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.”
Having spent 4 years teaching in a public school that shared traits of both these two extremes I have to say your assessment is very accurate.
Good question if a little sarcastic. See, not knowing whether you're being sarcastic or not, all I can do is try to infer that by assumption. Your track record would suggest you are - which gives me more to go on than you have for your postulations about the beginnings of earth. What's so wrong about not knowing. What's so wrong with admitting you don't know. Investigating the past isn't a crime. Nor is it necessarily foolish. But when you don't know or can't know something is so, it is better to say so than to make stuff up. Truth is always preferred over the lie in my book. In the book of others, that is not the case - agendas seem to get in the way sometimes..
No; but, that will be your take on it nonetheless. It can't be about defending the truth against absurdities or anything like that. It must be that I have an agenda behind my attempt to make you guys look dumb. You've had to crawl down from your collective perches to admit that you don't know something. Being stung, now you have to lash out. Must be terrible for you.
We have established you are utterly ignorant here or you might have anticipated an objection or two. So when do you shut up?
When it comes to origins, I'm happy to say we have established that we are both ignorant. Ignorance, as it happens is not a crime. It just means we don't know. You seem to take offense at that. I do not. So when do you shut up?
That's precisely what it is about, thanks. Science has a real evidence picture. If it isn't the final word, it nevertheless paints a clear picture of how the diversity of life on Earth arose. Not the first life, but the diversification ever since.
A lot of people are saying a lot of false things about what evidence science has and what that evidence indicates. Hint: it isn't me.
And I don't shut up because I'm the one correcting the "misstatements" as the Dover trial has come to characterize them.
No, sorry. Like a painting, the painting is what you see. What it means is merely a matter of interpretation foisted upon the painting. You're mistaking your projections as happenstance. As I've stated time and again, you aren't comfortable with saying, "I don't know" when you don't know.
You'd rather project and pontificate that projection. That isn't science. That is opinion/fiction.
In most cases your assessment of my sarcasm would probably be correct, but in this case I was more interested to see your response; to seee you argue against what I've said, agree with me or even come up with some other option(s).
I think you may have missed the point of my posts. My assumptions of the past in the case of a change in light speed can be deduced by taking current conditions, the proposed conditions of the past, and some basic calculus. There may be no way of proving that the proposed conditions are 100% correct, but it is possible to show that they are 0% correct by showing the consequences those conditions would have on the present.
"What's so wrong about not knowing. What's so wrong with admitting you don't know. Investigating the past isn't a crime. Nor is it necessarily foolish.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing, nor in admitting such. Science, including biology, admits that it doesn't know everything. If it did know everything it would have no reason to pursue any investigation. I don't think I ever suggested that investigation of the past is a waste, or foolish. I feel it to be necessary. Knowing the past and the mechanisms that underly events, gives us a better chance of predicting and mitigating similar events.
"But when you don't know or can't know something is so, it is better to say so than to make stuff up. Truth is always preferred over the lie in my book. In the book of others, that is not the case - agendas seem to get in the way sometimes..
Agendas do get in the way, from all sides, in any debate. However some agendas produce ideas, and their verbalizations, that can be investigated, analyzed, tested and either rejected or adopted. This is why science as it is works. If an agenda causes a scientist to fudge his data and findings, someone, somewhere, with a different agenda will tear into those findings and data and find the errors. Eventually, sometimes very quickly, errors will be eliminated and conclusions drawn that are as humanly accurate as possible. Science by its very nature is adversarial.
No. You just don't like dealing with the fact of what I said and are taking that to the extreme to beg something I neither implied or inferred. What I said is what I said. You have evidence which tells you nothing specific. You project upon it what you'd like to have us believe it represents. And you're mad that we don't all just blindly and moronically accept your spin. Nothing postmodern about it accept for your spin.
Again, FantasyLand. You make the OJ jury look clear-eyed and objective.
That, again, is assumption - that current conditions existed in the beginning or in the distant past. I have made it very clear that is an assumption you cannot sustain. You may think it "reasonable". It is not reasonable because nobody has seen the beginnings of a world before, much less one like ours. So there is no data from which to presume that such an assumption fits a norm such that it would fit the category of "reasonable" postulations.
If I see an accident with no skidmarks at the scene and the ground is dry, it is reasonable to assume the brakes were not applied on either vehicle in the accident. It is reasonable to presume this because based on observation, we know what happens when the brakes are applied.
You would like to argue a set of concepts and just have all your assumptions accepted as though they were "reasonable". And in some cases, your assumptions are implied, as with the arguments presented - heat levels would be higher if your assumptions hold true. Problem is, there is nothing to base reasonability of the assumption on, so, you're postulating an irrelevancy as though it were something relevant. Until you can establish conditions, You have no argument to contest with anymore than you have a worthwhile theory to begin with. That is my entire point. Until you start assuming things, you have no theory. And most of the things you assume have no relevant observable data that can be reviewed to determine the "reasonableness" of the assumptions. But, how about if we assume you wrote a will and assume you left everything to me and assume that everything amounted to 10 million. Now let's assume you just died yesterday and someone else is actually manning your internet presence. Based on all my assumptions, I'm now a multimillionaire. Are my assumptions unreasonable. Yes. But by your standard they'd be totally reasonable and even worth pontificating on.
"That, again, is assumption - that current conditions existed in the beginning or in the distant past.
I think we have a communication problem here. My only assumption was that current conditions are current, what we observe today and what we have observed over the last hundred years is valid to determine the light speed curve at the modern end, not the beginning. As far as the conditions in the past, those are determined by the creationist claim in question. The claim was that the distance to stars is not a reliable indicator of time required for light to reach earth because the speed of light was faster at that time. Given a distance to the farthest star, whatever it may have been 6000 years ago, allows us to calculate the speed of light at that time. Simple math.
"I have made it very clear that is an assumption you cannot sustain. You may think it "reasonable". It is not reasonable because nobody has seen the beginnings of a world before, much less one like ours. So there is no data from which to presume that such an assumption fits a norm such that it would fit the category of "reasonable" postulations.
Am I correct in thinking you are saying even E=MC2 is suspect and may not have been true at creation?
"If I see an accident with no skidmarks at the scene and the ground is dry, it is reasonable to assume the brakes were not applied on either vehicle in the accident. It is reasonable to presume this because based on observation, we know what happens when the brakes are applied.
"You would like to argue a set of concepts and just have all your assumptions accepted as though they were "reasonable". And in some cases, your assumptions are implied, as with the arguments presented - heat levels would be higher if your assumptions hold true. Problem is, there is nothing to base reasonability of the assumption on, so, you're postulating an irrelevancy as though it were something relevant. Until you can establish conditions, You have no argument to contest with anymore than you have a worthwhile theory to begin with. That is my entire point. Until you start assuming things, you have no theory. And most of the things you assume have no relevant observable data that can be reviewed to determine the "reasonableness" of the assumptions. But, how about if we assume you wrote a will and assume you left everything to me and assume that everything amounted to 10 million. Now let's assume you just died yesterday and someone else is actually manning your internet presence. Based on all my assumptions, I'm now a multimillionaire. Are my assumptions unreasonable. Yes. But by your standard they'd be totally reasonable and even worth pontificating on.
The only case where my assumptions would be a problem is if nothing we know now was valid at the start. Why would we assume that?
We are those with with the Final Solution,
A plan which you may call Evolution.
We'll preach it in your children's schools,
We'll create a nation of mindless fools.
Lies and deception our only tools.
A new religion we have found,
To all we proclaim it sound,
Don't oppose us, don't you dare,
There is nothing about us fair.
Through our courts we sneer,
At all that you hold dear,
Activist judges that do our bidding,
With corruption our ranks are completely ridden.
Don't say a word, we are the learned,
To hell with the freedom you've yearned.
We always know what's best for you,
We showed you that by killing the Jew
Indeed there will be no competing religion,
Yes indeed, it's our Final Decision.
As Darwin's soldier's we came by storm
Our religion had been born.
A rising flood was Baptised by blood,
We ground the nations into the mud.
Across Europe we took the road
Evil was our only abode
Nothing can stop us here you see
The axis of the three.
There is no protection,
From natural selection
Once converted to action.
A continent away across the ocean
Where freedom was the reigning notion
Courageous men, unafraid of the night,
Patriots prepared for the holy fight.
Legions of good men arose from this land
Selflessly offering a helping hand.
The promise was kept, when we came,
To relight freedom's flame.
Darwin's soldiers, see us come
We're here 'til our duty is done.
Darwin's soldiers, see us come,
You're going on the run.
American Sons of the Revolution
Coming to end your ghastly solution.
Darwin's soldier's, see us come,
The evil cross is done.
The battle was won, we sheathed our sword
It seemed we had defeated the Nazi horde.
Yet Darwin's men are always restless
Rising again they want to test us
When evil again raises its head
And declares that freedom is dead.
We'll steel for the fight
For that which is Right
Following our guiding light.
We'll fight by mountain, brook and stream
In our eyes is freedom's gleam.
We'll defend our right
To worship the Light
Never losing sight.
Whatever it takes, whatever the cost
What we have won will never be lost
Darwin's soldiers, see us come,
The job is never done
When evil again raises it's head
And declares that freedom is dead
We'll fight again with what we have
The Lord will be our salve
Whether it be with stone or sticks
We're the Spirit of '76.
You've almost got it. Just not quite in the abstract enough are you. It has nothing to do with claims and labels. It has to do with not knowing. We weren't there - none of us.
I assumed I would be someplace different in my life years ago. Boy did that turn out bad. Why did I assume that? Had little to do with reality and much to do with what I wanted reality to be. I woke up from something of a nightmare 30 minutes ago in that regard. So it's a rather fresh thing yet. The point is, you make your assumptions based on what you want your outcome to be most likely. Else, why would you view any other similar assumption less valid. You don't look at a wrecked car and assume it came from the factory that way. You don't look at an adult human at all 7'4" of basketball player and assume they just popped out of momma that way.
When people have preconcieved notions, they tend to buttress them - not tear them down. When they've buttressed them for so long as to come to depend upon them... realizing the truth is anathema. It's too shattering to let go of.. and some don't - even to the point of madness. And there you are, not mad; but, propping up one assumption with another because of what you'd like to be the case. Else, any assumption regardless of the label going with it would be equally as valid. It just isn't valid in light of what you'd like to be the case. In which case, your priorities on the matter are exposed.
As far as the relationship of energy, matter and time at the creation, babies become men and women. What were energy, matter and time when they were born? Try thinking in the abstract a bit more. I've just asked a question I've never before in my life heard expressed. But, I'm sure it can't be a new question. Someone has asked it before somewhere. Why do you presuppose they sprang from the womb fully formed?
It ignores what the whole controversy is about for me, which is whether science gets to present its findings in science class without having to shout over a lot of Luddite razzle-dazzle and obfuscation. I'm not trying to get into your church to heckle whoever is presenting.
It begs for a parody but it's too tedious for the full treatment.
Through every Hickdom village and farm
The Howler Monkeys spread the alarm.
Whether it be with stone or dung
We're the ones who get it flung.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That was all just silly.
Not silly at all. As CS Lewis once stated, the less the Bible is read, the more it is interpreted.
The same holds true for the Constitution. Secular atheists conveniently choose to ignore the bolded part of the First Amendment; using activist judges as their flunkies to do so.
Again, just because you and your cohorts proclaim something to be true or fact does not make it so.
The shift of speaker in the middle is confusing.
Maybe only to you.
Suddenly it's the people who oppose the Sons of Darwin, etc.
That's because you are the sons of Darwin. Just as the Nazis were. Nazism was the inevitable endpoint of Darwinist theory applied to humanity. Natural selection, superior race, the 'euthanasia' of members deemed less fit to be members of society. Nazism terrorized Europe because their beliefs were rooted in the Eugenics movement in vogue circa 1920.
The shift of speaker in the middle is confusing.
The shift in the middle presents the true history of this country, especially the role of Christians in shaping this country to be a shining beacon to the rest of the world.
This country was founded by Christian men, throwing off the yolk of English tyranny.
It was Christians who led the charge against slavery, another bright spot in the history of our country.
It was Christian soldiers who defended Europe twice in the last century against those who would enslave them.
It was Christian soldiers who opposed Communism, atheists who would enslave the world if they had their way.
Just as one can identify an apple tree by the fruit it bears, one can identify evil by the fruit it bears.
Your doctrines, your imposition of atheistic secular humanism has brought nothing but misery and death to those who have been enslaved by it. From Adolph Hitler, to Joseph Stalin, To Pol Pot, and so many others, atheistic governments visit nothing but devastation upon people who live under its curse.
It ignores what the whole controversy is about for me, which is whether science gets to present its findings in science class without having to shout over a lot of Luddite razzle-dazzle and obfuscation.
Your ability to lie is without boundaries. You would sit here and accuse me and others of shouting you down. You use the courts, the ACLU, and every other free speech suppressing organization to promote your agenda unopposed. You cry victim when you are the oppressor. It's the shield of a coward.
I'm not trying to get into your church to heckle whoever is presenting.
So it would appear that you consider academia to be your sole possession; an obvious disregard for the First Amendment. Your religion is all that counts; and yes, it is a religion despite your proclamations and contempt for the opinions of others.
First you would ban people of faith from participating in government. Children in schools have been forbidden to express their religious beliefs (of course you call that a violation of the supposed 'separation of church and state'). Next thing will be the banning of people even mentioning the word 'God' outside their homes. People of your notions have already invaded our churches, using government in an attempt to force churches to adopt secular agendas via the use of tax-exempt status, etc. So now you tell more lies.
It begs for a parody but it's too tedious for the full treatment.
Give it your best shot.
History shows that nations who follow and ask for the protection of God are prosperous, peaceful, and strong. Until people such as yourselves come along.
History also shows that you and your atheist friends have contributed nothing to this country. Zero.
Through every Hickdom village and farm
The Howler Monkeys spread the alarm.
Whether it be with stone or dung
We're the ones who get it flung.
I assure you that I am no Luddite; I see science as the study of God's laws of nature. He created everything, whether you believe it or not, and to tell the truth I could care less what you think.
Through every Hickdom village and farm
Yes, as I've stated, you are the learned, and know what's best for everybody, you arrogant elitist Libertarian dung You are good at throwing it, I'll give you that.
You validate everything I've said in my poem.....any person reading your posts can see that. Elitist atheists proclaiming the law, treating those who truly built this country as your feudal subjects.
You and your friends are Darwin's soldiers, you'll never go away, but we'll always rise to the occasion and cast you down from your lofty positions.
Through every Hickdom village and farm
While many of the framers of the Constitution were wealthy men, it was the simple folk, people from the villages and farms, who constituted the bulk of the Continental Army, despite your snide remarks....as it always is with you. Arrogance and pride are your handmaidens.
I disagree with the title of this article. It should read, "Creation evangelist derides evolution as history's deadliest theories.
From which follows the supposition (logically) that men can revoke the freedom and rights of other men.
We believe such rights are irrevokable; only God can take them away.....and that is the true legacy and spirit of the true patriots who formed this great society.
As always, we'll wait for you to make your gambit, and as always, we will rise to crush you and your totalitarian aspirations. Just as you never rest, neither do we. We are freedom's guard, and men such as yourselves will never wrest our hard fought gains as long as we breathe and freedom beats in our hearts.
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.