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.”
Kudos.
What about it? Please elaborate.
A while back I was involved in an "exchange" with the esteemed RWP - and realized I had blundered into the halls of the insane! LOL
"My wisdom teeth are over 50 years old and my jaw has no problems holding them.
I guess this means you have a big mouth. ;P
Do you have any links to information about those canyons? Anything with pictures, measurements, and strata type?
You: "No, and I am not aware of anyone who accepts evolution who does."
Often the accuser of a lie is the originator of it.
You're equivocating two claims that have different meanings. (Frankly I think you're doing so intentionally as a disruption tactic. But I could be wrong. Maybe you ARE that dense.)
"Humans originated from monkeys."
...is not, I repeat NOT, equivalent to the claim that...
"Humans and monkeys share common ancestry."
For instance you and your sister (or a cousin, or an uncle) "share common ancestry". This does not mean that your originated FROM your sister (or cousin, or uncle).
In short, while the second claim is true (humans and monkeys do share a common ancestry) the second is FALSE. Humans did not originate from monkeys. But then you have been told this.
In fact MONKEYS as a group have nothing to do with the human lineage. Monkeys split off from other primates millions, indeed tens of millions, of years before Humans and APES split. New World Monkeys split off about 40 million years ago and Old World Monkeys about 30 million years ago. The Ape/Human split only occurred a few million years ago.
It was merely an attempt to inject a bit of whimsy into a thread that, just a few days before Christmas, has folks fussing quite nastily toward each other.... ;^)
Hey!!!!! ;^)
I know and I thank you for that. It made me laugh.
But...
was the split amicable?
Who got custody of the pets?
Not so much the timing, but the effects of rapid, voluminous amounts of water taking away LOTS of earth and rock.
Then we descended from PRE-monkeys?
I have not said that humans originated from monkeys, I said that humans and monkeys share common ancestry.
Once again, THESE ARE NOT EQUIVALENT CLAIMS. Your entire and only point depends on these claims being interchangeable, BUT THEY ARE NOT. See my preceeding to Baraonda. Everyone else understands this except you and Baraonda, which is making you look increasingly foolish (or trollish) so please try to catch up.
Modern monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. Even C.S. Lewis would agree to that. Even the folks defending ID at the Dover trial would admit that.
Thanks much to you...I am usually just a lurker, such as yourself, and appreciate that you have been following this thread and like all other lurkers and other posters, you can see for yourself, who argues and discusses the matter in what particular way...that is the precise reason why I do not like any posts to ever be deleted, which sometimes does happen on various threads(tho I understand, that many of the deleted posts are really extremely vulgar posts, and not really appropriate for FR readers...still my personal opinion is that even really vulgar posts have their purpose, namely that they expose the poster)...
But I will mention something that I had not thought of...the posters who resort to using the CAPS tactic...I always get a laugh at that...yeah, use all those CAPS, so we can imagine you shouting away during your tirade...its like a child having a temper tantrum...if you cannot get your point across by normal dialog, then by all means shout louder and louder...its generally a useless tactic, as the other posters and lurkers know, that the poster using the all CAPS method, is now in the shout mode, and who knows where it will go from there...but its always fun to watch...
Again, thanks for your comments, and you should join in once in a while...your description of yourself, regarding both science and theology, is also an apt description of myself, yet the way we can learn is to read, to discuss, and then come to a better understanding...Join in...
And if you want, ask PatrickHenry to add you to his ping list...that way you can be alerted to all pertinent threads concerning the evo/creation/ID debate...in that way, you will be sure to miss nothing...
He would?
How does we know?
Sounds like a description of the Catholic Magic Sturnum. (Magesterium)
I am a Christian, I believe the Bible and I worship God in spirit and truth. Now why you feel called to attack me and my religious beliefs remains a mystery unless you are a Muslim or Atheist or some other Christ hating type person.
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.