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.”
Very cute, Stultis....but it still changes nothing.
You're not educating people in science; and what it sounds like is the Hitler Youth.
We've done it before....and we'll do it again. We'll see if you are so arrogant at that time. Something tells me we'll find you hiding in some spiderhole like some other snivelling coward.
It is pointless to argue this point with you and your ilk; as Havoc and others aptly pointed out, you weren't there at the beginning, so your religion is based on an assumption....and your faith is assumption piled upon assumption.
Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.
You are no conservative VadeRetro, so quit dishonoring the real conservatives who fought and died for this country. It's sickening. As I've pointed out, with more than enough supporting evidence, your religion has been a cancer and a blight upon all it touches. It's an evil religion which raises its head again and again, only to smashed in an endless cycle.
So keep pushing your agenda, try to force your agenda down our throats, push your culture of death, and watch what happens when we get sick of you despoiling this country. That's all.
To hear you speak of Reagan is an insult to all Americans of faith. That man was a true conservative, not a petulant child like yourself.
You seem to be living some paranoid fantasy. I'm not that curious about it. It's your problem.
This is becoming the national issue I've wanted to somehow prevent. You're going to kill us in 06 or 08 or both.
I have bad news for you fella. The President won by a landslide because of people like us, not despite us. Your liberalistic atheism was rejected. Christians are the heart and soul of conservatism. I've heard you before...."We need to have a big tent to defeat those Democrats".......you're a fool.
It's the same as saying, "See that big wooden horse sitting on the shore? Let's bring it inside the gate."
I'll put it into terms that even you can understand, Stultis. As a self-described computer geek.
You are a trojan horse virus in the program of conservatism. Get it now?
Look around this website; it seems I'm by far not the only one living some 'paranoid' fantasy. So you and your friends can laugh amongst yourselves about farmers and 'hicks', until you find out that it indeed was 'your problem'. Undoubtably too late, like so many others.
When I hear a bulletin about some guy wearing a pentagonal hat shooting up a church service, I'll know who that is.
When I hear a bulletin about some guy wearing some distorted cross on his sleeve burning some synagogue, I'll know who that is also.
I haven't mentioned Reagan in any recent messages.
And I honor Americans of faith, at least the vast majority -- which here on FR for instance would be everyone but you -- who aren't ranting, with unseemly eagerness, about a religious/culture war and the opportunity to gun down non-Christians in the streets of America.
I'll put it into terms that even you can understand, Stultis. As a self-described computer geek.
Huh? I've never described myself as a "computer geek," nor in any terms remotely similar.
Are you hallucinating messages now?
Look around this website; it seems I'm by far not the only one living some 'paranoid' fantasy.
O.K. I'll bite. Who else on this website is hankering for a (literal) religious/cultural war. Who else wants to bring violent revolution to the streets of America? Anybody like to volunteer themselves as a member of White Horse Rant Boy's revolutionary cadres?
I think you've lost something... 
I hadn't posted the "Don't do a bad thing" stuff on this thread, either. We are to understand he is reading our homepages. We are supposed to be spooked.
Bah! He either doesn't get out that much, or he has to wear a tracing device if he does.
And I honor Americans of faith, at least the vast majority
Sure you do....so long as they shut up and do as they're told.
who aren't ranting, with unseemly eagerness, about a religious/culture war and the opportunity to gun down non-Christians in the streets of America.
I'm not eager about such a thing. As far as a religious/ culture war, it's been going on for some time now, Rip Van Winkle....and it's one that atheistic secular humanists started a long time ago. So don't hang any future bloodshed on me. The right to self defense is codified in the Constitution, the second amendment, remember? You would be a Tory mocking the Minutemen no doubt. Then again, look how you mock the first amendment. No respect for the Constitution at all from you closet atheist Nazis.
Rants, indeed. Look at every society where religion was pushed from the public square. Listen to the quotes of such brutal men, men who had no regard for people of faith. You want to talk about cadres? Here's some for you:
Mao-Tse Tung, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Nero, Caligula; I could go on and on.......my cadre?.....look at the company you keep before you throw stones. There is nothing paranoid about listening to you talk, and hearing the same words that came out of the mouths of the men I list above.
If you don't believe it, I'll list some.
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.