Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

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.

No debate challengers

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.”


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.

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.”

No truths in textbooks

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?”

Faith, not science

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.”

Debate offer still stands

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.”

Make it visible

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.”


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: antisciencetaliban; clowntown; creatidiot; creationisminadress; crevolist; cultureofidiocy; darwindumb; evolution; fearofcreation; fearofgod; goddooditamen; hidebehindscience; hovind; idiocy; idsuperstition; ignoranceisstrength; keywordwars; lyingforthelord; monkeyman; monkeyscience; scienceeducation; silencingdebate; uneducatedsimpletons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 2,121-2,129 next last
To: Stultis
Like most other creationists, and as the Bible multiply and affirmatively asserts, God himself "formed" your children in the womb. And yet I'm sure that you have no objection to human embryology and development being taught matter of factly as a natural biological process in textbooks. (At least, having long followed the antievolution movement, I'm not aware of a single such objection ever having been raised.)

Yes, that is true, but a 5 week child in the womb is still a human ableit a smaller one :-) Actually childbirth from a Biblical perspective is a result of the fall and was not the original way God formed man. 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

321 posted on 12/17/2005 11:47:07 AM PST by happyhomemaker (That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
You're probably right. Tell you what. Let's end this debate right here. I'll take your word over the word of Sir Frances Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur. What did they know about science anyway?

Well the first two had no opportunity to either agree or disagree with the theory of evolution. So your point is?

322 posted on 12/17/2005 11:47:30 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I agree that I did not type the end quote ("...."), but it was not my quote. That is all.

Thanks, Thatcherite.


323 posted on 12/17/2005 11:48:06 AM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: All
Some amusing Hovind material:

Introduction of Dr. Kent Hovind and his Creation Seminar. A few "chapters," all hilarious. That "Dr." title is fraudulent.
Stupid Dino Tricks: A Visit to Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land .

324 posted on 12/17/2005 11:49:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
Thanks, Thatcherite.

That's OK.

325 posted on 12/17/2005 11:49:55 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
I'll take your word over the word of Sir Frances Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton...

And tell me, what was Aristotle's view of Einstein? Augustine's of Aquinas? What an inane comment.

326 posted on 12/17/2005 11:50:02 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

You left out Louis Pasteur.


327 posted on 12/17/2005 11:52:28 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Ah, the old creationist tactic of appealing to the creationist beliefs of scientists who died before Darwin was even born as if that somehow cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

I mean, really, I know that you don't have any honest arguments, but could you come up with something slightly less blatant?
328 posted on 12/17/2005 11:53:35 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
"...but you're lying if you suggest that there's any direct evidence of him outside of the New Testament."

Never read any of Tacitus's work I presume.

Also the Romans would have just loved to romanticize a figure like Jesus Christ and written volumes upon volumes about His life and pursuit contrary to the Roman ways. [Extreme Sarcasm towards the historically challenged]
329 posted on 12/17/2005 11:53:54 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
XS> Nominally Christians. Surely not a follower of the Christ.

AK> So again, you're saying the Pope is not a Christian?

319 posted on 12/17/2005 12:47:00 PM MST by Alter Kake

Let's see does he believe in and follow the Holy Word of G-d?

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.

b'shem Y'shua

330 posted on 12/17/2005 11:55:23 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
You left out Louis Pasteur.

Because unlike Bacon and Newton, he actually lived after the Theory of Evolution was first drawn up which means he could conceivably be used as the genesis for an argument. Regretably, however, he wasn't a creationist.

331 posted on 12/17/2005 11:55:58 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
And tell me, what was Aristotle's view of Einstein?

Speaking of Einstein. Isn't he the one who said, "God does not roll dice with the universe."?

Einstein was around after evolution was proclaimed wasn't he? And Einstein was a scientist wasn't he?

332 posted on 12/17/2005 11:56:17 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
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.

The Pope sheds blood? Have you thought about notifying the Rome Police Force?

333 posted on 12/17/2005 11:57:06 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Read the post prior to posting.


334 posted on 12/17/2005 11:58:06 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
I wasn't referring specifically to that post. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.

I was referring to maniacs like you in general. How's that?

335 posted on 12/17/2005 11:58:30 AM PST by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Speaking of Einstein. Isn't he the one who said, "God does not roll dice with the universe."? Einstein was around after evolution was proclaimed wasn't he? And Einstein was a scientist wasn't he?

Oh sure he was. Now tell me: what was the context of that statement? Was Einstein referring to evolution? Please try not to be dishonest. You know as well as I that Einstein was no creationist.

336 posted on 12/17/2005 11:58:51 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I see potential here, but I'm waiting for a real gem:

Einstein was around after evolution was proclaimed wasn't he? And Einstein was a scientist wasn't he?
332 posted on 12/17/2005 2:56:17 PM EST by Texas Eagle

337 posted on 12/17/2005 11:59:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
"I'll take your word over the word of Sir Frances Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur. What did they know about science anyway?"

A lot more than you.

BTW, was this supposed to be a list of anti-Darwinians? If so, Bacon and Newton died long before the theory was formulated. And Pasteur was not against evolution.
338 posted on 12/17/2005 11:59:39 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

"Einstein was around after evolution was proclaimed wasn't he? And Einstein was a scientist wasn't he?"

He was also an evolutionist.


339 posted on 12/17/2005 12:00:18 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi; Alter Kaker
Never read any of Tacitus's work I presume.

I have. And considering that Tacitus was born twenty years or so after the Crucifixion, that's hardly "direct evidence".

340 posted on 12/17/2005 12:01:16 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 2,121-2,129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson