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.”
Santa
"Your standard for "proof" is way too low. Try again next millennium."
Most idiotic, indeed.
Between you creating existing matter and God creating it, I'll pick God. I'm sure most non-idiotic people would also pick God.
LOL!
That's, oh so typically stupid of you. Between me and your god, I am the only one who is real.
"They came from the same place as the always existing deity many people believe in. "
I take it you don't believe in Him?
So IF it is the "always existing deity many people believe in", is there some reason why what He says isn't true? Such as creating all we see and don't see in 7 literal 24 hour days? If these people can believe He always existed, why can't they also believe what He states about what He created and how He created it?
Oh, the two characters involved were much too brazen to bother trying to change their identities; they just banged away at the VOTING button hundreds of times to queer the poll in favor of the anti-Evos. When their excess votes were detected, and subsequently subtracted from the totals, the results showed Evos outnumbered anti-Evos by a 2:1 margin here on FR.
Well, obviously from the way you act, you are not interested at all in a discussion, but want to act like a little baby...grow up...and get some reading comprehension skills while you are at it...
The poll you cited certainly does not show what you claim it shows...what it shows is that 42 percent believe in a strictly creationist view, that God created things exactly as they are now...26 percent say that they believe God started things but things evolved along biological lines, directed by God(but still a belief in evolution)...and 17 percent believed in evolution along biological lines without a creator or designer...so add it up...26 percent plus 17 percent equals 43 percent...evolution about equal with creationist...which square with the conclusion given, that there is not a clear cut majority on what people favor(which does contradict what I have read in earlier polls), but nevertheless is much more believeable than the assertion that creationists outnumber evolutions...
And that is it for me tonite...arguing with folks who want to act like little bitty babies is boring and tiring...
And the point of mentioning the creationists skewing a poll, is that creationists like to boast of what great Christians they are(while patting themselves on their own backs)...great Christians indeed...skewing a poll is lying...now creationists often holler and scream and hold their breath until they are red in the face about the evos lying...and then they act as if this is par for the course, because of course the evos dont believe in God, have no moral compass, and therefore lying comes easy to them...I have seen that sentiment posted enough times...
The point about the creationists lying on a poll, to skew things their way, is that they enjoy and take great pride in their 'Christianity', yet will 'lie', their 'lying for God' mode...seems that they forgot all about the Bible stating that God hates liars, as Satan is their father...And you yourself make a joke out of that...that alone, speaks volumes about you, something for the lurkers to take note of...I imagine the creationist thinking goes something like this:
Evos lying...Oh thats to be expected, as they have no moral compass to rely on...They are nothing but Godless people and so will go to hell....
Creationists lying...oh, excuse us, we are lying for God, Hes so weak we need to lie for Him so we get a pass...we can go straight to Heaven...
And I suppose those two characters self labeled themselves as professed Christians, all the while lying and lying over and over again, and then boasting about it...'lying for God' seems to be a great excuse...
Hey, now! At least they haven't threatened to track us down and beat us up.
On this thread anyway.
And I am glad to see that the evos outnumber the anti-evos by a 2:1 margin, here on FR...that is encouraging...
They were well-known anti-Evo posters here on FR; their IP addresses gave them away; the poll website logged all the votes and IP addresses, and when one IP address showed up casting something like 900 votes for "Creationism" and another IP address had several hundred votes for it, it was pretty obvious that two people hadn't taken their "honesty pills" that morning....
Some of these folks get so nasty and worked up, that it would not surprise me at all, if violence was threatened...scarey...
"I hear, there was even a poll done here on Fr, ,which showed as you have asserted, ,until someone did a very thorough researching job, and found out that the poll, even on FR, was skewed because two Creationist posters, took on several identities, and tried, to skew the poll.."
Poll spamming on FR? Tell me it isn't true!!!
Internal Poll Freeping. Isn't that like peeing in your own bathwater. If so don't suck on the face cloth.
G'night Mommy. Don't forget to take your Ambien.
Aw heck, honesty did not matter...'lying for God' was more prominent in their minds...as if God needs some piddley little weak minded human to defend Him...God does fine, without someone lying with the false claim that they are defending him...by their lying, ,they showed who they really belonged to...
Hey Andy's mom, like I said, if you have a problem with the Catholic church rejecting the bible, or PARTS OF IT, take it up with them, not screech at me.
I KNOW that I believe it, front to cover, without apology.
The RCC knows that it doesn't.
Oh, so now you are a doctor?
It's interesting to note that someone defending the RCC rejecting the Bible is the one drinking.
Figures.
Heavens! I struck a nerve.
Behaving like a loon and spewing falsehoods has a tendency to do that.
Piltdown---No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject (as per Muggeridge's "The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.)
Another blatant creationist falsehood! You're on a roll!
Now the big question is, did you *know* you were posting a falsehood, or were you just gullible enough to actually trust in the reliability of a creationist source?
[From: Piltdown Man]So no, there were not "500 doctoral theses" on Piltdown. There may not even have been *any*. It's just yet another example of a creationist falsehood that one creationist fabricates, and then dozens repeat it uncritically without having any clue whether it's accurate or not -- as you have done here.
500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man
This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet "Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers (1981) makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's Bones of Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500 doctoral dissertations but does not give a source.
This claim is clearly in error. When one considers the small number of PhD's in paleontology being granted currently and the even smaller number 80 years ago and the diversity of topics chosen for PhD theses a figure of half a dozen seems generous; in all probability there were none whatsoever. John Rice Cole notes that in the 20s there were about 2 dissertations per year in physical anthropology in the entire US on ANY topic.
Robert Parson made a systematic search of the bibliographies of The Piltdown Forgery by Weiner, The Piltdown Inquest by Blinderman, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery and The Piltdown Papers by Spencer, The Antiquity of Man (1925) and New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man (1931) by Sir Arthur Keith. Spencer and Keith's works have extensive references and bibliographies of the primary research literature. There are no references to any doctoral dissertations. Likewise Millar's bibliography contains no references to any doctoral dissertation.
It is not clear whether this claim is a simple fabrication or whether it is an erroneous transcription from another source. In the introduction to The Piltdown Men (1972), Millar says "it is estimated that some five hundred essays were written about [Piltdown man]".
There have been more than 500 *articles* on Piltdown, sure, but the vast majority have been about the *debunking* of the hoax, not (as you falsely imply) by scientists falling all over themselves attesting to its validity.
Have you no shame?
How about Orce Man --first human..then not human.
How about it? It's a fragment of bone small enough that opinions differ on what it might be. Is *this* the best you can come up with? Yeah, I guess it is!
If you're trying to imply that this is some sort of "hoax", since that's what you've been lamely trying to accuse biologists of allegedly doing on a regular basis, then this is yet *another* lie from you, because there's no indication that it's a hoax in any way, it's just a hard-to-identify bone. Some researchers feel it might possibly be hominid, some feel it may be equid. Where's the "hoax"? Oh, right, there isn't any. Did you have some sort of point to make, or did you just want to make slanderous implications with no shred of justification? If so, that would be called "lying".
More dissertations.
Name a single dissertation on the Orce fragment. We'll wait. Oh, there *aren't* any? Then you're lying.
More PhD's out there teaching numbskulls this mind numbing rubbish.
Please document a single case of any PhD anywhere teaching that the Orce fragment is conclusively a hominid. We'll wait. Until then, it's clear that you're just lying again.
The fraud list goes on...
No, actually, it doesn't, as made entirely clear by your scraping the very bottom of the barrel in order to have a dishonest excuse to list a NON-FRAUD as an alleged example of the "gosh too many to list" frauds you falsely claim evolutionary biology is riddled with. STOP LYING, it only makes you look like a scumbag.
it's really funny how so called "scientists" have for so long been able to demand respect from the general population of uneducated serfs. Fortunately, right wing radical Christians have stormed the walls of imperious sceence. The walls are coming down like Jericho's.
Let me know when you're finished ranting, and are able to either a) support your false accusations, or b) are willing to become an honorable person and retract your falsehoods.
Also, you could do us all a favor and explain to us why creationists are such unabashed liars. I've never been able to figure out why, but almost every one I've ever had a conversation with lied repeatedly and often, and never showed any shame when caught at it.
Here are just a few hundred creationist falsehoods for you:
Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
(Quick aside -- eleni121, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)
This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here.
eleni121, do you condone all *those* creationist misrepresentations of the evidence, and their misquotations of what scientists have actually said?
So keep telling lies about science, eleni121 -- it'll make it *very* clear to the lurkers which side is *actually* the one that engages in falsehoods, frauds, and misrepresentations.
Hardly a ripple, if that.
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.