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.”
"OK what are they?"
"Do your own research"
DrDino@ImAnIdiot.com
...but at least I'll hold onto some logic!!
Unfortunately being logical is hardly the sole requirement for a scientific explaination. The whole scientology Xenu story is logical for example, but it's hardly a scientific explaination.
Wrong.
every time they do, they lose.
Wrong.
They would rather scream and yell and hide behind the status quo
Wrong
...hateful atheists ...
(The worst kind of atheists, no doubt). Wrong. Congratulations. You're batting .000
The ToE does not say that any organism from one Class would ever evolve into an organism from another Class in one generation. I believe you know this. You simply create this strawman because you have no ammunition when it comes to attacking an accurate version of the ToE.
When scientists collect evidence from a dozen different fields of science that fit in with a theory it is hardly just a belief. In my opinion, you are insisting on calling it a belief in order to bring it down to the level you consider your own beliefs to be.
You know, we've been wondering where cousin Erg went for a long time. Had we known he was visiting Africa, we would have taken his picture off the milk carton a long time ago.
Thanks for the ping to this thread, tho I see I am late coming to the thread, which is really of no consequence to anyone, as by and large I am just a lurker on these evo/ID threads...
But this thread has really been interesting, informative, and revealing...of course, the usual name callers have showed up, with no substantive thing to say, nothing to add to the subject matter of the thread, they just need to be here, to spew filth out of their mouths...
And then there are the usual ones who turn up, to tell us that somehow they have a better understanding of the Bible, than the rest of us, that they think they have some special secret information from God about who will go to Hell and who wont...that their particular interpretations of the Bible, must be believed by everyone, or else they just are not 'Christians',(now where does this poster get his/her authority to decide who is a Christian and who is not?...certainly God does not give them this authority, so I guess they are taking on their own self important authority)...
And then there are those who use their own made up definition of 'Theory', and refuse to understand how that word is used and what is means in reference to scientific investigation...I guess if you cannot argue the facts, then you sink down, and try to change the definitions..of the words...truly an infantile tactic...its truly amazing to me, that how often the a list of the words like 'theory' are given with their precise meaning in scientific investigation and how often the ID/creationist people refuse, absolutely refuse to see that, and want to insert their very own special meaning...
And then there are the posters who argue logically, provide useful information, provide useful, current links, and attempt to help those of us who have a meager scientific understanding, to better understand what evolution is really all about...
This thread is a real eye-opener...Note, I mentioned no posters screenname...I think everyone can figure for themselves, in what category I might put them...
I know that there are many more just like me out here, who lurk, rather than post, and I am sure that they(regardless of what side of this debate they fall into),like me, are grateful for threads like these...
So thanks to all, many of you have provided great information for further study, some have provided the usual insane namecalling for its own sake(which says way more about the poster doing the namecalling, than it does about the one they are calling names), some have provided some great humor with some very witty remarks, and some have made themselves look absolutely ridiculous and have given me some great laughs, and last of all there are the 'proud'(or the holier than thou crowd), who think that they speak for God..
Quite a cast of characters...
You: Another typical evo nut.
Labeling people without the flimsiest evidence. You do the same thing with sci fi evo. Cook up stuff and make billion year connections. Laughable!
I think it depends on who it comes from. It may not be much different than being called a Howler Monkey.
Is it the contention of all you evolutionist that just because I've had something explained to me that mean I should just automatically belive in the cult of evolution?
I've "explain" alot of things to evolutionist too...Obviously you don't believe you're being duped by a huge lie?
First, the definition of a theory again. Words do mean things, and they mean specific things. They do not change at a whim or there cannot be rational discussion (hence, what we often see on these threads).
You obviously hate evolution so much that you are willing to contort standard meanings for things, such as the definition of a theory. This is not asking you to believe in evolution, but to accept what scientists mean when they talk about a theory, whether it is gravity, germs, or evolution.
My guess is you accept the first two, but reject the latter on religious grounds. Fine; but don't think that it is either honest or rational to reject standard scientific definitions because of your phobia against evolution--the science is the same in all three cases, as we have tried to explain to you.
So, once again, here is the definition of "theory" closest to what scientists accept:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"Now you may consider the theory of evolution a lie, but you are arguing from a religious viewpoint--not to be confused with a scientific viewpoint. You really should try to keep the two separate. Your belief does not constitute scientific evidence.
That's why the ID folks keep trying to "wedge" the issue into the schools through popular opinion and school boards. They cannot compete in the world of science, and they know it.
It really doesn't matter who "wins" the debate. What's important is having a written record of it for everyone to see. It's also important to allow each side enough time to respond fully.
Charisma may be cool on stage, but in the long haul it's unimportant.
Don't you believe that the people who work in science should be the ones defining 'Theory'? Should *you* be able to redefine baseball, or Republican?
"I've "explain" alot of things to evolutionist too...Obviously you don't believe you're being duped by a huge lie?
And your evidence of a lie is what? Is your evidence as tenuous as a 'belief'?
I'm an "evolutionist," having spent about half of my grad school training in that field. Here are the definitions of THEORY and FACT (hey, all caps makes them sound bigger!).
Please note, nothing in these definitions, which I have posted dozens of times, equates THEORY and FACT. But I will keep posting them as long as necessary.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap:
he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD:
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done;
he commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought:
he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever,
the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
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.