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 the fountains of the deep are mentioned...Gen 7:12
Gen 8:2 refers to it also.
Apparently it was a fabricated hoax on several levels and lasted 40 years from what I read today.
Yes, but it's EVOLUTIONIST who now claim that they "proved" it's a hoax. Why WOULDN'T you care that you're helping the EVOS perpetuate their own HOAX?
The feeling's entirely mutual, since all you want to do is drop into threads at long intervals to post the occasional snide remark, anally nitpick wording, loftily imply that you're so much better than all us rubes, ask questions with built-in "gotchas", or -- on the *very* rare occasion you deign to try to make a point about biology, you completely screw it up.
I have tried, but you fellows never want to step up beyond the puerile laugh at the rubes level of this thread.
Imagine the disappointment I feel when I fail to be taken seriously by a snottily obnoxious screwup.
Feel free to be so unable to take us seriously that you don't feel the need to even "contribute" to these discussions any more. If you've ever made a post that added anything constructive to these threads, I haven't seen it.
Tribute to the scientifically challenged placemarker
One of the things here that is so surreal is your complete lack of understanding of a given topic, as exemplified on that discussion, with your concommittant blithe ignorance of your lack of understanding.
It's actually funny. When I thought you could be taken seriously it was a bit frustrating, but I understand now your limitations.
You are oblivious. It's an interesting psychology.
For pete's sake, you could have snipped out the items agreed upon, rather than pasting them into this reply to waste even more space...
But I think you missed an important point -- Thatcherite wasn't exactly "agreeing" with you when he stated that he had seen a particular argument used. You were obviously presenting a list of what you felt were *fallacious*, or at least unfair, arguments from the "FR scientists". On the contrary, he was stating that while such replies have been used, they were *appropriate* responses to the creationist argument they were in reply to. He was *disagreeing* that they belonged on a list of alleged poor behavior by "FR scientists".
and all but one from this thread alone... well done....
Don't pat yourself on the back *too* soon...
2. In your most condescending tone respond to the un-washed using demeaning phases like "you obviously are not up to speed on blah blah" or "anyone who ever studied 8th grade blah blah should know that", etc.
[This argument is also used, usually when the poster throws in a comment that a bright and reasonably well-educated 12 year old would see through. You aren't doing badly so far.]
wrong, see post #180 when argument was lost.. as a last resort claimed TOE never said that.
You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding post #180. And what argument do you believe was "lost" in that discussion? Full Court made a weird accusation about something Haeckel had allegedly predicted, and CarolineGuitarMan rightly asked what relevance that had to anything. CGM also correctly pointed out that since Haeckel's prediction concerned biogenesis, it was off-topic about evolution anyway.
So sorry, your example falls flat. The point about biogenesis not being evolution (and vice versa) was employed correctly, and was *not* in response to "losing" any kind of argument. Furthermore, this "example" DOESN'T EVEN MATCH the "tactic" you listed as an "example" of. Post #180 did not employ the "most condescending tone" or use "demeaning phases [sic]" insulting the poster's education, etc.
Strike one.
4. If the first 3 steps fail to convince the un-washed they are out of their league, ping 50 or so of your distinguished scientist buddies and have them join the thread. The shear number of insults should begin to discourage the provocateur and others.
#4. this is an easy one see post #2, this always appears in these EVO/CREVO threads, even ones not initiated by PH.
Nope, sorry, doesn't count as an actual example of your #4. Your description of the alleged tactic involved pinging for "help" if the first three tactics failed. In post #2, PH pinged the evolution list before *any* replies had been made to the thread at *all*, so clearly it couldn't have been made as a result of any "failed" discussion up to that point. Do you even read your own items?
Strike two.
Furthermore, even a ping to the evolution list later in a thread could easily be made for innocent purposes (gosh, pinging evolution folks to a thread that involves evolution, how nefarious!), and not because someone was "losing" and had to "call in the troops". You'll have to find a more clearcut example, if you think you can. Your insulting presumptions about someone's motives don't count as evidence by themselves.
5. Make cute little insulting comments on the open forum to your pinger buddies so the unwashed can see how clever you are behind their backs.
[You're losing it now. "open forum", and "behind their backs"? You're getting more incoherent, I'm afraid.]
It is customary when making a comment about a specific post or poster to ping that poster instead of making cute derogatory remarks that the poster may not see otherwise. Call it an open forum if you like but unless you ping them, in my opinion you're taking about them behind their backs. Some posters don't appreciate being pinged this way (see post 584) but most do.
See post 1093... cowardly or rude.... you make the call
For pete's sake, read for content... While the "he" in that post referred to you, the comment itself wasn't even really *about* you. It was just remarking that if you hypothetically did something *different* from what Thatcherite expected, you'd be behaving more like the typical creationist behavior. How do you misconstrue that an "insulting little comment" aimed at you? It wasn't. It was a swipe at unspecified veteran FR creationists as a group, not at you.
Strike three. ("Yer out!")
Meanwhile, for quite a few examples of clear "insulting comments" and "cute derogatory remarks" against thread participants made without pinging them, there are several good ones in RunningWolf's and sirchtruth's posts... Oh, wait, those are *creationists*, not "FR scientists". Is there any "special" reason you did not take *them* to task for it? *cough*doublestandard*cough*
Oh, and hey, isn't "talking behind their back" what *you* yourself were doing in this post as well as this one on an older thread? "Cowardly or rude.... you make the call."
6. If an un-washed requests sources. Send them a link which contains no useful information, but does allow them to easily purchase books authored by you and your buddies.
[I'd be real interested if you can provide five citations of that ever happening on FR. Hell I'll be real interested if you can provide one, as actually you've just made that one up because you were struggling to extend your list once you'd got past the descriptions of reasonable behaviour on the part of evos.]
#6. If you are suggesting that I "out" FREEPERS who post links to their personal websites or others which contain offers to buy their books, I will decline.
...because you know you can't do it. Back when you posted your first draft of this "list" on 8/10/2005, you were clearly thinking of this prior accusation you had made against Right Wing Professor, based on the flimsiest of excuses (and/or your own paranoia). He had posted some information links for you, and (as you admit later) when you went "noodling around" on links *beyond* the pages he himself had linked, you ran into some advertising spam for books and other things. From *this* flimsy "evidence", you developed your wild speculation that RWP was trying to send people to advertisements for "his" books... Pathetic.
A *BIG* strike four.
I'm sure you've probably already received some personal email to "not go there" on this one
...I'm sure you're being wildly presumptious here based on nothing but your own paranoia about seeing a book advertisement on a linkout-from-a-link...
so I won't press it because I'd hate to have it known they were "fleecing the sheeple".
Bluster, dance, weave... Sorry, but you were caught making an accusation that was groundless and which you can't back up. Face it like an adult, if you're able. What kind of example are you setting for your college-age children?
But I will ask you to think logically about what PHDers do in academia. And if there are as many as claim to be on this thread the statistics alone will lead you to answer your own question.
Hand-wave about "statistics" all you want, you still made an accusation against fellow Freepers that you can't support, and the volume of your excuses and bluster to this item only reveals that you *know* you've been caught at it.
7. Are they still out there? If so it's time to impress them with all the letters you have following your name and all the places you went to school. Challenge them to attend 14 years of grad school so they can be as smart and broke as you are. That should convince them.
See post 656
Nope, sorry. While Coyoteman did mention his degree, it was *not* done for the cheesy purposes you list in tactic #7, nor did he in any way suggest that the person he was speaking to needed to acquire any further education of any sort. Since you missed the context, eleni121 had made an allegation about what "evos" and "academia" allegedly try to do. In that context, Coyoteman's description of his experiences during his academic exposure and training (which to be meaningful required him to list his field and the arc of his education) was *specifically* on topic.
Strike five.
and 651
Okay, I'll bite -- where do you hallucinate that montag813 mentioned his OWN degrees, as was the tactic listed in your #7? Furthermore, from what flimsy evidence have you jumped to the wild conclusion that he is a "FR scientist"? We'll wait...
Strike six.
8. For the really difficult cases just to prove how smart you are and how dumb they are, without responding to their inquiries or arguments, start listing all the words they misspell.
See post 661
It was a JOKE! Sheesh. Nor did it "list all the words" that anyone had misspelled, period. It was just a joke about how "dozens" of Freepers (unnamed, and uncategorized as to belief) had poor spelling and general irrationality. In no way was this presented as any attempt to silence any debater who couldn't be "won" against some other way. Sorry, no match to your #8.
Strike seven.
9. If you are asked a question you don't know the answer to or if proved you've made an error in a response. Do not acknowledge the error. Challenge the grammar and intellect of the un-washed. Try to convince them that if they weren't so dumb and illiterate they would have phased the question properly. Upon understanding the issue you would have obviously provided them proper enlightenment.
[Please provide examples of evolutionists actively ducking an issue where they were in error by attacking intellect or grammar. Be specific, explain what error the evo was ducking.]
how about this one from a thread some time back...
now if you could show a fish Genus that never ever had armor to develop it you would have a better case."
you seem to have forgotten the "develop it" part
No, the problem was, your sentence is ungrammatical, and I hadn't figured out what it was you were trying to say. My mistake; I should restrict myself to replying to posts written in English.
You posted such an out-of-context excerpt -- and you formatted it so poorly -- that it was hard to tell *what* in the heck that exchange was about, and who said which lines. I was about to write it off as "too vague to score", but then I noticed it on a thread I had up because I was documenting your own "behind the back" posts (see above), and lo and behold, there it was.
Sorry, but no match again. Your #9 specifically dealt with not just pointing out someone's spelling/grammar problems, but doing so in the case that:
If you are asked a question you don't know the answer to or if proved you've made an error in a response. Do not acknowledge the error.Sorry, but Right Wing Professor clearly *did* know the answer, because after it was clarified what in the heck flevit was trying to say, he provided the answer. Clearly, his remark about flevit's grammar was *not* done in the service of avoiding admitting that RWP "doesn't know the answer" (he did) or "proved he made an error" (he hadn't), he had just initially misunderstood the question because it *was* poorly written and hard to parse. His swipe at flevit's grammar was in direct explanation and response to flevit's snide accusation that RWP had "forgotten" to address something. No, he had honestly misunderstood it due to flevit's poor writing.
Strike eight.
and see your response to #8 above.
Thatcherite's observation about the spelling abilities of creationists again does not match the scenario you listed (i.e. using it to avoid admitting error or inability to answer).
Strike nine.
10. And finally, remember how we handle issues of discord in our peer reviews and seminars. When a collegue dares to challenge your findings (like that would ever happen) start sounding righteoulsy indignant and throw some swear words and bad names their way. And make sure your pinger buddies throw some in as well.
See post 634
You have not established that Senator Bedfellow is a "FR scientist" (like you, he mostly comments on matters other than the scientific ones), calling something "bullshit" is bluntly descriptive, but a pretty weak example of "throwing some swear words and bad names" (heck, BS is nearly mainstream these days), Full Court is hardly Bedfellow's "colleague", it wasn't in the context of "peer review and seminars", he wasn't sounding "righteously indignant", he was clearly amused, and he didn't do anything to "make sure his pinger buddies throw some in as well". So although this was marginally closer to a hit than the rest of your attempts, the ways in which it misses your overblown list of qualifiers will have to render my decision on this matter as...
Strike ten.
Zero hits out of ten tries. That's impressive!
I stand by my point-by-point examination of your anal nitpicking and its followup.
It was shortly after that when you went off the rails and tried to falsely and ludicrously claim that there were "only nine integrations" in a nine-patient gene-therapy study when in fact, there were TENS OF MILLIONS of treated cells (thus a similar magnitude of integrations) PER PATIENT, as anyone actually familiar with gene-therapy would know, and you also ludicrously claimed that the troublesome LMO2 integrants were at "the same site", when in fact they were on OPPOSITE SIDES of Exon1 of the gene, oriented in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, nearly FIVE THOUSAND BASEPAIRS apart.
In light of size of this amazing flub, it's *really* funny that you loftily proclaim, "I am completley correct in relaying the most detailed understanding [...] retroviral transduction and insertion". If so, why did you f*** it up so badly on such elementary points?
You're either incompetent or a liar, I don't care which. But neither option inspires confidence, and neither justifies your pathetic bluster:
It's actually funny. When I thought you could be taken seriously it was a bit frustrating, but I understand now your limitations.
You are oblivious. It's an interesting psychology.
The astute reader will note a classic example of "psychological projection" in this slur.
Since tallhappy is obviously unable to provide anything of value to these threads, I invite him and his playmate, Delusions of Grandeur, to go play somewhere else.
I stand by my point-by-point examination of your anal nitpicking and its followup.
" We all know that Jim can. And you are really the one to talk about libel. In this thread alone you've got the rest beat."
Where have I libeled anybody?
If you had any intellectual honesty at all, you would know that the moths were glued on in only a few pictures, and only to show both the dark and light one together. ALL THE OTHER PICTURES WERE ABSOLUTELY REAL. There is nothing wrong with the peppered moth studies (there have been a number of them, all verifying the original). Why must you continually lie about what the studies did? Oh, sorry, you're a creationist and can't help it.
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.