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.”
Evolution has been observed. We observe what you call micro-evolution all the time. We observe that the fossils indicate transitions (take a look at cetacean fossils for example). We observe that genetic similarities correspond to the lineages created from the fossil record and extant organisms (morphological similarities). Conclusions garnered from statistical analysis by one group of scientists can be repeated by another group. Conclusions drawn from a fossil by one group of scientists can be confirmed or rejected by another group.
How is this speculation?
"You're the one creating a strawman by ignoring the fact that evolution is NOT fact, but only a guess. Yeah, evolution collects what evidence from different fields? Maybe a PIG BONE and points to it as evidence of a man's? You mean surefire evidence like that?
Evolution is indeed a fact. How about observed speciation events? There are hundreds of thousands of fossils that have been collected that are not pig bones. Just for your edification, fossils are not the most important evidence for evolution (in this case common descent), DNA evidence is more important and providing corroboration for much evidence collected before the '50s.
"And let me add, Evolution is not only speculative, it's an illogical conclusion to most of the evidence.
You keep saying this but I have yet to see any specific argument presented by you or any of your fellow believers that shows how the evidence runs counter to the ToE.
Hey, PH started this thread. You mean PH is Hovind? That's like saying the head of the KKK is a black guy (As I recall "Mad" magazine did just such a story many years ago.)
Looks like Full Court is another practitioner of the "Argument By Making Things Up" School of Debate.
So many demands...typical of evo fascists and their mania to maintain power over the public school science classes.
You are so obvious...really.
Good way to get out of actually engaging the argument.
But I guess we are hung up on being able to "name" and "state." Before we accept something as scientific, we want tedious things like facts, deomnstrations, and sources for statements. Horribly, terribly, damnibly fascistic of us. And obvious. I don't forget obvious.
Whereas... what is it you want? ... To be able call anything at all "science" as long as it makes you feel good? I could be wrong -- enlighten me. What do you call "science"?
We are enjoying the last of very nice Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon here.
What are you --a remedial reader?
I betcha you were the guy who never got invited to parties...or had to crash them. So in frustation and anger got involved in objectivism and Ayn...in order to have a life so to speak.
Actually, I think it's worse. They don't make things up. It takes too much effort. They just borrow other's stuff which is made up and don't bother to check it out.
"However, it's no contradiction to say that Evolution is a Fact and a Theory."
Evolution is neither a fact nor a theory.
Only nincompoopish, gullible simpletons believe in the cult of evolution.
Way to raise the level of debate. What are you, six?
You have only told me you refuse to take God's word for anything.
Okay, I'll bite, where in the Bible does it even *mention* the Grand Canyon, much less make any statement about how it was formed? We'll wait.
Or did the little voices in your head tell you this?
The laminar layers you speak of, themselves, with all of their contents, were the product of the very same deluge that covered the highest mountain top in 40 days.
Why, because you just stamp your feet and say so? ROFL!
Sorry, but deluges don't leave delicate scorpion tracks in dry sand along hundreds of different vertically stacked layers, not to mention a thousand other features of the Grand Canyon strata which are 100% incompatible with your bizarre claim. I'm sure you enjoy your hallucinations, but don't mistake them for reality, and don't try to tell us that they actually accord with reality, because they don't.
I refer you again to the caption of the cartoon in the post to which you are responding: "Fundamentalist: A religious person whose faith is strong enough to overcome even evidence". Sound like anyone you know?
Damn! I am "enjoying" the after effects of a Rhinovirus.
You are always welcome to join the party. Your posts are always enjoyable to read.
You keep demanding. I keep telling you what's wrong with Evo and Darwin. You are so fixated.
Solution: Do your own research dear. You are the whiz bang so take a breath and plunge into the murky waters of Creation. Find out what the other side is saying yourself.
The cool thing about the Net is that it will be studied for the ages. For all we know, PH is Hovind! I mean, for most of us, this is an interesting debate, but as my Dad told me, in a pool parlor, some guys are playing for keeps. If you've got bills to pay, no telling what one is capable of.
How many witnesses have there been that have seen and bird evolve into a dinosaur or a fish evolve into a man?
How many? I gotta try that time travel machine you've got! Again, ignor my argument all you want, it doesn't change evolution into a factual occurance.
I don't ignore your arguments at all. I am just trying to correct your odd view of how science works, or should work.
There is no need for a well-supported theory, such as the theory of evolution, to rely only on personal observation. Its pretty tough to pinch a quark or to pick up a wavicle, but science has developed methods to deal with this kind of evidence. Evolution is no different.
From your posts you are obviously against the conclusions that science, particularly evolution, is reaching, and so have embarked on a personal crusade to destroy as much of it as you can--starting with evolution. But remember that the methods are the same in all of the fields of science. Evolution does not rely on a special, sneaky, secret method just to disparage Christian beliefs, as is often implied on these threads. It is science, and it goes where it goes--attempts to force it into specific directions will go where Lysenkoism went, down the dumper.
[Probably 60 posts behind now]
Feel free to point out where the linked essay is in error, if you think you can.
Only nincompoopish, gullible simpletons believe in the cult of evolution.
...and that doesn't count as an actual rebuttal or refutation. Do feel free to try again after you sober up.
700?
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.