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.”
This is the POS anti-Catholic bigoted a$$hole who draws the cartoons?
Which means it doesn't fit the definition of a scientific law. It's an extremely easy concept to grasp; even for someone as 'educated' as yourself.
Can you state the difference between "theory" and "law"? Do you believe that theories can become laws in science?
"I've yet to see any attempt at a reubttal to the debunkings of Hovind's claims."
I've read the claims and find nothing to rebut. So, you won't see any rebuttal from righteous people simply because it's mighty difficult to rebut the truth. Otoh, those who have lost the road to righteousness will find plenty to disagree with.
If you look for God, you won't find Him; but, if you look for truth, you will find God.
A Merry Christmas and a healthy New Year to everybody.
And right you are.
False premises lead nowhere but to wrong conclusions.
One such false premise is evolution.
Hi Ichneumon!
Just parking for a brief period. Gotta a lot of catching up to do on my assignments. :)
"What progress has ever been made by the application of your theories? Anyone?"
I'm thinking here and trying to remember if any progress has been made...sorry can't think of any. The answer must, therefore, be NONE.
if-i-caint-sell-it-i-might-as-well-sit-on-it PLACEMARKER.
"Which means it doesn't fit the definition of a scientific law. It's an extremely easy concept to grasp; even for someone as 'educated' as yourself."
I like to liken a theory to a seriouslly mentally handycapped infant and a theory to a mature, experienced old man.
But you're right evolution is just a theory, or speculation.
Evolution attempts to give solidity to pure wind. :)
[...and none of my refutation of your post relies on any such omniscience,]
So, clairvoyance is an omniscience?
Word nitpicking -- how childish.
Where does that put paleontology?
It's a science.
But I digress....
I've gotten used to that by now.
We'll start with your clairvoyance and move on from there...
Learn to read, I said that my posts do *not* require clairvoyance. They require reading comprehension, long experience with human behavior, and the ability to form conclusions about the author's meaning and intent from the words he writes. In other words, the same thing *everyone* does with respect to written communication.
Which makes it all the more ludicrous when you repeatedly play your childish, coy game of "gosh, how could you *possibly* draw any conclusions from reading someone's post, unless you were clairvoyant?" You're just behaving like a puerile jackass.
[You were obviously presenting a list of what you felt were *fallacious*, or at least unfair, arguments from the "FR scientists"]
Do you know what my "feelings" were when I wrote this list or when I re-posted it on this thread. Which was it?
Don't be coy, kid, you're not very good at it. If my conclusion about the nature of your list was incorrect in some way, feel free to clear it up by stating what its nature actually is. If my conclusion *wasn't* incorrect, then stop playing childish evasion games, concede the point, and move on.
Do you want to have something resembling an adult discussion, or do you want to be a jerk about it? Your choice. But so far, you've done a remarkably crappy job of holding up your end of the conversation, throughout the thread. It appears you'd rather "score points" by some rules that exist only in your head, rather than reach an understanding, or change a mind, or learn something, or whatever.
[he was stating that while such replies have been used, they were *appropriate* responses to the creationist argument they were in reply to. He was *disagreeing* that they belonged on a list of alleged poor behavior by "FR scientists".]
Did he say the responses were "appropriate"?
Yes, he did. We're back to that "basic reading comprehension" thing again. Let's look at his first response to you, shall we?
[darbymcgill:] 1. First make the oblicatory comment that the un-washed obviously are not aware of the scientific method.To anyone able to read standard English, it's clear that Thatcherite is saying that creationists are most commonly told that they "aware of the scientific method" (your words) when "the creationist poster is obviously not aware of the scientific method" (Thatcherite's words). In short, such a comment is used when it's *appropriate* -- when it's a correct and accurate description of the reason for the poster's misunderstanding.[Thatcherite:] I have seen this argument used. Most commonly when the creationist poster is obviously not aware of the scientific method.
Now, was that *really* so hard to grasp, or were you just being coy and childish again by pretending not to see it?
Did you ask him?... Did he say he was disagreeing with me? Did you ask him or read his mind?
Did you miss that "reading comprehension" thing? It's a remarkable method by which people can (*gasp*) ascertain a writer's meaning without actually quizzing them about it or reading their mind. It's been all the rage for several thousand years now. They even teach it in schools. I'm sure you can do it too, if you try hard enough.
But hey, since you're unable to do it yourself, and too skeptical to accept my reading of plain English prose, let's go for a tiebreaker and do something revolutionary; Hey, Thatcherite, was my understanding of your remark correct? This twit questions my reading ability, so could you clear it up for him?
[even a ping to the evolution list later in a thread could easily be made for innocent purposes]
Do you know why someone hits the ping list?
Yes I do, at least in PatrickHenry's case.
Do you ask them?
No need, I've known him for over three years, and been privy to countless of his decisions about when to ping or not ping the evolution ping list. But again, if you question my judgment, let's put it to the test instead of playing your childish games: Hey, PatrickHenry, when you pinged the evo list in post #2 in this thread, did you do so for innocent reasons (so evolutionists could check into a thread on evolution if they chose), or did you do so for the nefarious motives imputed to you by darbymcgill, to wit:
4. If the first 3 steps fail to convince the un-washed they are out of their league, ping 50 or so of your distinguished scientist buddies and have them join the thread. The shear number of insults should begin to discourage the provocateur and others.It seemed clear enough to me that, as I already said earlier:
Nope, sorry, doesn't count as an actual example of [darbymcgill's] #4. [Darbymcgill's] description of the alleged tactic involved pinging for "help" if the first three tactics failed. In post #2, PH pinged the evolution list before *any* replies had been made to the thread at *all*, so clearly it couldn't have been made as a result of any "failed" discussion up to that point.But hey, darbymcgill seems to have his *own* delusions of actual clairvoyance, because he used your ping in post#2 as an example of someone fulfilling darbymcgill's scenario in #4, *despite* the obvious logical problems inherent in such a conclusion (described above). So darbymcgill *must* have arrived at such a counterintuitive conclusion via reading PatrickHenry's mind. Or, come to think of it, as a result of darbymcgill's blind bias which is able to overcome mere logical consistency...
Oh, BTW, why did you hit it on this response? hmmmmm
I pinged the people whose posts were being discussed in this interminable back-and-forth. Duh. Paranoid much?
[For pete's sake, read for content... While the "he" in that post referred to you, the comment itself wasn't even really *about* you. It was just remarking that if you hypothetically did something *different* from what Thatcherite expected, you'd be behaving more like the typical creationist behavior. How do you misconstrue that an "insulting little comment" aimed at you? It wasn't. It was a swipe at unspecified veteran FR creationists as a group, not at you.]
This one is classic, a double not only by you but him. He refers to me 3 times in one sentence and you say he was really talking about someone else. He places me next to his straw man (Creationist company) and associated insults then doesn't even have the courtesy to ping me. You change the definition of "he, he'd, and his" in direct response to a post made TO me into a hypothetical generalization about someone completely different... good... a double double... BTW did you ask him if he meant "hypothetical"....???
Yup, *definitely* paranoid. The astute reader is invited to examine the exchange in question and decide for himself whether *Dimensio*'s reply should be read as an insult aimed at darbymcgill, or as a swipe at the prior behavior of FR creationists:
[Thatcherite, to darbymcgill:] Feel free to fail to back up your claims. You'll be in fine creationist company numerous times on this thread alone.[Dimensio, to Thatcherite:] Actually, he'd be in better keeping with his creationist company if he refused to back up his claims and instead offered lame excuses.
[you were clearly thinking]
I was? Is that a complement?
Wowie, an passage snipped entirely out of context so you could make a childish retort. How... typical.
And I don't recall you asking me what I was thinking? Maybe you did and I forgot...
Reading comprehension -- learn it, live it...
And yet *again*, if my impression of what you were thinking is incorrect, stop playing these childish games and just *say so*. And if my impressions *are* correct, stop dancing around like a loon, playing these coy games for no reason.
I'm sure you've probably already received some personal email to "not go there" on this one
[I'm sure you're being wildly presumptious here based on nothing but your own paranoia]
You're "sure"? Absolutely "sure" or just sorta "sure"?
HEY, YOU... STUPID PERSON... The "I'm sure" in my reponse was a mocking echo of the "I'm sure" in the passage of *YOURS* to which I was responding. Flew *right* over your head, didn't it?
If saying "I'm sure" is grounds for ridicule of the sort you just flung, then FLING IT AT YOURSELF FOR SAYING IT YOURSELF, you nitwit.
WOW... not only can you read people's minds
....there you go again, playing this stupid childish game, instead of just addressing whether what I gathered from your post (via reading comprehension!) was correct or not. How old are you, twelve? Emotionally, I mean.
you can do psychoanalysis will you're in there... Does this mean I'll be getting a bill?
No, it means that when you start having delusions that make you think you can be "sure" about people sending specific kinds of emails coordinating their responses to you, it means you're well into the territory of classic paranoia.
[you *know* you've been caught at it.]
I *know*???
Yes, you do. Thus your cheap gameplaying and evasions you do, avoiding dealing head-on with your being caught at it.
[While Coyoteman did mention his degree, it was *not* done for the cheesy purposes you list in tactic #7]
It wasn't for "cheesy purposes"? oh... well then it's OK he gets a pass...
Try reading the whole sentence, dimbulb. The point is that it didn't match the purposes you outlined in your item #7, thus it fails as a valid "example" of that tactic -- you were wrong when you offered his post in "support" of your assertion that "FR scientists" behave as you described in #7. Pretending otherwise doesn't make you look any better. Quite the contrary.
BTW did you ask him why he mentioned it? did you notice any psychosis in him while you were reading his mind?
You're really a one-note kind of guy, aren't you? Same stupid, childish game as a substitute for actually discussing the merits of your claims, and my rebuttals.
[Sorry, but Right Wing Professor clearly *did* know the answer, because after it was clarified what in the heck flevit was trying to say, he provided the answer. Clearly, his remark about flevit's grammar was *not* done in the service of avoiding admitting that RWP "doesn't know the answer" (he did)]
Really, now that is quite a leap in reasoning from the way I read the exchange,
Yes, you're having trouble reasoning through something simple enough for an average junior high student. Which words are you having trouble with? The fact that RWP *did* know the answer is demonstrated by the fact that he *posted* the answer. Is that "reasoning" really "quite a leap" for a brain like yours?
Or are you again just being pointlessly and childishly coy, out of some emotional problem which prevents you from having a straightforward discussion?
but hey.... You knew exactly what RWP was thinking and you knew that he would never insult someone's grammar when he made a mistake in interpretation.. He's not the insulting type is he?... Did you ask RWP what he was thinking or do you just know that's what he meant?
Hey, moron, here's a clue -- I've known RWP for many years now. I've got a much better handle on his behavior and thoughts than you do.
But if you think it's too wildly presumptuous and would require "clairvoyance" to reach a conclusion about his actual motives without asking him about it, then please explain why *YOU* felt justified in presuming his motivations when you decided that his post must be a good example of the kind of intent and motivations you listed in #7? Why weren't *you* required to query his mental state first instead of merely presuming it? Please explain, this ought to be *really* amusing.
*cough*hypocrite*cough*
[His swipe at flevit's grammar was in direct explanation and response to flevit's snide accusation that RWP had "forgotten" to address something. No, he had honestly misunderstood it due to flevit's poor writing.]
A bit off topic but I find the adjectives used in your response quite telling. For flevit it's "snide remark", "poor grammar" and for RWP it's "direct explanation and response" and "honestly misunderstood".... how noble and ethical of you...
Get a clue. Flevit's remark *was* snide -- the "you seem to have forgotten" phrase is a common bit of sarcasm. His grammar *was* poor, to the point of garbling the question. RWP *did* give a direct explanation and response (without a hint of "attitude"). He *did* honestly misunderstand the original question, which is why he first provided an answer to the question he *thought* flevit had asked. It's interesting that you would consider my description of reality "telling".
It's also "telling" that you "forgot" to mention a derogatory characterization I made of one of RWP's posts, when I described it as a "swipe". You'll probably try to childishly lawyer that away by saying it wasn't an "adjective", but the point is that I *did* make a derogatory description of one of RWP's actions, and you're dishonest to leave it out when weighing my "fairness" of my descriptions.
Shall I go on to the next batch?.... Nah...
Thanks, I wasn't in the mood for much more coy childishness.
But I would like to address one other issue.
[Now do you have anything to actually rebut what I've written and are you going to provide it, or are you going to continue to issue gradeschool-level taunts that fail to address any of my points?]
Would you call this:
[Face it like an adult, if you're able. What kind of example are you setting for your college-age children?]
Is this a grown-up taunt because you said it or a gradeschool-level taunt that you were hoping no one would notice?
Neither. It's a direct challenge to you to start discussing on an adult level for a change. And it's an honest question, which I invited you to ponder in the hopes that it would prod you into realizing that your behavior here has not been the kind that most parents of adult children would be proud to have their children witness. Maybe your children expect less of you, I couldn't say. I still expect an answer to the question.
If I want to refer to my family that's my business, but I will thank you in advance for leaving references to them out of any future homilies you perform to my detriment..
Hit a nerve, did I? Then perhaps you should actually answer the question, it may be more instructive to you than to us.
I'll stop wondering what your children would think of your behavior as soon as you start acting in a way fit for a man of your age, with your responsibilities to act as a role model.
And finally, please do not issue me any future challenges until you answer the one I posted to you yesterday.
What, *this* childish one?
And now, my challenge to you.... Unless you can cite a single post where I have espoused support for a single creationist based argument I will expect an apology from you for (as you guys call it) lying about me and calling me a creationist.Clue for the clueless -- it's not a "lie" to form an honest conclusion about you based on how closely your behavior matches that of a specific group. So no, you're not owed any "apology" for "lying about you", because no lies have been told. If I was *mistaken*, on the other hand, you are invited to stop playing your favorite "I'm so coy" game -- rather than send me off to yon post archive to wade through your past pearls of wisdom, you should do what an *adult* would do and merely state whether my conclusion about you sounding very much like a creationist is correct or not. It's not hard, really. Try it. You'll find it saves *everyone* time when you stop playing games and start behaving like an adult for a change.It's gonna take me a while to document these but I bet I post my results long before you do either.
If you're still doing research, I understand.
If you're still playing coy, I *don't* understand. Why not just be an adult for a change, instead of continuing to play your childish taunt/evade/taunt/evade games?
Hey, here's my research, bucko -- I'm *asking* you. Do you consider yourself a creationist or not? And if not, how *would* you describe your position on origins? Let's just clear this up right now in about thirty seconds (if you can stop the gameplaying and give a straight answer).
To save you a bit of time, I think going back past May or so will be futile... I'll be waiting...
To save even more than "a bit of time", why don't you stop jerking around? Think of how much time even you yourself would have saved if you could just directly discuss issues without doing all that tedious gameplaying and sidestepping.
Oh, and speaking of sidestepping, here are some points from my posts to you which you have yet to address. Please do so now:
Meanwhile, for quite a few examples of clear "insulting comments" and "cute derogatory remarks" against thread participants made without pinging them, there are several good ones in RunningWolf's and sirchtruth's posts... Oh, wait, those are *creationists*, not "FR scientists". Is there any "special" reason you did not take *them* to task for it? *cough*doublestandard*cough*And:
And:Oh, and hey, isn't "talking behind their back" what *you* yourself were doing in this post as well as this one on an older thread? "Cowardly or rude.... you make the call."
And:#6. If you are suggesting that I "out" FREEPERS who post links to their personal websites or others which contain offers to buy their books, I will decline.
...because you know you can't do it. Back when you posted your first draft of this "list" on 8/10/2005, you were clearly thinking of this prior accusation you had made against Right Wing Professor, based on the flimsiest of excuses (and/or your own paranoia). He had posted some information links for you, and (as you admit later) when you went "noodling around" on links *beyond* the pages he himself had linked, you ran into some advertising spam for books and other things. From *this* flimsy "evidence", you developed your wild speculation that RWP was trying to send people to advertisements for "his" books... Pathetic. [...] Sorry, but you were caught making an accusation that was groundless and which you can't back up. Face it like an adult, if you're able.
Okay, I'll bite -- where do you hallucinate that montag813 mentioned his OWN degrees, as was the tactic listed in your #7? Furthermore, from what flimsy evidence have you jumped to the wild conclusion that he is a "FR scientist"? We'll wait...And:
And:Even when a statement might be read more than one way, you always know the intent of the author.
You mean like *you* did when you made wild presumption about PatrickHenry's motives for deploying his ping list, despite having no grounds for your conclusion?
Furthermore, if drawing a conclusion about an author's intent is some sort of arrogant presumption of being a mind-reader, what are we to make of *your* performance in presuming to know the various authors' intents when you chose their posts as "examples" of specific tactics for your list, most of which involved specific scenarios of motivation? Hm? You can't have it both ways. If it's out of line for *me* to draw a conclusion about someone's intent, then it's equally out of line for *you* to do so as you have done so frequently on this thread. You don't want to be a blatant *hypocrite*, do you?
How about the prediction that bird flu might one day become a human flu?
You might say "it's still a virus," but that would be like saying a wolf is the same as a rabbit because "it's still an animal." What the virus eats will be completely different. It will be a change similar to finding wolves in my garden and rabbits chasing the wolves.
Interesting point. I'll have to remember that one. :-)
"Theories" are not "speculation".
And you're right for most theories.
But I was talking specifically about the theory of evolution, and it's generally accepted (actually it's almost a law) that evolution is made up of speculations, assumptions, unsubstantiated "facts," unobservable "observations, sub/semi-theories all topped with a sprinkle of lies as the final touch to give it the appearance of a solid theory, which is not of course.
Now, that is my educated opinion on the subject. But you may have a different take on the nebulous theory of evolution and that does not necessarily make you a bad person - only a misinformed one.
>>What have you ever done for anybody? What progress has ever been made by the application of your theories? Anyone?
>How about the prediction that bird flu might one day become a human flu?
Is that the basis of evolution - predictions?
I, too, can make a prediction or a number of them. One of them, someday, is bound to come true or close to being true.
I'll say this though: making a prediction is a safer bet than stating: "Your grandpa was a monkey."
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.