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.”
At some stage presumably you'll make a post that demonstrates your high level of understanding. You're batting zero so far.
Sweetie, you think gluing moths on trees and changing their colors to try and prove evolution isn't a fraud?
Personally speaking I think it is much better to avoid the abuse button, and leave the hateful, mean-spirited lying nastiness of posters like Full Court there for all to see. They provide the best evidence of the kind of people who reject evolution, and their state of mind.
YOU are getting close to abuse, so watch it. The poster in question accused me of telling her what drugs to take and trying to act like a Dr. when I NEVER SAID ANYTHING AT ALL LIKE THAT.
Then she claimed I was not a Christian, while she bragged on drinking and derided my belief in the Bible.
Now, you want to hit abuse we sure can do it.
It might be a good exercise for the lurkers to try to see whom in this thread appears to be posting while drunk. Let them form their own conclusions.
Amen, leave my posts, because I know what I said. and I know what the other poster said. LET IT STAND.
She wants to attack me for believing the Bible and then claim I am not a Christian?? yeah, let that stand and then let your idiotic post stand trying to blame her vitriol on me.
Yeah baby, let it stand.
I skip them long posts because they're too long and with too many links, which makes it too arduous to follow this thread's posts.
I've been reading them this morning and this afternoon. Now I'll get to some of them links and read the info there.
Uffah!
I knew it was a mistake.
Mental Meltdown ALERT -- WARNING -- Meltdown in Progress!
I hope that even if you don't like the material in those posts that you find them interesting and informative.
Later.
First of all, as I told you last evening, there are no children here at all...my older boy, died more than 20yrs ago...my younger son is now 31, and living on his own in his own home...yet you continue to ignore what I have posted, and instead, good Christian that you are, continue to spread lies...
I was not drunk last nite, I am not drunk now, I have no children here at home, to drink in front of...You have made the claim that I am here in my home, drinking and drunk in front of my children...now, back up that statement with some proof...come one, lets see you produce some proof...
What truly boggles the mind, is that you have been told all of this last evening, and yet have ignored it, and continue to spread lies...You are a liar, you have proved that with your own mouth...
Anyone who lies such as you do, does not believe in all the words of the Bible...
You defend nothing but yourself, and your own personal interpretation of the Bible...God certainly does not need a liar, such as yourself, to defend Him...
I am quite glad that you posted your last rant to me...it shows everyone what a grand Christian you are...one who lies...
I've heard of 'guilt by association' but 'credentials by association'? Hmmmm.
And as I explained to you last nite, I did not say that you prescribed a drug for me...that was another creationist, and I also told you that last evening..apparently you chose not to read all the posts, that are posted to you, or your reading comprehension is really quite poor...
I am sorry about your kid. I guess the sharp pain is gone, but the ache must never go away? My children are 13 and 6. Though I'm an atheist I pray that I never have to go through what you must have gone through.
Let it go. No one cares what a creationist says. They're here for our amusement, and when they go postal -- as they often do -- it's best to leave them alone.
??????? Where are you getting the "changing their colors" bit?
No. Staging textbook photos, the only point of which is to illustrate relative degrees of crypsis (camouflage effect) is in no way, shape or form "a fraud". (Unless, of course, the photos were represented as being natural, which they weren't.)
The vast majority of textbook photos of insects are almost certainly staged. This doesn't matter unless you're trying to illustrate some natural behavior. The peppered moth photos didn't have anything to do with that. They were merely illustrating the morphological feature of coloring.
I genuinely don't understand the point of this outrage about the photos. It's really silly.
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.