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.”
Where will evolution lead us; that is, make a scientific prediction based on your supposed 'law' of evolution.
That is a tough one because much of evolution has been in reaction to climate change or other major catastrophies.
To predict where evolution is going would require predicting a lot of things, including climate, technology, solar radiation, etc.
It is possible that some parts of the evolutionary response have been reduced by technology--clothes, medicines, and a lot of other things reduce the need to alter the body to changing conditions; technology fills in now more than at any time in the past.
Antibiotics reduce the selection pressure of diseases on humans; but antibiotics also increase the selection pressure on the little bad guys. Not easy to predict how this will evolve. I am an optimist, and think that technology will keep ahead of most things, but a meteor or comet and all bets are off. Technology is very fragile. How long will you last when the power goes out?
By the way, evolution is a science, not a cult. Also, it would be more polite to say evolution, not "evo" unless you are intending to be deliberately insulting.
A drug resistant strain of tuberculosis is still tuberculosis.
Even your faith has limits.
Post 1376 and its cartoon reminded me of something I have wanted to ask for some time, but did not ask, for fear of really sounding dumb...but here goes anyway...I figure, maybe someone can at least give me some answers, or point me in the correct direction, whether my thinking is faulty or not...
I take note that on many of the different evo threads, often there is talk about evolution being used in trying to create vaccines for the coming years flu...and this cartoon reminded me of the ability of organisms that cause disease, to become resistant to currently used drugs, and thus showing a need for new drugs...Might this same train of thought be used to investigate cancers that become drug resistant?
I ask, because I mentioned somewhere on this thread earlier, that my older boy died as a result of complications from leukemia...the drug which was used initially to put him into his first remission, and subsequently used to get him into his second remission, is found to be heart toxic after the second remission and cannot be used anymore for any further chemo treatments..there are other drugs that can be substituted, but they are not as effective, as the particular cell line which is cancerous has now become drug resistant to those chemo drugs...
The docs told us, that drug resistance is one of the primary reasons why cancers return...the chemo drugs work on only certain cells within the cancerous cell line, but the other cancerous cells have become drug resistant and thus multiply, ,and grow unchecked...
My question is, does anyone think that the problem of cancerous cell lines becoming drug resistant and thus resulting in the death of the person with the cancer, will ever be solved by applications of evolution...
Sorry in advance if this question sounds silly or stupid, but after having watched my own son die because of a drug resistant cancer, my firm wish is that someone finds a cure for drug resistant cancers...
On this thread alone I've read of f.christian and at least another poster who was banned. I'm sure there ar others.
And then there is that list I once saw of banned creationists/IDers. It was posted somewhere.
Evolution is just change. It is never dramatic, except in Hollywood movies.
I don't.
Others may have better records and memories, but the ones I have seen banned went ballistic and started foaming at the mouth (figuratively). Something in their posts offended the moderators enough that they exited stage left--racism, personal attacks, etc.
Junior keeps a list of banned crevo (both sides) so he will certainly know more.
DittoJed.
TV appearances too, probably.
I belong to a butterfly-watcher's group, and through the grapevine last Fall we received a request from the Austin branch for Spicebush butterfly caterpillars that they needed for some kind of video shoot.
It turned out that my wife and I had the only Spicebush caterpillars at the time, in our backyard on the Camphor tree. So we gathered some up, and found a few more by walking the neighborhood and checking out the trees, and FedEx'ed them to Austin.
Later we got word (and some "thank you" gifts) from the film crew. It turns out they were filming a segment for "Buggin' with Ruud", a TV series on the "Animal Planet" cable channel (which itself is a spin-off from the Discovery Channel).
I'll bet you large odds that when the show featuring our caterpillars airs (early in 2006, they say) it won't show Ruud pulling them out of a FedEx box to show them. Instead, I'm sure it'll show him walking through some woods somewhere, then "finding" the caterpillars on a wild tree. Cue cameraman for zooming closeup, as Ruud begins to describe their more interesting features...
There's nothing wrong with "staging" insect photos or video, as long as it doesn't misrepresent what actually occurs in nature, because "natural" insects are usually just too damned hard to find or catch at exactly the right stage, position, or activity for whatever it is you might be needing to show, at the time you're able to film it.
And contrary to the mock horror of the creationists, there's nothing wrong with gluing a couple of moths to a piece of bark in order to get a good sharp well-lighted photo in a book, to illustrate the different levels of camouflage against each other. In nature, the lighting, position, timing, visibility, movement, availability, etc. is usually sub-optimal. Heck, I've got thousands of failed in-the-field photos to attest to that. If you have to "pose" your subjects, so be it, as long as it doesn't misrepresent the natural state of things. And the Peppered Moth photos don't.
In case anyone was wondering, the reason that Spicebush caterpillars are popular subjects of photos and videos is because they have evolved coloration and shape which makes them look like little snakes, a great example of protective mimickry. Even the "snake's eyes" are just fake bits of coloration on the thorax -- the caterpillar's actual head and eyes are tucked under at the bottom of the photo, barely visible.
No one is banned from FreeRepublic except by management. The owner of the website is an evangelical Christian.
f.Christian was personally banned by Jim Robinson. Several other creationists on the list were banned after picking fights with JimRob.
The answer is the same, and it is consistant......a drug resistant form of tuberculosis is still tuberculosis. It hasn't evolved into a completely different organism.
Culture it, test it, observe it if you don't believe me.
Pinging you to my "staged insect photos" post, just before this one...
OK.
I saw the name f.christian being mentioned on this thread. That is why I mentioned him. I don't know who caused the ban.
Well if a pig suddenly sprouts wings it hasn't evolved into a new organism. It's still a pig, but with wings.
You have to be pretty belligerant to get banned while supporting creationism.
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.
