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.”
Out of a fairy tale?
Times change and labels do too.
Is that that Costco stuff?
;-)
Nope, nice try. Try again when you've acquired an education on the topic you're attempting to critique.
It's part of their belief of the origin of life.
Not at all. See above.
They believe that life happened out of nothing. Nothing from nothing gives you nothing.
Wow, you're *really* unclear on this whole biology thing, aren't you? No, life did not begin from "nothing", it began from existing matter, via the existing laws of reality.
You know, most of the posters on FR, who have come down on the side of teaching ID alongside of evolution in school, have said that they dont necessarily want it said that the 'Christian God' is the designer, but rather that there is just a designer...but the two of you, very clearly from your postings, would seem to want the designer be designated as the 'Christian God'....as you seem to believe, that those who believe in evolution have only one intent, and that would be to undermine Christian origin beliefs...so even among IDers and creationists there is a real split between those who want a generic designer designated, and those who want the Christian God as designer...
And you are quite deluded and uninformed if you think that Iders/creationists outnumber those who believe in evolution..evey poll I have seen on this subject, shows that in the great majority, people believe in evolution when the only other choice given in ID...
What believers in ID with the Christian God as designer cannot grasp, is that most of those who say they believe in evolution also believe in the Bible...so the tactic of calling everyone who believes in evolution an atheist is a rather stupid, and empty tactic...of course, then you can go off on a tangent, and say that those who believe in evolution cannot possibly really believe the Bible(like you, with your supposed superior knowledge do)...I guess you have to say that, to give yourself some comfort, knowing that millions and millions of people do believe in the truth of the Bible, and do believe in evolution...
Saying that those who believe in evolution are very small in number is a laughable remark, and also I suppose what you have to tell yourself...but that does not make it so, ,and every poll done shows that you are completely wrong...
Ok.
Thanks.
It is apparent to many Christians that the so called "science" of evolution is not applying to itself what you say it should, that is "adjusted to accommodate the (new) theory"
From fraud - The Great Piltdown Hoax - to a host of egregious practices and coverups - the scientific world is gradually retreating into a corner...and then lashing out at those who would dare question its methods and absolutism.
What Christians want is not the destruction of science or the scientific method - after all it was the coming of Christinity that unleashed the freedom of inquiry - but rather the breakup of conformist evolution---allowing a breath of fresh air into the discussion of origins and life on earth and the untethering of human origins to Darwin's ill formed theories.
I probably missed those, although I must admit, I never quite took him seriously. He must have posted something offensive enough to get himself banned, but I didn't see it.
The method I described created the computer and telecomminications technology that allowed you to reply to me..
If that offends you, chuck your computer in the trash.
BTW the hallmark of honesty is the willingness to alter your way of viewing the world based on new experience.
Science doesn't force the shoe to fit the foot. It makes a new shoe. That's called progress.
LOL!!
The Catholic Church (the only game in town for over 1000 years) was the greatest impediment to human progress in the history of mankind.
They seemed to have passed that baton on to others now.
Are you doubting the label of Bacchus?
Ok.
Thank you.
Must have skipped 540 in order to catch up.
I'll read it when I have time.
No, but it means that the pills I took to counteract the Rhinoid are about to put me to sleep.
Polls polls polls....Yeah...well all right. Polls don't matter when it comes to what is right. But your "poll research" doesn't fly anyway...
A recent poll conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University finds
(quoting below):
* When asked to choose from statements representing the three main theories of the origin of biological life,
42 percent said that the "creationist" view --- that God directly created biological life in its present form at one point in time --- was closest to their own views about life's origin.
Twenty-six percent selected a statement representing "intelligent design" --- that biological life developed over time from simple substances, but God guided this process.
Another 17 percent chose a view reflecting evolution --- that biological life developed over time from simple substances, but God did not guide this process.
* Regardless of their personal views about the origin of life, almost half of those surveyed --- 47 percent --- believe that a combination of theories should be taught in the public schools, while 21 percent believe creationism should be the only theory taught, 15 percent believe that evolution should be the only theory taught, and 5 percent believe that intelligent design should be the only theory
taught. Of those who feel that a combination of theories should be taught in public schools, 59 percent believe that students should receive instruction on all three theories.
(Margin of error +/- 3 percentage points.)
Full press release (including much more detail, including the specific questions asked) at:
http://www.vcu.edu/uns/Releases/2005/oct/102405a.html
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.