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.”
I once had a pet rabbit who thought she (like John Nash) was Emporess of Antartica..... does that count for anything?
;-)
(I'm only saying this because we have 12cm of snow on the ground, its -25C outside and I'm jealous)
It's actually raining here. Pretty cold too, probably down to about 58F.
No phones ringing, so I can do some recreational research. I am trying to figure out a dating problem, and need to look at the data dozens of different ways to see if any patterns show up.
I get most of my productive research done on weekends when its quiet.
ps. What's snow?
sorry, "Antarctica"....
It is faux outrage, that gives those who exhibit it the opportunity to ignore the actual evidence.
Well you have to remember that the piltdown mothman is the sole basis of the theory of evolution. I still can't believe they stuck him to trees and (racistly) changed his color.
They were pinned to the tree because live unpinned moths don't tend to stay in one place long enough to visually document. The change in colour has been well documented and was not faked for the photographs. In fact the colour change has been observed more recently in peppered moths elsewhere.
On top of that, the photos were not used in the research nor were conclusions based on them. They are a very good example of selection.
[Sound FX: Frantic crossings out and fresh scribblings in Doctoral Dissertation]
"Seriously, why would the words of Jesus Christ cause you to attack me????? What kind of faith is THAT????"
You attacked MY family, bigot. Why must you now lie to cover it up?
Thanks for your condolences...yes, the sharp pain is indeed gone, but there is always a constant ache in my heart for him...and of course, its always especially difficult during the Christmas season...But my younger son, always tries his best, especially during Christmas to be especially attentive and sensitive, as he remembers quite well, how horrible it was when his brother died...
I do believe that my older boy has gone home to be with the Lord...he knew for a few months before his death, that he probably was not going to live much longer...his diagnosis, and prognosis, were very poor from the beginning, and he knew that, so our family made the best of every single moment we had together...
His greatest wish for me, was that I not mourn him continually, that I find joy in a life without him...thats a difficult thing to do, but I have tried...he said, once he died, his leukemia would no longer be there, and once with the Lord, he would be cured, and fine, and loving his existence with the Lord...he had every confidence in his future after his death, and his strength gave me strength...
These children who suffer and die, are remarkable examples for all those who are left behind on earth...
Again, thanks...
Kind of like Al Jolson. Except for the sticking to trees part.
Sheesh, just ask her out to dinner & a movie! You academics always need to complicate things.
Those who have to lie to support their positions know deep down inside those positions to be untenable. Of course, I've noticed that lying is second nature to those on these threads claiming to be "Christians."
You know what they say -- archaeologists will date any old thing!
I do know that what you say in your post #1158 is wise and correct...actually, last nite, mulling over this thread, I was reminded of your former tagline, and told myself, that I should have heeded its advice...
And I agree, all posts should stand...lurkers and others who post, can read, and see exactly what is going on...its quite an eye opener...
Meh, you ain't nothing until you've made someone's top-ten enemies list. Personally, I think you should hold out for a better class of enemy, though ;)
He now works at NIH and he is a staunch creationist along with being a real research scientist, not just some copy and paste money on FR.
.............................................
God bless him and his research.
One of the most common attacks by the EVOS includes defamatory comments about those who believe that the Creator is directly involved in Life. To hear them talk they have all be awarded Nobels in Biology...LOL.
Regarding your post #1160...well, of course you are correct, about the third possibility, which I of course, did bring up...
It has come to my attention that some of us on the evo side take strong drink sometimes. And I'm not just talking about tea and coffee (though that is sinful enough, in all truth)! No wonder science has collapsed to the state it is in over the last 50 years. Progress dropped to a feeble crawl, as over-stimulated professors invent atheist theories so that they can ignore morality and seduce their students. SHAME ON YOU ALL!
Well, I have made an enemy for sure...oh well, thats how it goes...
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.