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.”
We all know that Jim can. And you are really the one to talk about libel. In this thread alone you've got the rest beat.
Example?
It takes a hell of allot of FAITH to believe in evolution
Nonsense. It doesn't take any "FAITH" at all. It takes understanding, knowledge, evidence, and a familiarity with the processes involved. You know -- that "learning" thing you might have heard about in passing.
Evolution is a religion that defies logic and lacks evidence.
I suppose it may look that way to someone who doesn't know a freaking thing about the subject...
Meanwhile, could you explain to me why the most insulting thing a creationist can think of to say about evolutionary biology is to call it a "religion"? Is religion really something so bad that you freely use it as an insult, to imply something irrational and unreliable? Fascinating...
Jim Robinson posted personally regarding the banning of effdot, which was done because f.Christian was making personal attacks. At least, Jim seemed to think so. Honestly, I couldn't tell what f.Christian was trying to say, because his posts always looked like incomprehensible gibberish to me.
I swear, one of these days I'm going to wade through my archives and make a big-ass list of lies by Freeper creationists, complete with links to the relevant posts... Then we can repost it every time anyone accuses *us* of being the liars.
Instead of your calling me a liar, lets look at what you said and what I said.
You said you were drinking. You later said you were going to keep drinking. You then started making posts to me claiming I was prescribing medicine to you and other such total nonesense. YOU WERE MAKING POST THAT WERE OFF THE WALL AND HAD NO BASIS IN REALITY.
I can and will presume that your tippling had something to do with that.
My comment to someone else that I abhor people who drink in front of kids in general has nothing to do with you.
That remains: I abhor people, any people, who drink in front of kids. No apologies.
And while I am sorry you have a child that died, I really don't think it's wise assume that other people have not been through the same thing. Back to my original contention: You brag about drinking, you brag about not believing parts of the Bible and YOU want to attack me because I do believe the Bible, and YOU want to tell me that I am not a Christian.
YOU are not at all in a position to even know.
What an ignorant statement. Hitler was one of the worlds most famous eugenicists, which is definately evolutionist, and he was also a member of the Thule society, which also is evolutionist-humanist. The morals of Hitler and evolution go hand in hand. The defilement of this country is directly attributable to evolutionists plying their stock in trade.
You are a bigot who hates the Bible or what? Why are you attacking my faith? I believe the Bible and why does that enrage you and cause you to say such horrible things????
I have tried, but you fellows never want to step up beyond the puerile laugh at the rubes level of this thread.
see post #238
ROFL! He didn't "lie", son, he just posted links to your own posts where you blatantly contradicted yourself (and sounded rather unhinged, frankly).
In the future I will TOTALLY ignore you. You're a VERY sick person.
Yeah, how *dare* he point to your own posts!
Making up lies about me to hide the fact that you are a very viscous liar.
Okay, I'll bite -- where exactly did he "lie" in the following? It seems to be a very accurate description of the contents of your posts (which he conveniently linked so that people could read them for themselves):
And, finally, my personal favourite recent example involves nmh. Earlier this year philosopher Antony Flew announced that he was no longer an atheist. Even still, he said that he did not accept the Judeo-Christian God, and -- the article specifically stated this -- "He accepts Darwinian evolution" (note that the original article is only excerpted on FR, and the link is to a dead page now, but the full article was available for some time, and the original text is archived on multiple places, including here).
Known creationist and liar nmh popped in to say " Those poor atheists. Another one abandons their godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution."
Kind of odd given that the article specifically stated that Flew accepts evolution. I corrected his mistake and nmh responded by telling me to " Read the article. He rejects it."
So I re-read the article, see the "He accepts Darwinian evolution" line, and quote the relevant section in my reply. Nmh's response is nothing more than a snide comment wherein he tells me to read the article once more even though absolutely nothing in the article supported his completely false claim.
But the story doesn't end there. Nmh has proven himself a shamless, brazen liar, and I'm not shy about bringing that up when he tries to discuss issues in the future -- after all, he's demonstrated that he's willing to lie to "prove" a point, so why should anything that he says be trusted? So in response to my bringing up of the story of nmh claiming -- falsely -- that Antony Flew rejected evolution, after saying in direct response to an article about Flew that he had "rejected" the "godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution", nmh denied ever having heard of Flew and said that he'd never posted anything about the man, even though I could directly link to nmh's posts on the matter.
You'll have to pull someone else's chain for attention.
Nah, it's *so* much fun to watch you go ballistic when your own past self-contradictions are pointed out.
None will be coming from me anymore.
Uh huh. Sure. We believe that.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel the need to take a shower.
Be sure to mutter, "Out, damned spot!" while you do.
Thinking about you gives me the creeps and makes me feel very unclean.
Being reminded of your past lies *should* make you feel uneasy.
There is something VERY WRONG with you ... .
What is "VERY WRONG" with documenting your lies?
[Watching creationists go ballistic because they can't admit their errors is *so* much fun.]
Dead Moths Glued To The Trees![And More Evolution Frauds Exposed!]
Why should we let you claim the moral high ground? Do you really believe the world would run rampant with stealing and murder if you stopped fighting evolution? You're the ones who believe that anything you say or do in the name of God is justified. Who cares about breaking some of the Commandments? You're saved if you accept Him, no matter what you do, right? So, you can lie, or threaten to burn people at the stake, or take the Lord's name in vain, or do whatever else it takes to stamp out what you see as a threat to your beliefs.
Anyway, evolution isn't a religion. It's possible to have a religion and still believe in evolution.
Many hisorians, such as Oxford University prof Alex de Jonge, believe that Darwin influenced Stalin in a different way than you imply. Jonge stated that Stalin was "a theological student who had lost his faith; Stalin would always maintain that it was Darwin who was responsible for that loss."
No one denied that moths were glued to trees, liar. The issue is that the act of gluing the moths to trees did not constitute fraud. You have been told this before, but because you are too much of a coward to admit your mistake, you just repeat the same tired old lies over and over again.
I find it rather amusing that you apparently object far more to the use of that term than you do to the blatant lies to which it was applied. Apparently you can spin stuff out of thin air all day long and still get the McG stamp of approval, but don't you dare use the s-word. None of that 9th commandment business for us - we've got bigger fish to fry here. LOL.
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.