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 about 100 anti-Evos who participated in the poll, only two engaged in massive fraud. But the most disturbing part of the story is that the remainder of their fellow ant-Evos never condemned them for their fraudulent behavior after it was exposed, AFAIK. That's even more disturbing than the 2% who were outright frauds.
The willingness of people, who purport to be deeply religious, to tolerate dishonesty among their own ranks is both inexplicable and appalling.
I take it you don't believe in Him?
I take it you have read too much into that sentence, and may well have missed the point to boot.
Here's a big giggle for ya, since you didn't have the decency to post the outcome. The IRS returned the 3 cars it seized.
You believe your own personal interpretation, you dont have the exclusive corner on what everything in the Bible means...all you have is your own very personal interpretation, which is all any of us have...I have mine, you have yours, the guy down the street has his, the President has his, and not one of us, can prove this his personal interpretation is the right one...not to the satisfaction of others who believe differently...
You believe one way, many others believe differently...to you, what you believe is the truth, to others what they believe is the truth....and that is the way it is...
Go to bed..it's been a long day arguing with those darned Creationists.
Thanks! And to you.
"You believe one way, many others believe differently...to you, what you believe is the truth, to others what they believe is the truth....and that is the way it is..."
No, that's the way evolutionists would like it to be - ie, to see Christianity fragmented. That is the whole purpose of these crevo threads.
Notice how much it takes to refute one of my arguments...a zillion words...of mostly extracted copied and modified rubbish.
Hey whatever gets you thru the night...
People can CLAIM they believe the Bible, but when they discard parts of it, they can not be said to actually believe it. And if the don't believe it, but keep claiming that they do, they're just plain old Schizophrenics or maybe just drunks.
"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."
A fool and Ichneumon are soon parted.
I believe in organized religion.
Did they take a personal check for the ten grand, or did you have to get a certified one?
OH, you are pathetic...first of all I am not Catholic, nor defending the Catholic Church...I was responding to what I felt was dishonesty from you...
Do you think having drink is sinful?...if so, you are really a very sad person..
For your information, I almost never drink any kind of liquor...we happened to be having some eggnog, and just put in a little brandy and so I decided to have a 2nd eggnog, and stay a little while longer on this thread...
And now, you are accusing me of being a drinker? Oh, thats rich...my husband and son would have a great laugh at your expense...this is probably about the 5th drink I have had this year...so you are obviously fond of making things up about people without any information...very interesting for someone who claims he believes in a Bible...You made no inquiries as to if I was drunk, or how many drinks I had....again, is having a drink a sin to you?...because if so, you are a sad, pathetic person...
Figures? you say...what does that imply?..that only someone drinking could defend the Catholic Church...that seems to be what you are saying...do you hate the Catholic Church?..because you sure sound like you do...
I said in an earlier post that I did not know your background but I would assume that the Pope has much more Biblical knowledge than you do...now I am sure, that I was right...
"People can CLAIM they believe the Bible, but when they discard parts of it, they can not be said to actually believe it. And if the don't believe it, but keep claiming that they do, they're just plain old Schizophrenics or maybe just drunks."
.............................................
Well said. Are you listening Mumsie?
"mostly extracted copied and modified rubbish"
LOL - did you bother to read the information Ichneumon posted? I for one have never seen so much "copied and modified rubbish" as the mindless crap cranked out by creationists. Pot, meet kettle.
Show me a virulent anti-evo, and I'll show you an authoritarian blowhard. It never fails with these folks; sooner or later their bizarre obsession to control the behavior of others rears it's ugly head. Whether it's jamming non-science into biology classes or disapproving of you having an eggnog with liquorous spirits in it (Oh! the horor!), these self-appointed busy-bodies will not stop sticking their noses into your business.
Christianity is already fragmented...dont believe it?...just go on any religious thread on FR and watch all the bickering and name calling and such that goes on on all those religious threads...and evolution has nothing to do with it...
Everyone on those religious threads come from different religions or no organized religions and they argue constantly about what a word or a phrase means, or what religion is wrong or right, and on and on and on...
So evolution has to do nothing to fragment Christianity...its obviously been fragmented for a long time, and appears to continue its fragmentation, because even 'Christians' cannot agree...
You bury your head in the sand if you think evolution has anything to do with fragmenting Christianity...I lurked on the FR religious threads long before I lurked on the evo threads, and the antagonism on those threads was everywhere...
So dont blame evolution...Christianity fragment has been caused by the very Christians who claim they know the clear truth of the Bible, to the exclusion of everyone else...
What's really fun is when one of the religion forum regulars pop over to criticize the tone on the crevo threads, which they do from time to time. Talk about pots and kettles - that place is a snake pit...
Oh, so now you are a doctor deciding who is a Schizophrenic..creationists acting as if they are doctors seems to be a new trend...first prescribing meds, and now making a diagnosis...is this a trend?
Are you calling me a drunk?...because if you are, you are a liar, ,and you are bearing false witness...which would show, ,that perhaps you dont believe parts of the Bible either...
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.