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.”
Of course not. He only represents variation within the Batboy Kind.
What's an f.christian and what relevance it has to God's creation of all that it is?
"When evidence controverts an existing scientific theory the theory is refined in face of the new evidence and retested.
If the theory continues to be unable to account for the evidence a new model is created to account for it and that is tested."
Very nice and concise. If a theory cannot stand, it is replaced, such as the geocentric theory of planetary motion. It got so complicated, it had to go.
Oh, but I *have*. And so have many others. That's how we have arrived at the inescapable conclusion that there's no possible way that the features of the Grand Canyon could have been formed by any such deluge. But hey, feel free to "enlighten" us by explaining how delicate *raindrop imprints* on sand could have been left a thousand feet deep down in the middle of the Grand Canyon strata while being formed UNDERWATER by a raging torrent. This should be fun!
Here's some more for you to ponder:
Problems with a Global FloodIf you ever managed to resolve all of those apparently insurmountable problems for the creationist version of a flood scenario, feel free to come back and present us with the results of your research. Make sure that your thesis is consistent with the totality of the evidence, however, and not just one tiny corner of it in isolation while violating most of the rest (a common creationist tactic).Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood
Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?
Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust
Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust
What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?
Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory
Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood
The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce
The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See
Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood
Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?
Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model
Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood
While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing
More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology
Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood
But the deeper problem is that you still want the world without its Creator.
Wrong again.
I agree with you.
I also believe the "gnashing of teeth" won't be of regret ... but rather anger AT Him for their being so wrong.
Good grief, you try to make it sound as if the Pope and the Catholic Church reject the whole Bible...and that is certainly NOT, what this article you link to, states...
What I get from the article, is that the Catholic Church says that in, scientific, and secular matters, the Bible, as written today, may not be entirely accurate...it is a heck of a leap to go from that, to saying that the Pope and the Catholic church cannot make the claim(that you claim for yourself), that they believe the Bible, and believe Gods word to be true....
But you do seem to want to twist the meaning of this article to suit your own agenda...that is dishonest, at the very least...
No honest person would ever make the claim that one should 'read it and weep and if I have a problem with the Pope and the Catholic Church rejecting the Bible, I should take it up with them', based on this article...
This article addresses a very narrow scope of some things in the Bible...but in your way, you want to try to make everyone believe that the Pope and the Catholic Church reject the Bible, in its entirety...sure you did not say it that way, but you have made very broad, sweeping, generalizations which are untrue, hence are lies...You do go on at the end of your post to then say, well the Catholic church is teaching that 'some' things in the Bible are not true...but your earlier remarks are very general and broad sweeping, hinting that the Catholic Church rejects the whole Bible...I find this to be very dishonest on your part...
At the very least, you are twisting the truth to suit your purpose...and therefore I see dishonesty in you...just how I see it...
Other than your dislike for the Theory of Evolution and your belief that scientists' sole mission in life is to destroy religion, you've presented nothing. You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but they don't count for much in science.
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.
Been there, done that, left a donation. It's still not science.
Mankind is only becoming more informed, and the nation's sub-100s can do nothing about it. In our children's lifetimes, scientists will have perfected cell regeneration at the molecular level, thereby practically ensuring super-extended lives. They will look on us with pity.
Nothing the Cleti do will set back this advancement - best to make hay while the sun shines.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Stop it! You almost made me pee in my pants on that one!!! LOL!!!
"This is circular reasoning----get the drift?
Science assumes that it will be able to measure, analyze, and draw conclusions. The sciences of evolution are not trying to prove that anything is 'natural', they are simply trying to learn as much about our world as possible within the constraints the natural world provides. The only way you can state that science is begging the question is if you do not understand the methods and goals of science.
If you are really concerned with 'origins' I suggest you take your concerns to Cosmologists and the Chemists and Biochemists studying abiogenesis rather than biological scientists.
"Evos have decided that undermining Christian origin beliefs is their primary mission."
That is, in fact, their only intent. Thank God there are so few of them and so many of us.
This is a nice way to spend a Saturday nite...the hubby is watching football, I am supposed to be decorating the kitchen Christmas tree...but this thread is more fun, so I will stay and drink more and enjoy the shenanigans on this thread...its really immensely informative and quite entertaining...
OK, here is a flood story for you.
I am an archaeologist with 35 years of experience in the western US. I have been in a lot of sites all over the west, but there is no evidence for a "global flood."
Rather, there is evidence for continuity--uninterrupted--of Native American populations for thousands of years.
A flood of this magnitude would be noticed! We have a "little" flood in eastern Washington, resulting in the Channeled Scablands, but that's just a leaky faucet compared with the "global flood." And we can see it just fine-we can define its boundaries, time periods, and cause. The global flood should have been much easier to find.
On the other hand, we have residential sites with continuous occupation on both sides of the dates suggested for the flood--continuous faunal and floral evidence, continuous population and cultural development, and continuous mtDNA on both sides of the dates generally given for the flood.
If you are privy to some evidence to the contrary, please share it.
If it is your belief you are relying on, fine. But don't confuse your belief with scientific evidence.
Or the "church of lie your way into heaven".
Glad to be at this party...its really moving at a fast pace...gotta keep up...
Definitely agree about science being constrained. That is why evolution - or the latest edition of it - should be taught alongside other interpretations of origins of life.
No one version should hold exclusive rights to the classroom.
If you point to me to the essay, I shall read it and report. What essay are you talking about?
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.