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.”
Uffah!
Don't get uppity! It's just an expletive to indicate tiredness. How did you manage to type all that in a matter of minutes?
Anyway, I always skip them long posts.
?
I am on topic.
Not the topic I was on, no, you're not.
You presented some cut and past and acted like it was a fact that Kent has been found guilty of some crime by saying his cars were seized.
Wrong. My point had nothing at all to do with whether Hovind was guilty of a crime or not. Try to read for content next time.
GUESS WHAT!
I guess you're confused, that's what I guess.
They gave the cars back.
Whoop-de-do. It doesn't affect my point at all.
And whether you like it or not, it's part of the story.
I couldn't care less, frankly.
So stop with the kiddie cut and paste and find out what really happened down there.
Okay, I'll bite -- what makes *you* qualified to know "what really happened down there"?
Nobody reads your copy and pastings, because we all know that a monkey is a monkey and a man is a man.
And in a few years some of what scientist claim is one they will have to sadly admit is another. And there is nothing in between.
I don't know where you got that number
You *really* need to work on your reading comprehension...
I hated that movie. But you should admit that most of the people who attacked others were Catholics on those Passion threads.
"This confirms something I had already suspected."
I didn't want to mention the vision theng because was afraid of such a response.
LOL! Good one and thanks for the laugh.
And with that I think I can now close the lid on things for tonight.
Merry Christmas to all! I said ALL.
Now you are known for your great visions?...I will just let that stand as is, for all to see and conjecture about...You are the claimer of great visions?.And what you say, shall happen?..I will let that also stand for all to see...
You know absolutely nothing about my future, nor my childrens future...and your claiming that you do, only reinforces my opinion, that you think way too much of yourself and your 'powers'...
Ancient evolutionist's secret...
Anyway, I always skip them long posts.
Yes, can't risk having your thoughts contaminated by actual information...
A closed mind gathers no thought.
because we all know that a monkey is a monkey and a man is a man.
And You Are An Ape.
And there is nothing in between.
You obviously haven't examined the evidence.
I've been around. And I know the cars were given back.
I don't totally agree with his ideas about taxes, but he isn't dishonest about what he believes.
And he does give away lots of materials and he does not copyright them. And I know enough about him from being around him on occasion to know that he isn't some Jim Bakker wanna be.
I won't "admit" something I don't actually know. I didn't ask them their affiliations.
"You *really* need to work on your reading comprehension..."
OK. I admit that 1)I'm tired, and 2)I'm not the brightest bulb in the family. But what did I say that deserves of such a response?
And I call you out, for bearing false witness...you cannot believe the Bible as you claim you do, because you have constantly referred to my 'drinking'...I had two eggnogs, with liquor, which you have been told...and that was a long time ago....I was never drunk to begin with, nor am not drunk now...but since you like to wallow in being someone who bears false witness, you have shown to all, that contrary to your claims, you cannot believe the Bible as you claim...Thanks for doing that, your post points out what a great 'Christian' you believe yourself to be.....
If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he's merely delusional, not intentionally dishonest, I won't argue the point.
But his frequent proclamations contrary to obvious reality require *some* kind of explanation.
And I know enough about him from being around him on occasion to know that he isn't some Jim Bakker wanna be.
I'll agree with you on that point. He's a very different kind of demagogue.
Don't forget Ibn Khaldun.
Get a clue, ,the Bible, does not condemn drinking, it condemns drunkeness...prove that I am drunk...you cannot, because I am not...
Are you trying to suggest that I am drinking in front of my children?...because neither one of my children is here...one died, many years ago, and the other is 31 and living on his own...so drop it...
"Now you are known for your great visions?..."
No, it's not a recent theng. It goes back many years to my youth, if you want to believe it.
You obviously didn't major in Biology...
Actually biology was one of my strongest subjects, and I got straight A's not only in College but also in High School.
I love biology and bet I could run circles around you in any discussion on the topic.
"I am an ex-evolutionists turned Christian."
Somehow I doubt that.
Who the hell cares what you "doubt".
You don't know me. You have never met me.
The idea that you chose to call people you know nothing about liars about their personal lives because they disagree with you shows how pathetically weak your arguments really are.
"Evolution is an idiot theory designed to disprove the Bible." Wrong, but thanks for playing.
No. I'm Right. And in fact Darwin agrees with me and said as much.
You do know who Darwin is don't you?
And by the way if you think people are going to bother reading the enormous volumes of reading material you posted, think again.
If you can't make a short and to the point response to a post, nobody is going to waste their time mulling through huge reading assignments looking for information because you are not articulate enough to make your point.
Give us all a major break.
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.