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.”
But with us, we have all the time in the world, and enough money to cover us, whatever we want to do...we are newly retired, and have our new RV(our home on wheels), ready to accomodate us, wherever and whenever we decide...
After spending a lifetime working, raising a family, and all that entails, we are now able to do things at our leisure...clocks and time no longer have much meaning for us...
So when we do get to Florida, we plan to spend a couple of months there, looking at anything and everything that Florida offers...we dont have to come back to our regular home until we feel like we are good and ready to do so..
So the Dinosaur Adventure Land is going to be seen by us eventually...I will make sure of that...and I will make sure to have plenty of pics to post, and a journal of my adventures in the Dinosaur Adventure Land...A first hand account of my trip....
If you feed the crocodile he won't bite you. LOL!
Now, what you gonna do about that inner spiritual void? It's there! You can feel it.
A few posts upthread was mentioned Mount DNA (mtDNA). By any chance, do you know where this mountain is. I always thought it is in Washington State. I can almost swear it's in Washington. Can you confirm it?
Geography is not my forte, btw, and a whole other subjects. :)
mtDNA = mitochondrial DNA
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA, or less popularly, mDNA) is DNA which is not located in the nucleus of the cell but in the mitochondria. Mitochondria are parts of the cell that generate fuel in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which drives the varied machinery of the cell. Unlike most of the cell, the function of which is defined by the nuclear DNA, the mitochondria have their own DNA and are assumed to have evolved separately. Human mitochondrial DNA consists of 5-10 rings of DNA and appears to carry 16,569 base pairs with 37 genes (13 proteins, 22 tRNAs and two rRNAs) which are concerned with the production of proteins involved in cellular respiration. Source
See also Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution By Max Ingman for some details.
No we don't run. Our dark robes are too restricting. We prefer to disapear as a bus goes past, or failing that a light jog does the trick.
Perhaps you'll get to meet Hovind himself. What a thrill that would be! (Clutch your purse tightly if he walks in your direction.)
I don't agree. Marcellin Boule, for instance, is one of those who early on accepted the skull as human but rejected the jaw as that of an ape. He was probably the world's leading physical anthropologist at the time. If he was part of "minority" (and I don't think it is entirely clear that he was) then it certainly wasn't an "isolated" one.
Personally I think Piltdown was in real trouble early on, and I think the hoaxer intentionally engineered the second Piltdown find specifically to quell the growing criticism. He was successful. One association of human cranial and ape jaw material might be attributed to chance, but two could not be.
You were more interesting when you were pushing for evolutionists to be burned at the stake.
Sorry! Absent-mindedness. Here come the personal attacks...
And you obviously have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to me...perhaps you are projecting about your own inner spiritual void...that is what you should be concerned about...
Worry about yourself, and let others worry about themselves..
Dang. My Norden's in the shop tonight.
Yes you are
Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus / A. ajax and B. excelsus / are not different enough to warrant two different genera (but different enough to warrant two different species), and so B. excelsus was lumped into Apatosaurus.
Your point being?
Do I have to point ot the analogus realitionship of the "buffalo" Bison bison with Bison bonasus. "Buffalo" are bison. "Brontosaurus" is an apatosaur.
The kids'll be so disappointed. They've been looking forward to this for ages...
Oh, I am all-a-twitter...I might see the man himself...
I will of course, hold tightly onto my purse...all he will get from me is the 7 dollar entrance fee...I doubt that my husband will go in...he does not suffer fools lightly, especially when they have their hand in his wallet..
First off I didn't not advocate burning evo cultists at the stake. Nor do I advocate it now. Geez! I made an allusion to it.
Secondly, I've softened a bit. LOL!
If there were something like "Credentials by Association" I'd have 3 Nobels.
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.