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.”
So there were no atheists before Darwin?
No, that's mutation. You have an incomplete fossil record, just because there is "similarities" does not mean evolution has occured.
Evolution is indeed a fact.
You're making my point everso clear. When layman think of evolution they think species change. Fish to man stuff. And that is not fact and you know it, and to assert such, is nothing more than deception. The fossil record is not conclusive. Just because some branches of science WISHES it to be so doesn't mean it is.
When you show me a conclusive species change, ONE KIND to ANOTHER KIND, then you might have a point, until then all your doing is speculating...
I have yet to see any specific argument presented by you or any of your fellow believers that shows how the evidence runs counter to the ToE.
The evidence is you can not show, recreate, or point to a valid species change...It's all conjecture.
There's your argument.
Hang around the CREVO threads a while, and you'll realize Creationista do this a lot. It seems to be an obsession of theirs. We don't know why they do it, but have learned to tolerate it. It's not their worst flaw.
You can't say something is fact when indeed it's speculation like evolution. People agree on what they see all the time, but it doesn't mean their conlusion is FACT! In fact there is plenty of reason to believe evolution is a huge deception or illusion. When you have science making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT then it's not true science in the first place...Maybe you're the one with the odd view.
At least 60 behind! ;-)
Because they like using the liberal/dem tactic of attacking the messenger because they know his theories get people thinking about the huge holes in the ToE...
I'll admit it could be the other way around, but it doesn't negate the fact your statement demonstrates your complete ignorance of the "issue."
You're just SO smart!
"When you have science making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT then it's not true science in the first place..."
Like the existence of subatomic particles? Or how about this, like the story of a world wide flood? Tell me you have seen that happen.
Pot calling the kettle black.
I truly appreciate your posting a NOVEL, however it doesn't change the construct that TOE is only speculation.
You keep showing me little bits of evidence, but never the actual event, so therefore, speculation. I know you scientist can't stand being told you're not only wrong, but being lied too and deceived, is hard to take, but if you'd get your head out of your asses long enough to take a look at reality then maybe you'd get a clue...until then, keep playing with your little conjectures by calling them facts, and I'll keep informing people about the lie that's being perpetrated on society.
And plenty of people both believe in God and evolution. So your point is...?
Obviously! Just stop being duped by an illusion will ya...It's really easy to get sucked into the cult of ToE.
Which of the following do you consider to be not "only speculation"?
Please explain the difference between the evidence that supports the above and the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Have you or anyone else ever seen an electron? Have you or anyone else visited another solar system to verify that the stars aren't just a painted backdrop a few million-miles away?
All of modern science is based on inferential evidence, and particularly on successful predictions of what will be found in the field that are made using scientific theories. Here are some made using the theory of evolution. If you want to insist on only using science that relies on direct observations of the theorised phenomena then best throw away the computer that you are sitting at, as the engineers who built it made copious use of scientific theories for which the only evidence is indirect and inferential, and that evidence is no more directly based than the vast avalanche of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
See, I have to stop right here, because I believe there is plenty of evidence of a Global Flood, I'll admit, I look at the evidence and BELIVE it to be so. The Salt Lake, Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, all the oceans, almost every culture speaks of a flood...Plus the eye witness accounts in the bible. (There I admitted it!)
So your 35 years of ignoring evidence doesn't mean there is none. I love how you evo's pick and chose your evidence...it's laughable!
Nice try! No, these stories are all about a Global Flood, not local...
Right, I'm not sure what you're responding too.
I can cite a lot of creation myths from different cultures that involve creation occuring via two gods mating. Does that mean it must be true?
Maybe the global flood was just a big wet patch.
"You punk kids think you've see a flood. Why back when I was a lad we had a huge Flood which drowned everything" 
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.