Skip to comments.Creation evangelist derides evolution as Ďdumbestí theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]
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, its just a bunch of Christians. So we had seats reserved for them to bring people to make sure that its 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 Hovinds 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 Hovinds 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 Im 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 Canyons 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 Hovinds presentation is his citation of pre-college textbooks. Following the event, an audience member said, I dont 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 Hovinds 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 AAs 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 isnt 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. Its just absurd.
I don't believe a tornado going through a junk yard can create a 747 either. What does that have to do with evolution?
Except her feet are missing.
Wow you must be really smart then. I promise to pay attention.
Yours begins with the belief that you are the most important person in the whole world.
You're projecting again. Creationists like yourself believe that the entire universe was constructed for the benefit of human beings. If that isn't hubristic, nothing is. Regrettably -- and this is despite your obviously admirable intelligence -- you're just not all that important.
I look to the Princples of Thermodynamics, and see a path to chaos.
Not that old canard again, I hope. You are aware that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems?
70 posted on 12/17/2005 10:37:58 AM EST by Baraonda
(Comment #70 Removed by Moderator)
For the lurkers, this is the kind of "reasoned debate" scientists are often up against. This post provides a good glimpse into the nature of those who oppose science in general, and evolution in particular, with such vehemence.
The current battles to include religion and ID in science classes are largely coming from implementation of the Wedge Strategy set forth a decade ago. Take a look.
Finally, if these folks win, will we see the following?
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.(And no, evolution is an established science, not a "sect, cult, or religion." It is dishonest to claim otherwise.)
Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100
I did not write that sentence. That sentence and its whole paragraph is a quotation at the link provided at post #122
It reads: "Creationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature. What is the real meaning of Hovind's challenge?"
Pay more attention next time.
"Nature must obey orders given to it by Humans, except where it conflicts with the 1st Law"
From an NSF abstract:
223 posted on 12/17/2005 11:30:07 AM MST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
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.
Do you understand the concept of Deconstruction or Post-Modernism?
Those who promote the destruction of Christianity cannot but be the anti-Christians. A Christian does NOT promote its demise.
You should try to be more charitable. They're doing the very best they can, with the intellect the good Lord gave them. True, it's not very much, but let them enjoy what they have.
"Those who promote the destruction of Christianity cannot but be the anti-Christians. A Christian does NOT promote its demise."
A Christian also doesn't recommend burning at the stake and hanging for having a different view.
Oh tell me faltzani, when exactly did Derrida force scientists to consider evolution a scientific theory? You're just talking out of your ass and I think you know it.
>>"Well, you don't have to wait for long. It is the last sentence you wrote in your post 201."
>Let's not try to confuse the lunatic fringe with facts.
Had you read post #201 carefully you would have found out that it's not my quote, but a quote from the link at #255 which was given earlier by another post.
Read the posts instead of marching in lockstep like an automaton.
An apology would also be appropriate here.
NEW post 70 by Baraonda on 17 Dec 2005. The anti-Christs can hide, but can't run away from the stake.
One more question: When you go to your Mensa meetings do you folks discuss the merits of Jack Chick?
It still won't be forgotten. :)
Uh, yeah. They're (heretofore traditionally leftist) intellectual "leveling" tactics that aim to eliminate or confuse distinctions between rigorously accumulated objective knowledge and pure prejudice, by basically claiming that all knowledge is prejudicial, or deterministically associated with cultural/ethnic/religious/economic or other identity groups.
We're familiar because we see antievolutionists using the same tactics here on every thread. Most recently you.
Those who promote the destruction of Christianity cannot but be the anti-Christians. A Christian does NOT promote its demise.
You were given a list of evolution supporters. The question put to you is "are these people who want the destruction of Christianity"?
Over 80% of Americans support the Theory of Evolution." I am a very devout Christian. Does using the brain God gave us make us people who "promote the destruction of Christianity"?
I might include it anyway, with a note that it's been deleted.
I think I omitted a line at the beginning, but 90% of it is quote in my post 115.
So, because we believe the evidence of the physical creation, we are going to Hell?
Out of curiosity, and I mean no offense, but if God (rather than a man) created the children in your womb, what's so special about Mary?
Kent Hovind is one of the sharper knives in the drawer. However good he is at this, he cannot explain everything with his ID hypothesis, and there are some holes in his development. But give him due credit. He is doing his best and his best is very good.
No beer volcano for you!
We are. Pope Bennedict and I, while being burned for all eternity, will laugh ruefully as we lament having accepted science.
I have no problem at all with what you have described.
Your post is in great contrast to the post above I was reacting to (#70, now removed) which seemed to promise scientists who study evolution the stake or the rope.
It takes brains to be a successful flim-flam man. Look at Clinton.
LOL. Maybe they should try "World Weekly News".
I'm directing you to post #255, again.
Will you at least have the courtesey of admitting that that quotation was not mine, but came from the first para at that link?
Good point. There is more empirical evidence for Evolution than there is for Jesus Christ. I find that the faithful, who are fearful of evolution, tend to be fearfully lacking in faith.
The meetings were Intertel.
I'm not acquainted with Jack Chick, is he a friend of yours?
courtesey = courtesy
Sorry about the spelling.
Takes genius to come up with all that. P T Barnum was a genius, too.
"Takes genius to come up with all that. P T Barnum was a genius, too."
Yeah, but I kinda like Barnum.
Sounds about right to me. No God, no accountability.
Send in the clowns (theyre already here).
"Sounds about right to me. No God, no accountability."
Evolution, like every other scientific theory, has absolutely nothing to say for or against the existence of a deity.
Do you have an actual argument to present for your side, or do you just like to toss out inane one-liners because you have nothing to refute the mountains of evidence in support of evolution?
post 201. Now, stop lying.
Thanks! You raise a good point here for antievolutionists, especially of the primitive and naive Hovind variety, to consider. Like most other creationists, and as the Bible multiply and affirmatively asserts, God himself "formed" your children in the womb. And yet I'm sure that you have no objection to human embryology and development being taught matter of factly as a natural biological process in textbooks. (At least, having long followed the antievolution movement, I'm not aware of a single such objection ever having been raised.)
Thus it is clearly possible, and commonly done even by the most theologically conservative and devout, to fully accept and affirm Biblical claims that God is personally, intimately and actively involved in a process, and simultaneous accept a purely naturalistic treatment of the selfsame process for scientific purposes.
18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins." Fantastic question for the Christmas season. Maybe some of the posters are unaware of the story :-)