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.”
Actually from only 5. Noah and his wife, and their daughters in law.
I've noticed that about you -- you're quite sticky, but not much of a drip. Sort of like ketchup with a thin veneer of honey.
Actually, he probably couldn't.
An enemy of Jack (headed for the lake-of-fire) Chick? Mom, you are hereby been declared to be under the special protection of Darwin Central. On your next visit to the Galapagos Islands, the Grand Master himself will be pleased to dine with you. He regards you as a pearl among the naturally selected.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
Yes. His characterizations do seem to stick.
Some Vicks VapoRub might help with that...
I mentioned it once, but I don't think antyone noticed
Seeing as you guys are such experts on the subject, list them yourself..
Your inability to support your own claim is duly noted.
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..
Your attempt to fling dung in a lame and transparent attempt to divert attention from the fact that you have run away from a request that you support your claim is duly noted.
The videos are free. Please tell us you have a clue.
Whether they're free or not, I'm not about to spend valuable time and energy doing YOUR homework for you.
Back when I watched several of Hovind's videos, I don't recall him ever giving "citations" in them. Vague hand-waving claims that someone, somewhere supports his bizarre claims is not the same as "citations". And I'm sure as hell not going to acquire the whole 12-volume set and wade through it just to see whether or not YOUR claim about the video holds water. I'm not doing YOUR homework for you.
But feel free to present these citations if you're able. If not, we'll just draw the obvious conclusions about you.
Meanwhile, for those who would like to vicariously "enjoy" Hovind's video series without having to waste a portion of your life watching them (and/or losing IQ points with each viewing), here's a hilarious blow-by-blow by a blogger who decided to watch them all and report on his experiences: The Hovind Files: Lying for Jesus .
I'd hate to see you guys show yourselves ignorant prejudicial jackboot drones marching to some script cause you can't think for yourselves...
No, I have no interest in following your example.
T>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.
955 posted on 12/18/2005 1:00:13 AM MST by Thatcherite (Evolutionists should be burned at the stake)
If you think you will be asked that question, then you are so lost that you think you are wise.
1Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Corinthians 1:19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the
intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." [Isaiah 29:14]
1Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the
philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Corinthians 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom
did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness
of what was preached to save those who believe.
1Corinthians 1:22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
1Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
1Corinthians 1:24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Corinthians 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and
the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
These are more like the questions you will be asked.
Have you been called by G-d?
b'shem Y'shua
This is the Internet, you can claim an advanced degree too.
Yes, actually, you *have* already seen Hovind caught lying. You were caught doing the same. Have you forgotten this post (reposted below)?
[Havoc wrote:] Beyond that, there are multiple dating systems that do not verify anything any more than they give any kind of accurate basis to judge a date on anything to begin with. When dating methods place skin on a beast 30k years apart from bone, that isn't substantiating anything, much less arguing for accuracy of the system.
Havoc is lying, and he knows it
A few days ago he made the same claim in this post on another thread:
"Nor can you account for how the sking of a beast could be dated 20k years apart from it's bones."I responded by pointing out that he was quite mistaken:The link was in my original response to him. It documents very thoroughly that Hovind's claim was false, by getting a copy of the source that Hovind *himself* cited in support of his claim, and quoting it to show that it SAID NO SUCH THING. The skin and the bones were dated to different eras, but that's no big surprise because they were FROM DIFFERENT FINDS -- not the same "beast" as Havoc falsely asserts."Sure I can, that's an easy one: THAT ISN'T TRUE EITHER. Creationist Kent Hovind was lying -- he falsely claimed that two different dates measured for TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS were from the same mammoth, when they were NOT."
And Havoc can't even claim to have not seen my exposure of his falsehoods, since he *responded* to it here at 12/20/2004 00:49:58 AM PST -- a few hours *before* he turned right around and made the same false claim *again* in this thread at 12/20/2004 4:18:07 AM PST in this post...
Havoc, would you care to explain why you're bearing false witness to your fellow Freepers?
The spirit of God is not within them. That deep spiritual void remains unfilled with God's truth.
[RunningWolf] Being as the Piltdown man hoax lasted for 40 years, It was a large piece of their theory.RunningWolf, you're making a big mistake by buying into the EVO BIG LIE that Piltdown Man was a hoax! It's the EVOLUTIONIST who spread the story that Piltdown Man was a hoax. Doesn't that tell you something???[Coyoteman] Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946).
This is what a 1946 textbook shows, several years before the claims for Piltdown were completely falsified. I could probably find an older textbook, but I think the point is made.
At first Piltdown Man seemed like great proof of evolution, but later on the evolutionist kept adding stuff to their story, and they wrote themselves into a corner, just like all incompetant fiction writer do. So they had to make Piltdown Man go away.
But they couldn't just ignore Him. After all, there were over 500 thesises written about him! So the evolutionist figured out a way to make him go away: They pulled a CLINTONIAN nuts & sluts defense (well, maybe not the sluts, just the nuts) and viciously smeared the original discoverers of the fossil. They measured some flourine, declared it to be incompatible with an old skull, and complained about Piltdown Man's teeth. And vwa-lah - a brilliant reverse-whammy HOAX was born!
The truth is that Piltdown Man is just an ancient human. NOT a missing link! And it doesn't fit in to the EVO's new storyline. So DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE IT GOES!!!
PLEASE do not fall into their trap. PILTDOWN MAN IS REAL!!!
Thanks to Longshadow for the nomination, and thanks to PatrickHenry for placing me under the special protection of Dawin Central...and we shall dine together on the Galapagos Islands...(since my hubby is newly retired, and we would like to see as much of this world as we can, a trip to the Galapagos is not out of the realm of possibility)
I should thank good old Jack Chick tho...it was because of him and his whining on another site, that I got banned...however, the moderator did realize their mistake and fully reinstated me...I however, did decline that dubious reinstatement...because any site, that takes the Jack Chick side, is not a site I want to be on...
But I thank Jack Chick, because after being banned, all those years ago, I looked around for another site to post on, and found FR, and found a home here, and never looked back...so see there, Jack Chick can do some good...
How was that for a thank you speech?
I've been saying that for a long time. Piltdown is not a hoax. Only the evilutionists claim that it is a hoax.
The fact that the discovery involved a cleric and believer in intelligent design is evidence for the cover-up.
Yup, that's one of my favorites. Read it in all its glory right here.
The lord satan works in mysterious ways.
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.
