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.”
And you think that important exactly why?
The IRS is always willing to return seized property if you cough up the cash instead. You know, the cash he owed because he hasn't filed federal income tax returns since 1989.
In fact, barring a showing that the lien didn't exist or there was some procedural or due process error in the seizure process, coughing up the cash is the ONLY way to get property back before it's sold.
The only outcome which will result in a giggle will be the incarceration of this clown in federal prison. Hopefully for at least 10 years.
You also made a ridiculous claim about 200 posts back about Hovind only taking in a million dollars over a period of 8 years.
Since your reading comprehension is so poor, I'll repeat again what IRS Special Agent Schneider said:
Since 1997, HOVIND has engaged in financial transactions indicating sources of income and has made deposits to bank accounts well in excess of $1,000,000.00 per year during some of these years which would require the filing of federal income tax returns.
Here's another clue for you. It doesn't matter what his expenses may have been, the requirement to file is based on gross income, period.
You may now resume making things up.
"Yes, can't risk having your thoughts contaminated by actual information..."
But I'm gonna go back to it tomorrow and next week to peruse and read at my pleaseure. What I meant is that it's diffucult to read the whole theng and keep pace with the posts.
It says to me that you're wrong.
Then show me where.
You can't do it.
Phoney.
>Just like God is powerful and loving enough to create homosexuals. Incredible!
I believe in evolution, so I'm gay. I remember using that argument years ago when playing kickball and arguing about foul balls, but by the time I was in middle school I had left that behind. Still, if that's all you have, I don't want to take it away from you.
[I don't know where you got that number]
You *really* need to work on your reading comprehension...
[OK. I admit that 1)I'm tired, and 2)I'm not the brightest bulb in the family. But what did I say that deserves of such a response?]
You said that you "don't know where I got that number", when I very plainly described where the number came from (and linked to the source) in the post (#864) I made less than an hour ago, and that I *know* you've read because you had responded to it...
I can't figure out how you could have read that post and *not* understood "where I got that number".
Quote from Darwin wherein he states that "Evolution is an idiot theory designed to disprove the Bible."
Darwin states that evolution is contrary to what the Bible teaches.
Please don't tell me that you are so uneducated on Darwin that I have to provide you with his quotes on this.
Huh?
"Quote from Darwin wherein he states that "Evolution is an idiot theory designed to disprove the Bible.""
If he did, I don't think he put it those terms. But it's a well known fact that Darwin had doubts about evolution as a theory of how life began.
"I can't figure out how you could have read that post and *not* understood "where I got that number"."
Ok, so the link at #864. But I've been skipping the long posts tonight, as I mentioned to you earlier. I honestly didn't see the link, or I would not have questioned your number.
Taken note of it's post #864. Shall read it tomorrow or next month...Too many assignments.
It was not you that tried to prescribe drugs, it was eleni121...she told me to take an ambien...my point, missed by you, was that two different creationists are now trying to act like medical doctors...
Just know this...if you claim that I am drunk, you will be bearing false witness...
===> Placemarker <===
"Evolution isn't a theory of how life began. Why would Darwin have doubts about his theory regarding claims that it does not even make?"
He did not make those claims because he knew nobody would believe him and his evolution theory. So, he conveniently did not make those claims that evolution does not help explain how life began for fear of being labeled a fake, a fraud and a charlatan, which he was, btw.
Does it make any sense, or is it getting too late for moi here?
That link is another humongous assignment. Uffah! I'll see which one I'll read first. All this evolution nonsense ought to keep me busy for a couple of years.
Anyone can claim that they have visions...There are all kind of scammers who claim that very thing...do I believe it? Not for a second...
Actually biology was one of my strongest subjects,
So I'm right, you didn't major in it.
and I got straight A's not only in College but also in High School.
Of course you did. And I'm frequently on the cover of GQ.
I love biology and bet I could run circles around you in any discussion on the topic.
Then go right ahead, show us what you've got. I'll try to keep up.
["I am an ex-evolutionists turned Christian."]
Somehow I doubt that.
[Who the hell cares what you "doubt".]
You obviously care enough to get ticked off about it.
You don't know me. You have never met me.
No, but I've met many who sound just like you, and I know how *those* discussions turned out, so I'm just going with the odds. Feel free to surprise me, though, I'll be as pleased as anyone if I turn out to be mistaken in my impression.
The idea that you chose to call people you know nothing about liars about their personal lives because they disagree with you shows how pathetically weak your arguments really are.
The idea that you can be so dense as to mistake my expression of doubt to be the same as "calling you a liar" shows how pathetically poor your reading comprehension is. Did you *really* get 4.0's in your classes dealing with language and verbal arts?
"Evolution is an idiot theory designed to disprove the Bible."
[Wrong, but thanks for playing.]
No. I'm Right.
Feel free to actually *support* your claim, instead of the bluster and giggling you've done so far.
And in fact Darwin agrees with me and said as much.
Oh, *this* should be fun. Go ahead and document your claim, son. You're not going to be so reckless as to tell us the old Lady of Hope lie again, are you? That one's so goofy that even AnswersInGenesis (a creationist organization) denounces it.
And, just what kind of idiot who allegedly had Biology as "one of his strongest subjects" would be so braindead as to think that even if Darwin *had* changed his mind, that it would in *any* way damage evolutionary biology? Science rests upon the evidence itself, not on who might or might not have doubts. Are you *sure* you've taken science courses? If so, you didn't learn much in them.
You do know who Darwin is don't you?
Yes, and I know him well enough to know that you're talking horse manure.
And by the way if you think people are going to bother reading the enormous volumes of reading material you posted, think again.
Lots of people have read it. If your attention span is too small, it's surprising you got through school with 4.0's. But hey, if Biology is actually one of your "strongest subjects", you should *know* all this material already, no need to actually read it. Just skim it to see what subjects I've covered, then write your rebuttal. Right? I mean, if you *are* actually the hotshot you claim you are...
If you can't make a short and to the point response to a post, nobody is going to waste their time mulling through huge reading assignments looking for information because you are not articulate enough to make your point.
What, you don't *know* this material already? Even though Biology is (you claim) "one of your strongest subjects?
But okay, here's the short version: The evidence for human/ape common ancestry is overwhelming, and independently cross-confirms across multiple lines of evidence. So where do you get off denouncing it as "transparently idiotic", without a *very* good explanation of where, exactly, those many lines of evidence and their attendant tens of thousands of research results are flawed, and why?
Come on, son -- if you're actually the "convert" from evolution to Christianity that you claim you are, you should be personally aware of plenty of material which describes what, exactly, you discovered to be wrong with the foundations of evolutionary biology. So let's see it.
Give us all a major break.
Just how young are you?
"No, he didn't make the claim because the process of evolution cannot explain the ultimate origin of life. It can only explain resulting diversity from existing life."
Why do I feel this Darwin character plagiarized God's work - ie the Bible?
"Your evidence for this assertion?"
It's my opinion tha he was. I mean, if I wrote, it must be MY opinion, right?
"It is very clear that you are quite willing to lie both about the theory of evolution and about Darwin."
I'm not liying, I'm just offering my educated opinion based on experience, research, educational backgroung and belief.
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.