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.”
Another point of similarity between creationists and liberals: when their own words are used against them they cry "foul!"
Eugenics was nothing more than selective animal breeding (which has been around for millennia) transposed to the human population. Darwin need never have been invoked (and probably wasn't), as he wouldn't need to be invoked to cull cattle herds.
As a prime example of pre-Darwinian eugenics, one need only read about the Spartans.
A great deal of effort for no purpose. I say this for two reasons:
1. Creationists aren't worth the bother. They're almost always at the bottom of society, due to their lack of reasoning power. Thus, it's not important to expose their lies, as it would be for genuinely threatening people like, say, Kerry.2. In a few posts, the creationist in question will surely lie again, and that can be used to exemplify your claim. No need to show hundreds of previous lies, when a current one is so handy.
You'll get no answer to your quiz. Plain and simple. If you wish to play games, play them elsewhere. As of now, you're a no-account hack who doesn't know his subject and yet pretends to. You've betrayed your ignorance of the subject at hand and are nothing more than an anklebiter for purposes of this discussion. As such, I'll henceforth ignore you. I understand you wanted to presume to claim some high ground. But there is none for you. Be gone.
Nice try. You won't admit that you believe in significant parts of the Bible. Guess you better explain that one to Hovind (even it it requires looking in the mirror).
The name-calling is very un-Christian-like...but typical of someone confronted with the facts with respect magical trees, talking snakes, virgin births, etc. In a rational world, they'd institutionalize one for believing these things.
I don't believe I mentioned flash flooding. Can someone raise a hand if they did?.. Anyone..
Excellent information. You've caused me to revise my opinion of Hovind. I used to think he's a total idiot. Now, I think there are some limited areas in which he's an evil genius.
well, you went on about time and a population of 8. I took both angles and disagreed. And as it happens, I believe the flood occured in the last 5000 years. Given that there is no evidence that atomic decay has been anymore constant than the speed of light or 14C accumulation, I've no problem with that
time frame. Science provides no reason to question my belief.
And given the content of your question, you seem to be less upset by facts and more by the story of the Bible. If that is the case, it is your right to question, doubt and even reject it. If you find it your right to mock me for believing it, just be aware that similar disdain is available for your own nonsense.
Right. You were so consumed with writing out errors that the only thing you could do is come here and tell us how full of error Hovind is. That's informative. Thank you for your input. lol. Next.
LOL!! That's been my whole argument against parading evolution as fact...Gee Wiz am I in a twightlight zone or parallel universe? obviously I must be with you cult, zealotist evo's.
North part of Pensacola.
Exodus 20: 16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.and....Deuteronomy 5:20 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
NIV Joshua 2:1-61. Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there.
2. The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land."
3. So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land."
4. But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from.
5. At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." <-- Big, Fat LIE!!!!
6. (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.)
NIV Joshua 6:17
The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent.NIV Joshua 6:23
So the young men who had done the spying went in and brought out Rahab, her father and mother and brothers and all who belonged to her. They brought out her entire family and put them in a place outside the camp of Israel.
NIV Joshua 6:25
But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho--and she lives among the Israelites to this day.
NIV Matthew 1:1-171. A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2. Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3. Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
4. Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5. Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse,
6. and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7. Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa,
8. Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9. Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10. Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah,
11. and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12. After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13. Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor,
14. Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud,
15. Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
16. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.
NIV Hebrews 11:31
By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.
NIV James 2:25
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
| I guess you have to say that, to give yourself some comfort, knowing that millions and millions of people do believe in the truth of the Bible, and do believe in evolution... People can CLAIM they believe the Bible, but when they discard parts of it, they can not be said to actually believe it. And if the don't believe it, but keep claiming that they do, they're just plain old Schizophrenics or maybe just drunks. |
Like this???
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Get over yourself. Bleeding is a common well known example of science thinking itself smart and proving itself ignorant. Most Evos have brains enough to see Bleeding as precisely that and will either admit it or try to handwring around it. So it tends to be a good humorous jab that reminds people of how Intelligent science often is, how right it often is and how abusive those wrong people are when they haven't yet been proven wrong. I usually try to throw in the fact that George Washington might have lived longer had it not been for modern science and bleeding. But a little variation on the humorous jab is always nice. Bleeding was a matter of science; but, if you want to believe they just made it up, you're welcome to. We out here would never assume that schooled intelligent men would just make things up and call them proper... even risking the life of a sitting president in the application.. lol. Gee, just keeps looking worse the more one discusses it - don't it. Perhaps I should shut up and let you wade in it a bit.
See above ^
Thanks for the assist. He doesn't charge a standard speaking fee. He does have an offering requirement though, which means he's at the mercy of what anyone wishes to donate in order to continue the ministry. If he gets typical donations, he's likely not going to make a dollar amount equivelant to the number of seats in the auditorium. This isn't a tithe in the normal sense, it is just a donation. Most who give will usually drop a dollar or pocket change. But, hey, all he's doing is covering costs more than likely. Being a PK-brat, I am not unaware of what visitor donations look like. But, I'm sure someone will make a point that he's making millions on each visit and must be in it for the money... lol
Intellectual bigotry is the norm. Just point it out and go on is my approach. Lurkers have no problem understanding the concept of "that's them telling you you're too stupid to understand."
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.