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.”
He has just as much evidence and intellegence as anybody on this board with REAL diploma's, what does that tell ya Sherlock? The thing he won't do is lie about what he believes, unlike most evo's.
It has nothing to do with liking it or not, it has to do with LYING about what the facts point too.
Thanks for the confession!
Thanks for all those links in your post #1333...I need to investigate them...but I just skimmed over the link to the Dinosaur Adventure Land...notice that in his little bookstore, they mention he carried books about how to fight the coming New World Order, and also snappy books on the government conspiracy to suppress a cancer cure(laetrile)...
Its gonna be fun, when I have time to read the whole article..
My husbands uncle lives in Florida, where the Dinosaur Adventure Land is located...we plan to visit him in the next year or so...I think we need to make a stop at the Dinosaur Adventure Land, and check it out...should be a laughable and entertaining way to spend the day...
You suppose our contempt for Hovind and Jack Chick upset the mods?
Weekend.
My original post was concerning the irony of the ping listers mocking the CREVOs for their numerous straw men all the while claiming Hovind's arguments have no validity while never addressing them specifically for the most part.You have spent all your posts on this thread screeching at the evos for being mean to the creationists. Are we supposed to believe you're some 1) neutral observer or 2) secular skeptic of evolution? Among the many, many, many things creationists are clearly allowed to lie about are 1) who they are and 2) what they are up to.Kinda like saying George Bush is a bad president because he says his prayers.
It seems that you are using the same logically fallacy.
How long do you think you can walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and look like a duck before somebody notices?
A smokey Christmas to all and to all a good light.
I say show me fish evolving to a man and instead you show your arrogant idiocy...Congratulations at least now I know how unfairminded you really are. Boy you really came back with stunning evidence for that one did you?
Is that you with the long red hair?
Good luck. Florida is a thousand miles from tip to tail. I've lived here over 50 years and have no idea where Kent's Kastle is located.
"This fraud and others is a blight on science."
And, indeed, it is a blight on the evolutionist's conscience.
Creationists are also allowed to hide their light.
Your pathetic excuse for a "rebuttal" is duly noted. Someday I'll eventually meet an anti-evolution creationist who can debate like an adult, but that day is not today.
Well guess what...he went to a lot trouble for nothing.
Not at all -- while I fully expected that documenting the dishonesty of your posts wouldn't cause *you* to change your behavior in the slightest, I'm confident that it got the job done, and demonstrated to countless lurkers that like a large number of creationists, you're either a liar or a fool, not to be trusted.
Lots of words and sites do not make for proof of anything...
They demonstrate the dishonesty of your posts, even if you yourself are too dishonorable to admit it.
but rather just a lot of hot stinky evo air.
And there you have it -- a creationist demonstrating a twelve-year-old's level of debate.
My work here is done.
Lessee.
To put the matter straight, "nearby Wadjak" is a good one hundred miles of mountainous countryside away from Trinil, the site of Dubois' Pithecanthropus. Nor is it accurate to call them "approximately the same level" when one is well over half a million years old and the other is less than ten thousand. Finally, Dubois did publish preliminary accounts of his Wadjak material in 1889 and 1890 before his Trinil discoveries were even made, and he recapitulated these in print in 1892 before becoming involved in what he correctly realized was the far more significant Pithecanthropus issue. If there is a question of honesty involved, it has nothing to do with Dubois.
Gish had been informed that Dubois had indeed published the Wadjak Skulls during a debate in 1982, and was informed, and showed the references, several times following and as late as 1997.
Now your link -- notably citing a 1998 creationist source -- at least modifies the claim by saying the Dubois "downplayed" the Wadjak skulls, but continues the lie that they were found "very close to" the Java Man site. So at least you've come up with an example of willful CREATIONIST fraud and lying.
Enough. Your link is itself a FRAUD. Although is has the title "Evolution Fraud" emblazoned at the top of the page, it doesn't give even a single example of real fraud.
How lame. You should be ashamed, but then you're a creationist.
re-define the world?? how does that even work?
Name one lie?
Dream on!
Online evolutionists are cowards and will never apologize nor allow dissent. Face-to-face, it's a different matter. Heck, they won't even acknowledge they belong to the evo cult face-to-face. But just in case they did, they'll either apologize or run away with the tail between their cultist legs.
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.