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.”
Even if he did, that's not what you initially claimed. You called evolution an "idiot theory" and you said that it was designed to "disprove the Bible". Retroactively changing your claim now is fundamentally dishonest.
Indeed -- Jorge's dishonest backpedaling is duly noted.
If I wish all you evolutionists a Merry Christmas, will you wish me the same? I mean, afterall, most of you profess to be Christian too.
Merry Christmas
"Can you support your "opinion" with evidence?"
No. It's still an opinion. No evidence as of now.
Time for me to hit the hay too.
If I wish all you evolutionists a Merry Christmas, will you wish me the same?
As for myself, I already did in post #847.
"Why should we believe you when you present nothing to support your claims?"
Hey, I'm just a beginner here. Give me some time before I can support my opinions. You'll never know, I may move into the evolutionst cult camp when I'm finished reading and researching.
Regarding your post #899...There are too many self-professed Christians(they are great Christians, just ask them they will tell you they are)who try to claim that they and their own personal interpretations of the Bible, are the only 'truth' of the Bible, and anyone who has a different interpretation cannot be a true Christian...I find that whole scenario to be ugly, and demeaning...and yes, 'bad'....its no longer a matter of having a disagreement, its a matter of trying to absolutely discredit someones faith, and they do it in the most vile manner...so yes, that is very 'bad'...there is a way to discuss religion, without calling people names, and telling them that their religion is from the Devil...
In my book, you cannot be a true Christian and act this way...These self professed Christians claim to have a higher moral standard than other people, but it seems they dont think that they have to live up to it, when they lie...the Bible is very explicit about liars...the Bible says that Satan is the father of liars...its almost as if an evolutionist should lie, thats to be expected by creationists, because of course, evolutionists have no moral standard, not like us Christians...but continually and knowingly making statements that are false, and then somehow justifying that by claiming, well, we are lying for God, so we will be excused, does not jive with the Bible...
Thats as good as I can explain it...
>Huh?
Hey, you're the one who brought homosexuality into this. I guess what you're really trying to say is that God isn't all-powerful.
Where in the Bible does it say evolution isn't true? It says God only used six days in the first chapter, but it also says He created plants and animals before man in the first chapter and He created man first in the second chapter. Which is it? They can't both be the literal word of God, since they contradict each other. Instead, they are both descriptions of why rather than how, and evolution is our best understanding of how.
Indeed, ,this Christian also wishes everyone a good nites sleep, and a very Merry Christmas...
Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
No. I think he has a problem with G-d.
Maybe one day you'll start reading the New Testament. In the meantime, I hope you eat your steaks well done.
Seeing as you guys are such experts on the subject, list them yourself.. or are you yet another who stands on the street throwing dirt at something he hasn't even bothered see for himself - another armchair superior intellect sitting above it all scoffing from ignorance.. The videos are free. Please tell us you have a clue. I'd hate to see you guys show yourselves ignorant prejudicial jackboot drones marching to some script cause you can't think for yourselves...
Apparently you are as ignorant about Spirit lake as you are about Hovind. "gullies in ash.." You're either ignorant of your subject or a liar. The vast mudflows in the aftermath of the eruption may have included ash; but, they were hardly 'ashflows' as you would profer in ignorance. Go learn something and come back when you know what you're talking about. Don't waste our time pontificating from ignorance.
So Hell is Alaska in the wintertime?
<sigh> just keep reading, Jenny. Just keep reading... :-)
When you are standing before God, and he says, "Why did you believe a book written by your less knowledgeable ancestors over the evidence of origins I left all around you?", don't come whining to me.
Thanks for posting # 622 as a reminder. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Hovind could be hauled off in cuffs by the IRS and these guys would still defend him.
A pity. A pity which shows your contempt for learning and evidence and your desire to avoid learning anything that might disturb your comfortable belief about the special place in creation that you and a few others who think like you occupy. Ichneumon's science posts are jam-packed full of interesting information and physical evidence. I can see why you'd skip them.
You evidently don't, which is your misfortune.
As explained previously (and I'll try to use simple words so you can understand it this time), this is known as loss leader marketing materials. Hovind makes his profit on the back end from the sheep who believe his bilge and then pay for his speeches, entry into his bible theme park, donate money to him, etc. As also explained previously (see post # 622 for a link to a related story), the IRS has found that Hovind has been making in excess of $ 1 million per year and not paying taxes. Care to explain why he's not rendering unto Caesar?
YAAFM
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.