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.”
Off topic, but Richard Boone lived a mile or so from where I worked in the 90s. I'm old enough that I watched the show in its original run.
It's been so long since he's been around, I just can't seem to capture the flavor of his posts. Perhaps bourbon would help.
Frre Republic poster Patrick Henry [misnomer] contended that the original Patrick Henry had to be a Creationist since he lived before Darwin. But there were plenty of non-creationists before Darwin. I can't make it any simpler, and I'm not sure why I wasted this much time trying any way. My last post on the subject. I'll leave you and PH alone with each other.
And he opened his mouth, and
taught them, saying,
Blessed are the poor in spirit:
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
I know you won't be shocked to know that some of but some of us find your grammar at times, amusing as well....
The huge canyons, some hundreds of feet deep and in solid rock, around Mount Saint Helens were made in a matter of days. While probably not in half an hour, it is possible for the Grand Canyon to be formed fast.
P.S. It's not smart to publicly call evolution stupid if you're trying to convince people of creationism.
If there was a contest for using the word liar you would win.
You're not dealing with the energy of the radioactive decay from Earth, supposedly speeded up as well in these models. The canopy isn't keeping that out. If anything it's helping to hold it in.
And what O what is keeping a hollow spherical shell of water (ice?) from collapsing onto the Earth through the centuries up to Flood Time?
I have to admit a mistake, though. I looked at your homepage. You aren't Hovind. I'll leave it at that so this post can stay up.
So here we are all these pages later. You've posted the standard "I see no evidence; I understand no evidence and you'll never ever ever make me; Ooooh you evos are such meanies!" creationist claptrap without stop for all that time.
The point is we could calculate the energy output of the sun and the amount reaching the earth based on the speed of light at the time. We can calculate the speed of light necessary to reach the Earth from a specific distance in a specific time. Remember, you are the one claiming that the speed of light and the rate of decay were high enough in the past to give us an error in dating of a factor of 7.5 x 106.
A canopy raises its own pile of questions. What was the composition of the canopy? What were the lower and upper bounds of the canopy? How much did the canopy increase the atmospheric pressure at sea level if at all? How much heat did the canopy retain? What frequencies of light reached the surface? How did this affect plants?
If we ignore the problems of sustaining a canopy above the Earth and assume the canopy reduces the amount of energy heating up the Earth we are still left with the problem of energy from radioactive materials. If the canopy restricts the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun, it will also restrict the amount of energy radiating out to space from the surface of the Earth, including the huge amount of energy released by an increased speed of decay.
Any way you look at it, in a 6000 year old Earth, heat would prevent most life from existing.
I agree that assumptions affect conclusions, but some assumptions are based on more than wild conjecture. In the case we are discussing, the assumption we operate on is that E=MC2 was as valid then as now. It would take more than an 'assumption' that it was not valid in the past for us to abandon our use of it. We can also assume that the mass of the Sun and of Earth has been consistent as well; if we didn't, the Earth's orbit would be totally different than it is today and would not likely be stable.
I'm no biologist and don't play one on the Internet, but I'll be the one to sound a sour note.
Humans are not descended from any modern monkey species. However, it's highly likely that if you had a time machine and were tracing human ancestry back through time, you would arrive at a population of animals that you would unquestionably call monkeys.
I have "nitpicked", as you call it, on the side of science.
As far as denia, you do know what projection is.
Still, your ever present seething anger makes me know that I have hurt your feelings in the past.
I'm sorry. I haven't meant to hurt your feelings or made you feel bad.
It'll be OK. Cheer up.
There is a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law, but not the one you are hoping for.
Exactly. So stop nitpicking on us and nitpick the witch doctors instead of running interference for them.
(OK, I suspect the literal truth in your quoted sentence was unintentional on your part. Still, there it is.)
I've been quietly reading your posts in this thread waiting for some substantive argument against evolution or positive evidence for whatever your belief system holds as the true cause of the variety of organisms on Earth, but so far all I have seen from you is a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.
When do you present something that can actually be debated?
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.