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.”
Why would the majority of christians, up to and including Pope John Paul who endorse the truth of the theory of evolution have as their ultimate intent, "Destruction of Christianity and its culture".
Ah, nope.
I'm here to shed a little apparently unwanted light on a criminal tax scammer and charletan.
From an NSF abstract:
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have [emphasis added].Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
"Heck there is no proof that the Son Of God walked the Earth 2000 years ago."
The Son of God is an historical figure. He was as real as you and I. You know better than to lie about his existence. Shame on you! Had you said you don't believe in Him, I might have given you a pass, but to blatantly lie about His very existence tells me not to believe the rest of your words.
I think that's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Words DO mean things.
Sirchtruth has had the scientific meaning of the word theory explained many times. Theories are the end-point of science; its ultimate goal. There is nothing higher in science. And Sirchtruth has had it explained many times that no scientific theory is ever proven. Proof is only for geometry and number theory. Yet curiously tabula rasa strikes yet again.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and that does not make you a bad person, only a naive one. Moreover, not all opinions are worthy of respect.
Agreed. From the most recent edition of the American Heritage Dictionary:
the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) n., pl. -ries.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
(emphasis mine)
God, I love the self-importance of the Holy Rollers. So, now 80% of all Americans are under Satan's sway? Satan is laughing all right. By getting those who profess to be closest to God (Megolomania anyway) to close their eyes to anything beyond the end of their noses, to "debate" by distorting (a form of lying) about the presented arguments, and by not using God's greatest gift -- the Human Brain -- to understand and use the tools given to us by science, Satan is registering wins up all along the Right side of the Culture wars.
I suspect that there probably was someone named Jesus, but you're lying if you suggest that there's any direct evidence of him outside of the New Testament.
I've found the usual reason to be a complete lack of interest in the evidence, and a complete lack of interest in "searching for the truth".
It isn't so much a complete lack of interest. It's more a complete aversion to accepting anything that threatens their religious views. In blind faith mode, they will do anything to rationalize away evidence even to the point of lying to themselves and others in defense of their God (which is a book, and not actually God Himself).
I think your misquoting me. I did not write the above question. Perhaps you meant to post to someone else.
Bizarre. Truly bizarre. I lifted that sentence straight out of the post of yours that I responded to, and you didn't quote or italicise it. Perhaps you are suffering from a short-term memory problem.
MyResponse: Please, show me where I made that quote at the very top. I'm waiting...
So basically you admit that you don't accept science not because it doesn't have the evidence behind it or because it isn't persuasive, but because it makes you feel kind of uncomfortable. Well, on behalf of the entire scientific community, I'd like to extend you my sincerest apology for having hurt your feelings. Now, out of curiosity, are you a liberal?
Who knew Hovind had such a fan club here?
No, a man who said he was the Son of God walked the Earth 2,000 years ago. The fact that I believe so (I do) and you believe so, is not "Proof." There is very sketchy proof outside of the Bible of Christ's existence (such as independent 3rd-party reports, for example). But thank you for showing how creationists "debate."
YOU were the one who said evolution can't be "proved." When I bring examples of things that can't be proved, you fall back to a faith-based argument.
If you believe in it -- it is "Proof." If you don't, it isn't.
Shame on YOU for being dishonest in your intellectual dealings.
Well, you don't have to wait for long. It is the last sentence you wrote in your post 201.
Neither the majority of Christians, nor his Holiness, the Pope, endorse "Destruction of Christianity and its culture".
You're twisting words and ideas.
Settle down, lest you have a stroke.
The only person I've mocked, derided, demeaned or belittled is Hovind, the scammer who rips off rubes, apparently to a significant enough extent that the IRS wants him to pay the taxes on several millions of dollars of gross revenue (less any deductions he may be able to prove).
You're already doing a fine job of destroying yourselves without any outside help from me or anyone else on this thread.
So you don't think that those who promote the theory of evolution endorse "Destruction of Christianity and its culture". Well what actually did your OP mean then?
This is our own little Moonbat corner. Pretty funny -- it is almost as easy as debating DUers. I am pretty sure our Luddites own their own homes, though (although few if any work in the Hard Sciences).
Our moonbats are a cut above theirs.
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.