My partner and I participate on a Google group where theists and non-theists debate/ Recently, one of the theists posted the following:
At one time I was seriously considering hiring a private detective to
check for any evidence of fraud in the Daniel Ekechukwu story.
I don't have to. Humanist Leo Igwe has personally visited Nigeria,
investigated the claims and saved me the trouble.
See his article here
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/igwe_11_3.htm
The best he can do is state that he do is state that 'Personally, I do
not believe that Daniel Ekechukwu ever died'.
In other words he does not trust the opinions of the medical Doctors
in Nigeria.
I find that attitude somewhat arrogant.
Just because these Doctors have dark skin does not mean that they
don't know when a patient has died. They do know how to check vital
signs and pulse and according to Dr. Josse of St Eunices, Daniel
Ekechukwu had node.
I doubt too many atheists will be convinced but if that is the best
that skeptic Leo Igwe can do then I am more convinced that ever.
Now, keeping in mind that the poster actually had a link to the actual account of the investigator in his original post, one would think that he would have read through long enough to actually grasp what was really said. One would, in fact, be mistaken .
Now, here's the problem with the above:
(Quoted from Mr. Igwe's own account of his investigations)
On their way to Owerri that Friday, Kingsley said, Daniel stopped breathing. Upon their arrival at the clinic, the doctor advised them to take Daniel’s body to the hospital. His body was deposited in a local mortuary on that same day. Kingsley informed me that on Saturday night, Daniel’s wife, Nneka, had a dream and was instructed to take Daniel’s body to the Rev. Bonnke, who was then visiting Onitsha for prayers. Kingsley said that he had had a similar dream.
The following Sunday they had gone to collect Daniel’s body. At the mortuary, Kingsley said the mortician was complaining that Daniel had been disturbing him and had not allowed him to sleep for two days. The mortician had related that on the night that Daniel’s body had been deposited in the morgue, he heard people singing. When he went to investigate, however, the singing stopped.
Kingsley further stated that on Saturday night something pushed him and caused him to hit his head on the wall as he attempted to embalm Daniel’s body. For this reason, he did not embalm Daniel’s corpse. According to Kingsley, they transported Daniel’s body to Bonnke’s meeting in Onitsha that Sunday. There, Daniel was revived during a prayer session. To confirm what he had said earlier, I asked Kingsley if Daniel’s body had been injected with embalming fluid. He answered, “no!”
Personally, I do not believe that Daniel Ekechukwu ever died. First, Kingsley confirmed that Daniel’s body had not been injected with embalming fluid. According to medical experts I interviewed, however, a corpse should have a strong odor and the abdomen should be swollen after three days if it is not embalmed. Judging from the photo of Daniel when he was said to have been at the mortuary, and according to the testimony of his brother, this was not the case.
Second, it is unlikely that any doctor certified Daniel’s death at Owerri. Third, it is hard to believe the actions that supposedly transpired after Daniel’s request to be transferred. It all sounds like a mishmash of lies and fantasies.
The object lesson here is two-fold:
1> If you are going to invoke a story of a skeptic doing an investigation, do go to the trouble of actually reading the account you are invoking.
2> Before you respond and invoke something for your side, make certain that the source you quote actually makes the point you hope it does. In the example at the head of this post, the poster makes it sound as if Mr. Igwe's investigations turned up, at best (or worst depending upon your POV) an ambiguous finding. The actual text is far less ambiguous.
Also, the poster should probably have thought about the idea that there might be skeptics that are not Western and white. The poster's original point appeared to be predicated upon an assumption that anyone who would question whether or not a resurrection had occurred would, of a necessity, be white
No comments:
Post a Comment