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.”
You'll have to pardon me; all the atheistic websites come up when I start with Mao; they seem to think he's a beautiful, wise man. Positive atheism and Mao. Too funny.
There's something a bit disturbing about his ranting paranoia. I certainly don't remember killing any Jews.
But none of that has anything to do with what belongs in biology class.
I'm trying to quit. When I get down to one a month, I'm going cold turkey.
I'm beginning to find it disturbing that I'm wasting my time arguing with The Three Stooges wearing monkey suits congratulating themselves on their evolutionary superiority.
VadeRetro: Your argument is based on paranoia.
Dimensio: Yeah.
Stultis: (Shows a flashcard)
VadeRetro: Yeah, he's right. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.
Stultis: (another flashcard)
Dimensio: You're a genius and they're stupid VadeRetro.
VadeRetro: That because they're Luddites.
Stultis: (yet another flashcard)
Dimensio: They're just paranoid.
VadeRetro: Libertarians are the best. Your hit, Dimensio.
Stultis (flashcard)
Dimensio: 'ere dude, your hit. We won this one (exhales).
VadeRetro: Atheism, free dope, Darwin and Margaret Sanger. All that makes America great. Gimme that.
Stultis: (flashcard-My hit)
Bush only gets compared to Hitler. I get Hitler and Caligula! Woo-hoo!
Now go find your medication and take it. Seriously.
All the above I listed were atheists. You've heard the all quotes before; banning of religion is the common theme. Religion is the mortal enemy of atheists, dictators, totalitarians. They are all in the same camp.
Now go find your medication and take it. Seriously.
When you atheists make your move, I'll have your medicine. A steel jacketed round right through your open mouth.
The worst thing for you is that I'm not afraid of you would be dictators....keep shoving your agenda down our throats and see what happens.
FINALLY!
You've been wasting all our time for days. Glad you finally have a clue. Your time would be best spent talking to a mental health professional. At least talk to a family member or an old friend.
I'm putting putting you on virtual ignore. You'll get no more replies from me. Be well. Try to understand that, while as a citizen you can influence the world, you can't control it. You live in a free society and people will disagree with you about many things. Not all of these people are evil. Not all of these people want to destroy you. Most just want to live their own lives and will readily tolerate your doing likewise.
Again, you live in a free society. People in this society associate many different ways, in many different kinds of coalitions and other cooperate arrangements, even when they don't agree on everything. Their are many cleavages in this society, but there are also many strands running in many directions that hold it together.
Your notion that there is only one cleavage overriding all, that everyone falls definitively to one side or ther other, and that universal and violent social conflict will result, IS DELUSIONAL. Even if you see the world this way, there are not enough other people who do: even among the most conservative of the conservative. You may have some freinds that feel this way (or pretend to rather than argue with you) but there are deviant. There are not enough such people to initiate the violence you anticipate. That's simply a fact. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
Whatever flaws you percieve, you live in a society that provides you more freedom and potential to realize your own values in your life than any in all of human history. Please try to find a way to live in this society and have some optimism.
And finally, just a recommendation: Stop posting awhile. I assure you that with your present approach and outlook you are NOT helping any cause that you believe in, but only discrediting it.
Just one more thing... Although I won't be replying further, I will be reading your messages. After a day to two (as I think it would be better if you take some time off voluntarily) I start flagging extremist threats like this to the moderators.
*runs into the night*
Flag away. It's a warning, a warning that if you continue in your present way, there will be conflict. This is not Nazi Germany, and you and your friends will not inflict such a state of affairs on this country.
Read my posts, open my mail while you're at it, Herr Stultis. But whatever you do, just remember we'll be there to protect ourselves when the time comes.
Seriously.
hmm
I doubt that very much.
I'm not talking murder here, as any discerning person would see.
I'm warning you that if you attempt to impose any type of totalitarian society upon us, you'll pay the consequences.
If you attempt to exploit the weak, you'll pay the consequences.
If you attempt to practice the genocidal policies of Eugenics, you'll pay the consequences.
American soldiers overthrowing Saddam, American soldiers opposing atheistic communism, American soldiers fighting the Nazis, none were crazed, paranoid, or whatever such label you would attach to them.
You see Stultis, I'm a vet also.....and I swore an oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The difference between you and I is that I meant it when I said it.
Being a soldier in any war such as I have described above does not make me a murderer if it comes down to it. Especially when you are the obvious aggressor. As a Christian, I don't fear death. Do you?
lol ok very funny. You did well to play this joke on a few people for so long but im calling it now. Im afraid the "As a Christian, I don't fear death. Do you?" gave it away - Islamist parody.
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.