Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

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.

No debate challengers

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.”


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.

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.”

No truths in textbooks

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?”

Faith, not science

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.”

Debate offer still stands

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.”

Make it visible

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.”


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: antisciencetaliban; clowntown; creatidiot; creationisminadress; crevolist; cultureofidiocy; darwindumb; evolution; fearofcreation; fearofgod; goddooditamen; hidebehindscience; hovind; idiocy; idsuperstition; ignoranceisstrength; keywordwars; lyingforthelord; monkeyman; monkeyscience; scienceeducation; silencingdebate; uneducatedsimpletons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 2,121-2,129 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Oops. A paragraph was supposed to evolve between your comments and mine. Let me try again.

Evolution, like every other scientific theory, has absolutely nothing to say for or against the existence of a deity.

How conveeeeenient.

301 posted on 12/17/2005 11:34:44 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Who knew Hovind had such a fan club here?

There's a certain element out there trying hard to portray conservatism as synonymous with ignorance. Apparently "Hovind" is a keyword that triggers them off.

302 posted on 12/17/2005 11:35:04 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
"How conveeeeeeeenient."

And also very true. How can science test the untestable? How can science deal with the supernatural? It can't, so it doesn't. Scientists don't say God doesn't exist, they say it is not a scientific question. Your inability to see that science has limitations is your problem.

BTW, most people who believe in evolution are theists (in the USA, most are Christians).
303 posted on 12/17/2005 11:36:17 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: happyhomemaker

So how does that differ from what God did to you?


304 posted on 12/17/2005 11:36:32 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: happyhomemaker

"Fantastic question for the Christmas season. Maybe some of the posters are unaware of the story :-) "

13 years of Catholic school would make it hard to forget. :)


305 posted on 12/17/2005 11:37:20 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
he fires off rapid-fire lies one after the other

It is a valid rhetorical style. There is a way of parsing sentences so that the pauses for breath come in the middle of sentences while the next sentence begins without pause. This technique allows one to keep the floor indefinitely.

306 posted on 12/17/2005 11:37:28 AM PST by RightWhale (Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

"Oops. A paragraph was supposed to evolve between your comments and mine. Let me try again."

Didn't help you any. :)


307 posted on 12/17/2005 11:37:52 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Your inability to see that science has limitations is your problem.

MY problem??? Wow. And they say drug use is a victimless crime.

308 posted on 12/17/2005 11:38:52 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
Pay more attention next time.

Try to type more accurately next time. How am I supposed to know that the sentence is a quote when you don't quote or italicise it? And don't you read what you are quoting? Why did you drag me through a ridiculous cycle of denial of what you had posted? All you needed to do was say, "oops I forgot to indicate clearly that I am quoting". Instead you just made yourself look ridiculous.

309 posted on 12/17/2005 11:39:44 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
But one of my favorites is where is exposes the frauds in evolution like Piltdoan Man, Glued Moths, human fetuses drawn to look like pig fetuses, the way Hawking pretends like the Law of recapitulation just doesn't exist.

Hmm, let's see. You were already told about why the moth issue was not actually fraud, but rather than accept that or attempt to explain why you disagree with the "not fraud" assessment you simply repeat your initial claim as though it were never debunked. Looks like you're just another creationist liar.
310 posted on 12/17/2005 11:41:13 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
Will you at least have the courtesey of admitting that that quotation was not mine, but came from the first para at that link?

Evidently I'm not allowed to leave my terminal for a meal. So sorry I didn't respond instantly. So sorry also that you are not capable of clearly indicating which parts of your posts are quotations and which parts aren't

311 posted on 12/17/2005 11:41:50 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Didn't mean to be obtuse. But I am afraid I'm only familiar with Jack Chick through his "work". Its just that the comment about the tornado in the junk yard sounded like something he would say.


312 posted on 12/17/2005 11:41:55 AM PST by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

"MY problem??? "

Yes, yours. Scientists already know that science has limits. It's creationists who wish that science could be anything and everything so they could sit at the same table with science. Doesn't work that way.


"Wow. And they say drug use is a victimless crime."

Maybe you should cut down then. I don't use drugs.


313 posted on 12/17/2005 11:41:58 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Texas Eagle
BTW, most people who believe in evolution are theists (in the USA, most are Christians).

303 posted on 12/17/2005 12:36:17 PM MST by CarolinaGuitarman

Nominally Christians.

Surely not a follower of the Christ.
He who created the universe from nothing and told us how He did it.

b'shem Y'shua

314 posted on 12/17/2005 11:43:51 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
"post 201. Now, stop lying."

The quote at post 201 is not my quote. It came from the link below. The sentence in question is in bold. Anyone who cares could verify this by clicking the linkl below.

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer

It reads: "Creationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature. What is the real meaning of Hovind's challenge?"

315 posted on 12/17/2005 11:44:06 AM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; sirchtruth
Absolutely no theory in science is ever proven. Why single out evolution?

But of course sirchtruth already knew that, having been told it several times before. Memory loss can be a wonderful thing.

316 posted on 12/17/2005 11:44:59 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
It's creationists who wish that science could be anything and everything so they could sit at the same table with science. Doesn't work that way.

You're probably right. Tell you what. Let's end this debate right here. I'll take your word over the word of Sir Frances Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur. What did they know about science anyway?

317 posted on 12/17/2005 11:46:07 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda; shuckmaster

Evidently Shuckmaster's mind-reading machine wasn't working either. Shucks.


318 posted on 12/17/2005 11:46:15 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Nominally Christians. Surely not a follower of the Christ.

So again, you're saying the Pope is not a Christian?

319 posted on 12/17/2005 11:47:00 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Full Court
That's not true. They DO use photographs of embryo's though. That's different than the drawings that Haeckel used.

Actually, Haeckel's drawings have been used in more "recent" biology textbooks. What is not used is Haeckel's claim regarding embryology. That is, Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to make them appear to have similarities that were evidence of evolution, however, no contemporary textbook actually claims that the similarities of Haeckel's embryonic drawings are themselves evidence of evolution.

So the claim that Haeckel's drawings are being used is not a lie. However, when a creationist like Full Court claims that Haeckel's actual fraud is being used to promot evolution, that is a flat-out lie. But that shouldn't be surprising to hear, because creationists lie all the time.
320 posted on 12/17/2005 11:47:04 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 2,121-2,129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson