Kent Hovind, a former high school science teacher turned creation science evangelist, said that evolution is the "dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth" at a program in the Union on Dec. 6.
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A former high school science teacher turned creation science evangelist told an audience at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee last Tuesday that evolution is the “dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth.”
Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism, presented “Creation or Evolution … Which Has More Merit?” to a standing-room only audience in the Union Ballroom on Dec. 6. The event was sponsored by the Apologetics Association, the organization that brought Baptist minister Tim Wilkins to UWM to speak about homosexuality in October.
Members of the Apologetics Association (AA) contacted biology, chemistry and geology professors at UWM and throughout the UW System, inviting them to debate Hovind for an honorarium of $200 to be provided to the individual or group of individuals who agreed.
Before the event began, the “No-Debater List,” which was comprised of slides listing the names of UWM science professors who declined the invitation, was projected behind the stage.
Dustin Wales, AA president, said it was his “biggest disappointment” that no professor agreed to debate Hovind.
“No professor wanted to defend his side,” he said. “I mean, we had seats reserved for their people … ’cause I know one objection could have been ‘Oh, it’s just a bunch of Christians.’ So we had seats reserved for them to bring people to make sure that it’s somewhat more equal, not just all against one. And still nobody would do it.”
Biology professor Andrew Petto said: “It is a pernicious lie that the Apologetics (Association) is spreading that no one responded to the challenge. Many of us (professors) did respond to the challenge; what we responded was, ‘No, thank you.’ ”
Petto, who has attended three of Hovind’s “performances,” said that because Hovind presents “misinterpretations, half truths and outright lies,” professors at UWM decided not to accept his invitation to a debate.
“In a nutshell, debates like this do not settle issues of scientific understanding,” he said. “Hovind and his arguments are not even in the same galaxy as legitimate scientific discourse. This is why the faculty here has universally decided not to engage Hovind. The result would be to give the appearance of a controversy where none exists.”
He added, “The faculty on campus is under no obligation to waste its time supporting Hovind’s little charade.”
Hovind, however, is used to being turned down. Near the end of his speech, he said, “Over 3,000 professors have refused to debate me. Why? Because I’m not afraid of them.”
Hovind began his multimedia presentation by asserting that evolution is the “dumbest and most dangerous” theory used in the scientific community, but that he is not opposed to science.
“Our ministry is not against science, but against using lies to prove things,” he said. He followed this statement by citing biblical references to lies, which were projected onto screens behind him.
Hovind said: “I am not trying to get evolution out of schools or to get creation in. We are trying to get lies out of textbooks.” He added that if removing “lies” from textbooks leaves no evidence for evolutionists’ theory, then they should “get a new theory.”
He cited numerous state statutes that require that textbooks be accurate and up-to-date, but said these laws are clearly not enforced because the textbooks are filled with lies and are being taught to students.
Petto said it is inevitable that textbooks will contain some errors.
“Sometimes, this is an oversight. Sometimes it is the result of the editorial and revision process. Sometimes it is the result of trying to portray a rich and complex idea in a very few words,” he said.
The first “lie” Hovind presented concerned the formation of the Grand Canyon. He said that two people can look at the canyon. The person who believes in evolution would say, “Wow, look what the Colorado River did for millions and millions of years.” The “Bible-believing Christian” would say, “Wow, look what the flood did in about 30 minutes.”
To elaborate, Hovind discussed the geologic column — the chronologic arrangement of rock from oldest to youngest in which boundaries between different eras are marked by a change in the fossil record. He explained that it does not take millions of years to form layers of sedimentary rock.
“You can get a jar of mud out of your yard, put some water in it, shake it up, set it down, and it will settle out into layers for you,” he said. Hovind used this concept of hydrologic sorting to argue that the biblical flood is what was responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon’s layers of sedimentary rock.
Hovind also criticized the concept of “micro-evolution,” or evolution on a small, species-level scale. He said that micro-evolution is, in fact, scientific, observable and testable. But, he said, it is also scriptural, as the Bible says, “They bring forth after his kind.”
Therefore, according to the Bible and micro-evolution, dogs produce a variety of dogs and they all have a common ancestor — a dog.
Hovind said, however, Charles Darwin made a “giant leap of faith and logic” from observing micro-evolution into believing in macro-evolution, or evolution above the species level. Hovind said that according to macro-evolution, birds and bananas are related if one goes back far enough in time, and “the ancestor ultimately was a rock.”
He concluded his speech by encouraging students to personally remove the lies from their textbooks and parents to lobby their school board for accurate textbooks.
“Tear that page out of your book,” he said. “Would you leave that in there just to lie to the kids?”
Petto said Hovind believes the information in textbooks to be “lies” because his determination is grounded in faith, not science.
“Make no mistake, this is not a determination made on the scientific evidence, but one in which he has decided on the basis of faith alone that the Bible is correct, and if the Bible is correct, then science must be wrong,” he said.
Petto said Hovind misinterprets scientific information and then argues against his misinterpretation.
“That is, of course, known as the ‘straw man’ argument — great debating strategy, but nothing to do with what scientists actually say or do,” he said. “The bottom line here is that the science is irrelevant to his conclusions.”
Another criticism of Hovind’s presentation is his citation of pre-college textbooks. Following the event, an audience member said, “I don’t think using examples of grade school and high school biology can stand up to evolution.”
Petto called this an “interesting and effective rhetorical strategy” and explained that Hovind is not arguing against science, but the “textbook version” of science.
“The texts are not presenting the research results of the scientific community per se, but digesting and paraphrasing it in a way to make it more effective in learning science,” he said. “So, what (Hovind) is complaining about is not what science says, but what the textbooks say that science says.”
Petto said this abbreviated version of scientific research is due, in part, to the editorial and production processes, which impose specific limits on what is included.
He added that grade school and high school textbooks tend to contain very general information about evolution and pressure from anti-evolutionists has weakened evolutionary discussion in textbooks.
“Lower-level texts … tend to be more general in their discussions of evolution and speak more vaguely of ‘change over time’ and adaptation and so on,” he said. “Due to pressure by anti-evolutionists, textbook publishers tend to shy away from being ‘too evolutionary’ in their texts … The more pressure there is on schools and publishers, the weaker the evolution gets, and the weaker it gets, the more likely that it will not do a good job of representing the current consensus among biologists.”
Hovind has a “standing offer” of $250,000 for “anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” According to Hovind’s Web site, the offer “demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.”
The Web site, www.drdino.com, says, “Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.”
Wales said the AA’s goal in bringing Hovind to UWM was “to crack the issue on campus” and bring attention to the fallibility of evolution.
“The ultimate goal was to say that, ‘Gosh, evolution isn’t as concrete as you say it is, and why do you get to teach everyone this non-concrete thing and then not defend it when someone comes and says your wrong?’ ” he said. “It’s just absurd.”
It is amusing and instructive to work out the total requirement for water to flood from current sea-level to the peak of Everest. When I did this exercise on the back of an envelope I came up with the requirement being a sphere of water around 1200 miles in diameter.
I did. Why do we need a "who" to create existing matter? What would such a Who be made of if not some kind of pre-existing matter? And where does that take you? What kind of explanation is that?
The Holy Warrior thing. Witnessing is witnessing, even when it's bad behavior in public.
To reiterate, you (and Hovind for that matter) believe that dinosaurs co-existed with man, snakes can talk, virgins give birth, the dead can be resurrected, there is a supreme being who sits around with nothing better to do than answer the prayers of nitwits, or there was a guy who spent three years partying with twelve of his buddies but remained abstinent the whole time.
To coin a biblical phrase, perhaps you shouldn't be casting stones about other people being ignorant.
Speaking of which...let's get to the good stuff.
Draw Winky too?.
This pic enjoying quality time is priceless. A re-enactment of Adam feeding the dinosaurs? Based on the dress-up costume in the background, was this wild critter tamed with a Jedi light saber?
Perhaps there is enough humanity left in your "evolved" self to still experience shame for your actions.
What do you think?
BTW, Season's Greetings!
So what. People will see closet monsters. Whether it actually be a monster or not is quite another thing. When one turns on the light, said evidences tend to disappear. There is no evidence precluding a global flood.
As for what people believe vs. what makes them "devout" that's quite another thing. Belief doesn't = truth. And blind faith is folly.
Congratulations! You will soon be starring in Creationist Quote Salads everywhere!
One of the funny things I've noted that happens with evolutionists when they turn creationist is they forget that there was ever any evidence for what they used to believe or even what it WAS that they used to believe. Their posts betray an invincible ignorance indistinguishable from those of people who have always been creationists.
That always struck me as odd. If you were familiar with the evidence for evolution and accepted it for some time, one might think you'd have a semiconvincing story about how you became unconvinced. And you should still remember a few things about why you used to accept evolution. You should know more than a Duane Gish strawman of evolution. "So one day, we are told, a snake gave birth to a bird. But where O where was there another little bird for it to mate with?"
Uh, yeah. That was my post. I still don't understand your response.
as for Piltdown...lots of hoaxes so little time.
Right. Piltdown was a hoax, not a "fraud". But there aren't "lots" of them. In fact I believe it's the only hominid fossil that was ever successfully hoaxed.
Bluster and vacancy is all you offer. You don't know your subject. How many posts must we run through while you handwring and chase tangeants. You're an uninformed prejudiced hack.
So was Timothy Leary.
It has nothing to do with liking it or not, it has to do with LYING about what the facts point too.
It is possible to make a number of predictions about what you'd expect to see in the rocks if there had been a global flood around 5000 years ago. Coyoteman is an archeologist who can date continuous settlements at the same sites back to well beyond that date. Those predictions don't come true. Also there is no genetic bottleneck dating back to that time, as would be required by the entire world ecology being saved on a boat. The number of alleles at many loci in the human genome is far too high for example to have come from 8 individuals that recently. That evidence alone falsifies any literal interpretation of the Noah story.
And blind faith is folly.
Agreed.
It should be trivial to find parallel passages if you're right. Is Seconday Sexual Characters of Man in the Old Testament or the New?
Yes, But that does not mean evolution is FACT, regardless of the scientific meaning of theory. Since science can not demonstrate this "theory" in action and as suggested in highschool textbooks, as many so-called facts have been proven to be bogus, agandized science can not parade evo as something that has or is happening.
The absolute absudity of a fish evolving into a man is not only ludicrous, it defies logic...especially when the scientific method is used to test the theory.
Reject the theory of evolution if you are comfortable rejecting the evidence that sustains it.
I only fully reject the conclusion of evolution based on the so-called evidence which agendized science says sustains the cult's beliefs.
Ah! The irony!
Pyroclastic flows at Mt. St. Helens.
Go learn something and come back when you know what you're talking about. Don't waste our time pontificating from ignorance.
If you aren't Hovind, then he cloned himself or has a twin.
One can make predictions; but, whether the predictions are of any use is quite another thing. The rest of your dialogue begs whether there is enough "time" nothing more. There is no time problem. There is only an unwillingness to accept facts on the evo side. A population of 8 can do a lot of damage in a short period of time. Any actual problems, or just handwringing?
I didn't subtract out the mountain ranges, but we're in the same ballpark.
A former creationist describes why he left creationism after he saw the evidence.
I *must be* pretty clever. I'm a would-be SF writer whose one published book is a western.
Really? Hmmm. What Would Jesus Do?
I know. Time for a sanity quiz.
True/False Dinosaurs co-existed with man
True/False Snakes can talk
True/False Virgins give birth
True/False The dead can be resurrected
True/False There is a supreme being who sits around with nothing better to do than answer the prayers of nitwits
True/False There was a guy who spent three years partying with twelve of his buddies but remained abstinent the whole time
True/False There are trees with magic fruit
True/False An ancient civilization built a seven-story tower that frightened God
Take your time. Consult your Bible if necessary. This is an open-book quiz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.