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.”
1300?
Thunderous applause + loud cheering!
It was because of that incident, that another poster on that site led me to the link to the Jack Chick site...and there is where I learned about what Jack Chick believed...had I known that beforehand, I dont think I would have engaged him in any discussion...I would have just ignored his remarks...but since I had no idea who he was, I just plowed ahead, and wound up in a really heated conversation with him....
Thank you, thank you...
...such as?
And to save us all a lot of time, don't bother posting any of this old creationist crap, we've seen it before (*thousands* of times), and already know why it's bogus.
When you have science making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT then it's not true science in the first place...
Wow, just how ignorant are you? "True science" involves a huge amount of "making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT". Watch any of the CSI shows on TV if you're unclear on this elementary concept. Reconstructing events and processes that people *weren't* there to witness (or are unable to, because they occurred on too small/large a scale, or too fast/slow for human perception, etc.) is one of the primary functions of "true science".
Science rests on *observations*, yes, but not the kind *you* simplistically presume it means. Observing *results* of a process (or "AN ACT" as you put it) is a perfectly valid way of learning about it too. The creationist notion that the only thing that counts is "being there to see it happen" is epistemology on the level of a four-year-old.
Quite nice, but not needed. The Grand Master thanks you for your excellent work.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
I see that I joined FR on 6-21-01...4 1/2 yrs ago...so it was around that time, Jack Chick and I had our heated exchange...poor Jack Chick, little does he realize the favor he did me, indirectly leading me to FR...
Nice sentiment for post #1300.
I think Jack Chick's head would explode if I got into a discussion with him. One of would get banned, regardless of the website.
Thanks and as I have said before, you are a true gentleman(and I am sure you are a true gentleman, even when the moderators are not watching)
I truly appreciate your posting a NOVEL, however it doesn't change the construct that TOE is only speculation.
The astute reader is invited to reread my original comment above. Was I right, or was I right?
You keep showing me little bits of evidence,
Actually, I show you massive volumes of evidence, which you continue to totally ignore with stupid dismissals like:
but never the actual event, so therefore, speculation.
Okay, I'll bite -- what, exactly, is "speculation" about the pattern of endogenous retroviruses? What about it has not actually been established by multiple lines of evidence beyond reasonable doubt? Be specific.
I know you scientist can't stand being told you're not only wrong, but being lied too and deceived,
Yes, we don't appreciate you telling falsehoods like that, then running away from invitations to actually support your empty accusations. We don't suffer fools gladly.
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...
The evidence we show you *is* reality. It was acquired by carefully examining reality and then recording what is found there. *You're* the one who keeps giving airy hand-waving dismissals on why you don't even need to *glance* at that reality, much less deal with it.
Do you have *any* idea how self-deluded you sound?
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.
Yes, you'll keep repeating your slanderous accusation without a shred of justification or support. We get it.
Darwin's demented nightmare was the principal cause of all totalitarian murderous ideologies that have hit us in the last 150 years.
Your love affair with this notorious nut Darwin is well documented and will be noted in all future postings.
"Darwin's demented nightmare was the principal cause of all totalitarian murderous ideologies that have hit us in the last 150 years."
You are a moron. :)
"Your love affair with this notorious nut Darwin is well documented and will be noted in all future postings. "
I await your future ranting. :)
I am sure that if Jack Chick ever did engage in a debate with the more knowledgeable evos on FR, he would disintegrate...
And let me add to my previous post about Darwin and his demented descendants on this thread:
Totalitarianism grew out the 19th and early 20th centuries. Given.
Marx, Darwin and Freud shaped the image of the individual controlled by economic, physical or psychic forces beyond the individual's control. Given.
In such systems, individual freedom is meaningless.
So much for this creepy man who communed with lizards.
I was about to write a point-by-point response to your post, but now I see that Thatcherite has already done an excellent job of it. I concur with all of his points, including the ones where he informed you that the "method" you list is a valid response to a bogus creationist post, as well as the ones where he expressed doubt that you could actually document "FR scientists" doing what you accuse them of doing, with any kind of regularity.
So I'd like to heartily second Thatcherite's challenge that you back up your accusations with examples. Go for it, bucko.
If you can't -- or make lame excuses about why you won't -- then we'll just add you to the VERY long list of Freeper creationists who can't back up the stuff that spews out of their mouths.
I knew you'd come crawling back...and you did!
Bears repeating (regardless what one thinks of the "theory" itself.) Yes, the trio of 19th century authors of 20th century horrors: Karl. Sigmund and Charles. The first two have been totally discredited. Next...
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.