Posted on 04/08/2006 7:15:09 PM PDT by balrog666
Following up on my previous post about how creationists suffered a few setbacks, this news has also come to my attention: the creationist theme park Dinosaur Adventure Land, operated by the prominent evolution denier Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) and the Creation Science Evangelism ministry, has just been shuttered by the authorities. All of this arises from the church's building without a permit back in 2002. (Here's the ministry's own account of the situation.)
Links are at source.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.sciam.com ...
Even the folks at AIG have distanced themselves from Hovind.
Space Cadet Placemarker
Agreed. Some more controversial than others.
Dr. Dino is a perfect example of life imitating parody. (I've often wondered if he's really as dumb as he makes himself out to be, or if he's just a genuine con-artist who found an opportune niche.)
To their credit, most creationists I've encountered want nothing to do with this guy.
No, the evidence was there in many cases. But it took 50 years for the scientific community to change it's mindset and accept the evidence.
Write me in 50 years and we'll see if Darwin is on the trash heap of history as I project or not.
"There is only one forensic theory of life. No one has suggested an alternative narrative that can be researched."
I dissagree and have posted testable hypotheses of intelligent design before. Most scientific hypotheses in the fields of biology and medicine could be generated with neither evolution nor I.D. in existence.
Evolution may generate more hypotheses than I.D. does, but in many cases evolution has generated hypotheses that strongly influenced scientific thinking only for them to turn out to be dead wrong. Again, human vestigal organs and junk DNA are great examples of evolution generating scientific hypothesis and negatively impacting the sciences.
The shame of this is that he'll probably just use this incident to scam money from the gullible and from old folks on Social Security, for his "church."
I won't be around in fifty years, but I can say that I was reading anti-evolution crap 30 years ago that was making exactly the same claim. ID has been around in its current form for 200 years without doing any research or suggesting any research. It has to be the laziest movement in the history of thought.
Of course ID is compatible with medicine. It is compatible with any possible finding in science. But does it predict findings, such as the fossil fish recently discovered? Does it ever suggest going out an looking for a specific fossil type? Does it ever do any field research at all?
More importantly, does it ever suggest looking for natural pathways to complex structures? Does it ever propose possible pathways? Does it even want people looking?
Well "Doctor Dino", according to the original etymonolgy, means "Terrible Teacher".
Good catch! It's a shame that the only time truth comes out of these clowns' mouths is when it is unintentional.
Try building (without plans, permits, zoning, or deed clearance) an amusement park on your own private property. Or an airport. Or a 20-story building. Or ...
There are unincorporated areas of the country where you can build without a permit. They would be a bit off the tourist path, however.
This creationist book, from the 1920s, could just as well have been written yesterday. The nonsense never changes:
The Predicament of Evolution. Published 1925, the same year as the Scopes trial.
If you are content to stand on the sidelines and assert that science is finished and can go no further, I suppose you will sound the same from century to century. Emerson had something to say about that.
Or if you can't tell a fish from an orangutan...
If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that, with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution, he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side, — the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? He is a retained attorney, and these airs of the bench are the emptiest affectation. Well, most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right.Self Reliance.
Check out Hovind's reputation with other young earth creationists.LOL!I donno why, but that reminds me of something I saw on TV a couple of years ago. A big-time spammer got arrested for all kinds of frauds, and they interviewed another spammer who claimed to be a legitimate internet marketer. The "legit" guy said the was glad the other guy got arrested, because he was "giving the penis-enlargement industry a bad name."
I notice that both the AiG and Hovind agree, that its most likely that Darwin never recanted on his deathbed, and that the known evidence shows that Darwin never recanted on his deathbed...in fact, Hovind says, that he never recalls ever having used the 'recant' claim in his lectures, as he considers it to be untrue...Wow. It's not often that you can begin a retort to a creationist with "not even Kent Hovind believes that!"Yet, every once in a while, we have some FR 'expert', throw out that line, that "Darwin recanted"...
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.