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.”
Pardon me. This may well be true, but you'll excuse my missing that in the face of personal threats and a repeated (and seemingly serious) expression of a desire to transform cultural conflict into a literal shooting war, even a specifically religious war. That sort of thing tends to give folks a certain impression.
much like those want people to be able to say "Merry Christmas" without you Nazis coming out of the woodwork.
Again with the paranoia and extreme stereotyping. This very day I've personally wished dozens of people "Merry Christmas".
You have it all wrong......the only reason you and your brethren are here is only because we have permitted it.
It is you who will be responsible for transforming this for into a shooting war, you and your repressive policies.
even a specifically religious war
Do the math. America has approximately 250 million people, 85% of whom say they believe in God. Which leaves us with some 212.5 million people. Let's say half of these people are the liberal type Christians......106 million conservative types left. Let's be conservative and say that 5% of these are willing to fight to defend their 1st amendment right to worship.
How many is that? 5 million?
That sort of thing tends to give folks a certain impression.
I hope 5 million, and probably at least double that, leaves an impression. Good.
O.K. Later.
Not facts that dissolve into theory upon a close look.
Oh, this is gonna be tough. Excepting maybe a few trivial instances facts NEVER become theories and theories NEVER become facts. They are different sorts of things. Theories are explanatory. Facts don't explain anything in themselves, they just are as they are. Theories take some mechanism or model and, with associated principles, use it to account for why the facts are they way they are, and not some other way they might conceivably have been. Theory thereby makes demands upon facts -- that they must be this way, that they must not be that way -- so that facts can be used to test theories.
.....and also bear in mind that I wouldn't count on the military to come save you...they typically don't like atheistic, totalitarian, God-hating Nazis like yourself.
Permitted (laughing).....see you on the battlefield; as you go to sleep tonight, try counting the sounds of marching feet. Stop when you get to 10 million. Sweet dreams.
I'm a veteran, a theist (if of the nonreligious philosophical variety), and a classical-liberal conservative.
You're a looney.
We'll see.
I personally don't have a problem with your beliefs regarding Christ.
I was replying to someone else.
'night Wolf. (And thanks for your service. All I ever did was service jet fighters for the cold war.)
"The day you stop dishonestly pretending that the theory of evolution is a "war on Christians" is the day you will stop sounding like a raving lunatic with absolutely no grasp on reality."
It is a war on Christianity and its culture.
A war that will not be resolved on the Internet, lecture halls and classrooms of universities, in the courts, forums, television and the printed press. No! It will be resolved in the open. If you think your gradualism approach at winning souls in your camp will not force the frog out of its boiling pot, you're mistaken, pal. The writing is on the wall and the more you attack us, the sooner for Christians to wake up.
Culture: the ultimate issue.
"No, evolution is not a war on anything, you shameless liar."
I'm a liar for stating my beliefs? What would it make you for opposing my beliefs?
Do you also call people you meet face-to-face liars and frauds or do you do that only online, behind the protection of a monitor?
Shame on you!
"You have made statements regarding the theory of evolution that are demonstratably false. That makes you a liar. Stop whining."
Did you read just upthread where I make the statement that this issue is NOT about science? What do you make of that sentence? Does it imply perhaps that this poster is not necessarily against science, or not?
The issue is culture and preservation. It is about the longing for freedom and a people's determination to live in a society that expresses the deepest deires of their souls. The issue is not just political, social or cultural. It is also about the survival of a culture and its people to aim high and upward to a higher self - a path to the stars. That path begins with truth and the battle will determine whether Christian heritage will survive or be driven to extinction.
Faced with obliteration, Christians will fight back.
"You have made statements regarding the theory of evolution that are demonstratably false. That makes you a liar. Stop whining."
Did you read just upthread where I make the statement that this issue is NOT about science? What do you make of that sentence? Does it imply perhaps that this poster is not necessarily against science, or not?
The issue is culture and preservation. It is about the longing for freedom and a people's determination to live in a society that expresses the deepest deires of their souls. The issue is not just political, social or cultural. It is also about the survival of a culture and its people to aim high and upward to a higher self - a path to the stars. That path begins with truth and the battle will determine whether Christian heritage will survive or be driven to extinction.
Faced with obliteration, Christians will fight back.
2000?
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.