in Australia and another in the US, and there'd been hints of a split between them—and now Jim Lippard has details. It's looking ugly.
In short, it looks like this was a struggle over money and control, with the Australian group out-maneuvered by the U.S. group. If the information in these documents is accurate--and I am inclined to believe that it is--it shows that Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis is as sleazy in its business dealings as it is in its misrepresentations of science.
It looks to me like Ken Ham is Kent Hovind's smarter cousin…but that he's just as corrupt and conniving.
Comments
Apparently one of the ideological differences between the US branch and the Australian branch is that the Aussies are willing to criticize Kent Hovind. On the other hand, Ham's followers have removed material critical of Hovind from the AiG website.
Posted by: Richard Clayton | November 21, 2006 3:22 PM
It's corporate speciation through geographical isolation!
Posted by: Rather not say | November 21, 2006 3:23 PM
REG:
Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN:
I do!
REG:
Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN:
A lot!
REG:
Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah...
JUDITH:
Splitters.
P.F.J.:
Splitters...
FRANCIS:
And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA:
And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG:
What?
LORETTA:
The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG:
We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA:
Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG:
People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS:
Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG:
He's over there.
P.F.J.:
Splitter!
Posted by: STS | November 21, 2006 3:40 PM
It may interest some of you to learn that Hugh Ross's ministry 'Reasons To Believe' harbors similar grievances about underhanded dealing from AIG. Though these have not been aired publicly, one of RTB's board members told me personally that AIG has been promoting a heavily-edited version of a debate between Ross and Ham on the 'John Ankerberg' program that misrepresents what was originally televised, to the detriment of RTB.
As a Christian, I think AIG's missteps should be better-known and I thank Jim Lippard for publicizing it....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | November 21, 2006 3:41 PM
In short, it looks like this was a struggle over money and control, with the Australian group out-maneuvered by the U.S. group.
Dang it, I'm getting that same patriotic lump in my throat I get when I hear 'Stars and Stripes forever'. As an American, I'm proud to claim that our creationist loonies are the sharpest creationist loonies in the world!
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | November 21, 2006 3:41 PM
I thought Australia was supposed to IMPORT criminals, not export them?
Posted by: Richard Clayton | November 21, 2006 3:51 PM
Maybe the guard dogs are for the aussies.
Posted by: jeffw | November 21, 2006 3:53 PM
Ken Ham came to the U.S. from Australia because he viewed Americans as a more fertile field for his creationism ministry than his homeland down under. Given his penchant for empire building, I'm not surprised that he's willing to despoil what was once regarded as the parent organization of AiG. (Sharper than a serpent's tooth...)
Creationism continues to evolve in a survival of the fittest battle.
Posted by: Zeno | November 21, 2006 4:16 PM
Lou Dobbs is a tool. Oooo scary mexicans! Seal the border!
Posted by: Steve_C | November 21, 2006 4:22 PM
Ham (and Hovind too) is a blood brother to Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry. The only difference is that the two Kens managed to erect a couple of buildings instead of tents, and fleecing a few more marks in the process. Otherwise their morals are just as warped. This latest does not in the least suprise me. And I think it's only a matter of time before Ham finds himself in the same kind of position that Hovind and Ted Haggard worked themselves into. Ah, hypocrisy is alive and well. We should thank these folks for reaffirming that and reminding us all that we need to always hold onto our wallets.
Posted by: Keanus | November 21, 2006 4:40 PM
BTW, does anybody know whether it's coincidence that Ken Ham left Queensland in the same year Bjelke-Petersen was finally kicked out of office?
(Joh Bjelke-Petersen was the very long-standing Premier of Queensland, and one of the most crooked politicians the country has ever seen. Several of his associates including the Police Minister went to jail for various forms of corruption, and Joh only escaped conviction because the foreman of his jury was an enthusiastic member of his party.)
Posted by: Geoffrey | November 21, 2006 4:42 PM
Scott I think your a good guy but you don't have to remind everyone your a Christian in a post to make a point.
It doesn't get more validity by using the first 3 words. I know what your intent is but I think your points are valid enough.
Posted by: GH | November 21, 2006 4:44 PM
Or maybe Scott is tired of hearing "if there are reasonable Christians, why don't they speak up about X?" and wanted to be seen as a reasonable Christian speaking up about X.
Posted by: Geoffrey Brent | November 21, 2006 5:03 PM
I'm cool with it, perhaps we can all add some dimensions to our dialogue by revealing a little personal information... or to rephrase....
As a fairly young white dude, I have no problems with others providing a little background so that we may correctly interpret their message correctly.
Posted by: MG | November 21, 2006 5:23 PM
I drive past a AIG building in Ryde, Sydney every so often. Its right near the TAFE I went to. It used to be painted yellow with big dinosaurs which looked kinda funky. Now its all serious grey and boring. Still never had the nerve to walk in.
I never really gave it much thought except it is full of god botherers, now I know much more about this lot I'm glad its not as welcoming.
Posted by: coz | November 21, 2006 6:35 PM
GH: I know it's a little ham-handed to constantly proclaim my faith. Sorry if I come off preachy or something, but like Geoffrey Brent remarks, I want to be seen as a 'reasonable Christian speaking out about X'.
Now (rueful grin) if I could just get a few more of my fellow Christians to speak out, or even to read this blog! Seriously, it's appalling that Christians in this country are so uncritically willing to give Ham and his crew the sort of 'fair shake' he would never give to anyone he can ramrod over....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | November 21, 2006 6:53 PM
"Now (rueful grin) if I could just get a few more of my fellow Christians to speak out, or even to read this blog! Seriously, it's appalling that Christians in this country are so uncritically willing to give Ham and his crew the sort of 'fair shake' he would never give to anyone he can ramrod over....SH"
One can only presume they're used to it. I suspect many prefer it. Mainline -not to mention conservative- Christian theology is extremely authoritarian. I'm not sure it's possible to have a variety of theism that isn't.
Posted by: Samnell | November 21, 2006 7:28 PM
Well, as a fourteen-year-old homeschooled girl into body art...
Eh, maybe not.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | November 21, 2006 8:27 PM
Well, there's an established precedent my father taught me about the difference between American and Australian ministry. America was founded by the Founding Fathers, Australia by the Prodigal Sons. Church culture in Australia is much more intense and personal, and we don't go in for big revivalish displays. Having seen my fair share of American 'missionaries' opting to travel over here and try to whip up a Billy-Graeme/DL Moody style revival... and being embarassed when they get a paltry group of five or six people coming down to the front 'out of pity', I can't help but suspect that Ken's style works better over there than it does here.
Posted by: Talen Lee | November 21, 2006 9:23 PM
I hope this doesn't interfere with Pharyngulapalooza 2007 (or 2008, or whenever they finish their museum). OK, so I don't really care if it does...
Posted by: Robster | November 21, 2006 11:55 PM
No problem Scott,
I share your faith or at least some version of it. I just don't feel the need to put it in my posts. But this is a matter of opinion and mine is no more correct than yours.
Posted by: GH | November 22, 2006 1:17 AM
Scott says: "Now (rueful grin) if I could just get a few more of my fellow Christians to speak out, or even to read this blog!....SH"
There are one or two of us hiding in the woodwork around here!
Samnell says: "Mainline -not to mention conservative- Christian theology is extremely authoritarian."
Mainline theology isn't. In fact, at its best it encourages people to work out their own individual relationships with God and the world, and to live with integrity within the context of those relationships. (At worst, it can get kind of limp and flabby.)
No arguments with the authoritarianism of the conservative end of things though! That stuff makes my hair crawl and my skin stand on end. (You read that right.) One of my brothers is into that crap. It's beyond scary.
Samnell says: "I'm not sure it's possible to have a variety of theism that isn't."
As a card-carrying faith-based liberal pinko and the child of faith-based liberals and progressives (preacher's kid, in fact), I must respectfully disagree. There aren't as many of us around as there are of the other guys, and we don't scream as loud as they do, but we do exist, and we're every bit as alarmed as the non-theists over the dangerous combination of bad religion and bad science (not to mention bad politics) that's throwing its ugly weight around these days.
But I'm not here to discuss theology per se, any more than anyone else is (except maybe a troll or two). My theology is my own business, but I will say that I've never experienced any conflict between science and faith. They serve two entirely different purposes, and I can't imagine a life for myself that doesn't honor both.
'Nuff said for the moment. Once again I've probably thrown too many brass farthings into the pot. I'll shut up now.
Posted by: anomalous4 | November 22, 2006 3:19 AM
"I thought Australia was supposed to IMPORT criminals, not export them?"
Aussie Immigration Officer: "Do you have a criminal record?
Entrant: "My, I had no idea it was still compulsory ... "
Oops!
Stopp rattling those chains.
Posted by: G. Tingey | November 22, 2006 4:08 AM
"This latest does not in the least suprise me. And I think it's only a matter of time before Ham finds himself in the same kind of position that Hovind and Ted Haggard worked themselves into."
Agreed. To profess their cretionist crap takes a vast amount of intellectual dishonesty. How far is that from fiscal dishonesty? Not very far at all. If one is use to lying about science to support one's wacky theological viewpoint, lying about other things such as finances comes very easy. It simply a matter of constructing the right rationalizations.
Then again, maybe the Kens were merely two bit grifters all along, bent only on separating fundies from their fundage.
Posted by: paleotn | November 22, 2006 9:52 AM
Although dishonesty from creationists is hardly out of the ordinary, does the US not have any applicable laws at all about what constitutes a fair contract? In the UK, if this were a trader-consumer agreement, I would expect it to fail to be legally binding just on the pre-drafted imbalance issues (quite apart from not being signed by the right people and the apparently clear intention of AiG to commit further crimes of intellectual theft and misrepresentation later!).
Posted by: SEF | November 22, 2006 2:53 PM
There is a damn good reason why Ken Ham left Queensland in the same year Bjelke-Petersen and why Mackay fell out with his AiG partners.
Money
Up until 1987 teaching creationism in schools in Queensland was compulsory. That's how Ham amd Mackay got started. Selling creationist books to schools.
Once Peterson was kicked out and creationism made illegal in schools, they livings had been flushed down the toilet.
AiG had been defrauded of a vast amount of money. Where were their livings to come from? Mackay was out of his depth in editing the outfit's technical journal but thought he was god and should be running the show. The others told him to shove it.
Ham also cleary worked out that there was more money in the USA than in an obscure, backward and corrupt part of Australia that had just removed the best part of his living.
Posted by: Roger Stanyard | November 22, 2006 5:49 PM
Another card carrying CMI supporter comes out of the woodwork.....
>To profess their cretionist crap takes a vast amount of >intellectual dishonesty.
Intellectual dishonesty ?
Most anti-creationist never look at the origin of their believe system. Its not science v religion, but religion v religion. When evolution says "First there was nothing then it exploded into everything (big bang) plus time equals you and me. Let's get real, that's faith not science.
Posted by: Dallas | November 24, 2006 8:08 AM
And when evolution says that, you let us know.
Posted by: MartinM | November 24, 2006 8:38 AM
"Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This spark of life was the seed of every living thing we see today (as well as those we no longer see, like dinosaurs). That simplest life form, through the processes of mutation and natural selection, has been shaped into every living species on the planet."
Quoted from
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution1.htm
Posted by: Dallas | November 27, 2006 7:22 AM