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.”
"NOT A DOG! Ichneumia is a member of Herpestidae, that is a type of mongoose."
Careful. We don't want any suggestion of slander here. Ichneumon is, I am quite sure, Homo sapiens sapiens. And better informed than most.
That's the impression I get too. Of course, that's also how I see Discovery Institute.
Its the suggestion of herpes that bothers me.
Which part of my post #1533 did you have trouble understanding?
I have no interest in being "educated" by someone as obnoxious and prone to major screwups as yourself. Your "contributions" to date have been nothing but nitpicking of the most irrelevant and anal sort, and you have managed to totally f*** up your descriptions of several elementary points. I have documented this at length.
Which part of the following, from the conclusion of my previous post to you, did you have trouble grasping?
"Since tallhappy is obviously unable to provide anything of value to these threads, I invite him and his playmate, Delusions of Grandeur, to go play somewhere else."Which word did you have trouble with? Perhaps you could ask your Mommy to help you with the big ones.
Only someone with severe brain damage could mistake that for an invitation to respond, "if you want to open that discussion..." No. I do not want to open or have any sort of discussion with you, on any topic. I was entirely clear on that point, as well as my reasons for saying so.
You're either playing stupid, or aren't actually playing at it. Either way, you're a waste of time. I had an "open mind" at the beginning on your ability to say something valuable, but... You have had more than enough chances to actually contribute something, and you've squandered them all with chest-beating or bone-headed fumbles. I have now drawn the obvious conclusion -- it's a waste of time to discuss anything with you. Even this current exchange demonstrates that in spades, since you are unable or unwilling to deal with my statement that I have no interest in wasting more time with your pap. Go pester someone else.
Are we clear now, or will I have to use even smaller words before it finally sinks through your thick skull?
"Its the suggestion of herpes that bothers me."
Careful. Herpes comes from Greek, 'to slither, creep', and hence refers to snakes, cf. herpetology. I posted earlier that I believe a theory of human life based on talking snakes is implausible.
Havoc is unlikely to believe me about a talking snake in MY garden this morning, so I am not inclined to believe in a talking snake written about in a book 2000 years old with zero supporting evidence.
Parrots are quite clever in talking. Snakes have a lousy record.
Would you prefer that I simply pick one of his errors and address that?
Or how about I take a look at one of your claims:
"Given that there is no evidence that atomic decay has been anymore constant than the speed of light or 14C accumulation, I've no problem with that time frame. Science provides no reason to question my belief." (From the previous post)
The earth currently gets much of its energy, in the form of heat, from the sun. The rest of the heat energy comes from the decay of materials on and in the earth. If the speed of light was initially 'faster' than it is now, energy from both the sun and radioactive materials would have been higher as well. If you calculate the speed that light would have to have reached to result in light from the edges of the universe reaching us in 5000 years (I'm assuming that the light had to reach here before star positions were documented) energy levels from the sun and from underground decay would have been too high to allow life to exist for hundreds of thousands of years.
I invite you to do the calculations yourself.
Here are a few things you'll need to make that calculation:
1. E = MC2 (Of course)
2. The distance to the farthest away light source. This will be at least 50,000 light years away since we can now directly measure that distance with the use of geometry (parallax) and highly precise measuring equipment. We can use parallax measured distance to calibrate other measuring distances. Distances out to 170,000 light years away (SN1987A) have been measured indirectly and can also be used to calibrate other measuring methods. Using these calibrations calculated distances much farther out can be considered highly accurate.
3. The creationist age of the Earth. Somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years I believe.
4. The calculated curve of light speed determined from the initial creation time and distance to farthest light source to the current light speed in light of the rate of decrease creation scientists believe they have observed within the last 100 years.
5. The mass of the Earth (To determine the cooling rate)
6. The amount of energy the Earth currently receives from the sun.
7. The amount of energy the Earth currently generates in its core.
8. The calculation of the initial energy from the core based on the current temperature of the core, the cooling rate of an Earth sized mass given the energy dissipation rates based on the previous light speed curve.
9. The calculation of the initial energy from the sun, based on the light speed curve.
10. From there you can determine the initial temperature of the surface of the earth 6000 years ago and the length of time it would take to cool down enough to support life.
I have probably missed quite a number of conditions and calculations necessary but I'm sure others will supply those. This should give you a start in any case.
Don't forget to show your work when you present your results here.
-A.jpg)
Especially if I could have wings too!
"FAMILY Ichneumonidae"
Thanks. I forgot the insectivora. I am better informed.
Gadfly comes to mind for Ichy--keeping us on our toes.
Ah, *that* was the thread I mentioned earlier but couldn't locate, wherein creationist Gore3000 self-destructed by accusing Jim Robinson of all sorts of bizarre things. Like:
[From this classic self-imploding rant:]Read the whole thread -- JimRob responded to Gore3000's rants quite a few times, with great amusement. Gore3000 never got the hint (despite lots of people telling him, "step away from the keyboard *NOW*..."), and was zotted soon thereafter.I am saying this Jim, you are destroying this site, and you will end up destroying it if you continue on this path. Conservatives are Christians whether you like it or not. You are not God and you cannot hide the truth no matter how many bannings, pulled posts and pulled threads you use to hide it. The word of the anti-Christian agenda here will get out way beyond the evolution threads, it already has. Unless you put an end to it and make ammends for your previous actions, you will lose this site and the respect of the conservative community.
I wonder what that makes the uneducated?
As a memorial to that raving creationist, I've just added one of his posts to THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM. It's not one of his most spectacular, but it was his grandest insult aimed at me. Alas, the original thread in which it appeared was pulled (a common occurrence in those days), but I saved it and posted it a few times thereafter. The link I've used will take you to one of those repetitions.
I abhor people, any people who fill kids heads with silly, superstitious, mythological, creation fantasies. No apologies!
LOL!!!
A plethora of evidence suggests that the speed of light and radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years. Any possible variation thereof is very tiny indeed. I carefully lined up some of the known evidence in a in a previous post on another thread if you want to bother to look.
Havoc, I've gotta say, I looked at your gallery of artwork on your homepage, and I think you're quite an impressive artist (no joke). I can't draw or color like that. I have an idea - you don't try to do science (at least until you learn more) and I won't try to do color drawings. The world will be a better place as a result.
Parallax doesn't rely on light speed. Besides, light has slowed down doncha know, the super fast stuff was here a long time ago.
"Creationists always have convenient excuses. Or lame ones. Usually lame ones, actually.
If they only had a leg to stand on.
I missed the quiz but appreciate the great photos!
I usually grin and admit it.
It's one of the big differences between the sides, IMHO. Most of their posters admit no error above the typo level, ever.
It takes a lot of faith to believe you can lie your way into heaven...
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.