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.”
It is sad, isn't it, that someone would try to discredit the proud state of Texas by trolling in its name.
Sorry, my mistake. Not 100, just 79. It's simply the equivalent of writing reminiscenses of Calvin Coolidge in the year 2005 -- a little suspect.
Why would a Roman Emperor commission someone to write a biography about a person who claimed He was the Son of God?
Oh, I'm sure there's lots of reasons why they wouldn't do that, but you're still giving an argument from a lack of evidence, which isn't particularly persuasive. Augustus probably also would have had reasons for covering up a short-lived extraterrestrial invasion too -- maybe the glaring ommission of any reference to such an event could be taken as proof of a coverup.
Not for the first time either.
Hmmm. There are oceans of contemporary material available about CC. Vast quantities of newsreel footage, newspaper articles, verbatim transcripts. The actual equivalent would be reminiscences of Joe Nobody from Smalltown , Iowa 80 years later.
I was hoping someone would pick up on that :)
When I am in the mood, I love to wander into these creationism vs evoltion threads (although from a "debate" perspective, it is like USC football vs. Joe's HS).
Another example of “The only physics I ever took was Ex-Lax” ?
Hmmm, just so I get the cultural reference, would that be like Manchester United vs a Girl Guides XI?
You read the quotation, but wireman did not.
I was expecting him to say, "oops. Sorry!" or something to that effect, but he didn't. Instead he reverted to name calling. Two points I'd like to make as to why he should have apologized, but didn't: 1)he agreed with another poster w/o even reading the quote and, 2)he called me a maniac when I brought this up.
I admitted that my quote lacked the end-quote, even though there was an opening quote and it was contained in a single para. You admitted in a gentlemanly manner that this caused you to attribute that sentence to me. Fine and dandy. It was resolved. It was not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on the subject matter. If you go back and reread wiseman's response to the other poster (I don't remember now if it was to your post or some else's), he did not read my original post. He then called me a maniac when I brought this to his attention. Had I been on evolution camp, you can bet your lifesavers, wireman would not have agreed with the other poster regarding my supposed "quote."
Be this as it may I'm willing to forgive and forget.
Take care. And a sincere Merry Christimas and a prosperous and healthy New Year and beyond to you and all your loved ones, despite being on opposing camps. :)
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Put down the crack pipe and seek professional help. I don't take a dime from anyone in the name of religion. Dr. Dino, by contrast, has been found by the IRS to take $ 1 million + per annum (see prior posts and links off of this thread), has no business licenses to do so, doesn't have tax-exempt status, and failed to pay taxes on his ill-gotten gains.
Shell-shocked placemarker (where did all the belligerent bozos come from?)
"even when the poster forgets to indicate clearly what he is quoting and what he isn't."
It was a single paragraph whose end quote was missing. I thought it would be understood it was a quote.
Actually that is not true. Evos routinely correct one another when they spot an error. I have made enough to have been corrected many times. Creationists correct each other once in a blue moon (and usually only because they are in radically different wings of the creation camp, and are disagreeing about doctrine)
You thought wrong. The mistake was yours in not making your intention clear. How are we to know where your quote ends?
In any case, why are we not allowed to respond to points you make by quoting text from another source? If you quote something you should be prepared to defend it, not disclaim all knowledge of what you quoted as you did to me.
They're the descendants of those who cheered for William Jennings Bryan and shouted for the lynching of John Scopes. But unlike their grandparents, these vote republican.
"How are we to know where your quote ends?"
It ended with that famigerated last declarative sentence. No other text followed it. I understand it can at times cause confusion. It did confuse you and it was resolved.
"In any case, why are we not allowed to respond to points you make by quoting text from another source?"
But you ARE responding to quotes not attributed to the poster, and I'm trying to respond to them as best I can.
"If you quote something you should be prepared to defend it, not disclaim all knowledge of what you quoted as you did to me."
Absolutely agree that one should be prepared to defend it. But, I did not disclaim all knowledge; I only disclaimed that last sentence being attributed to me, which was not.
"How are we to know where your quote ends?"
It ended with that famigerated last declarative sentence. No other text followed it. I understand it can at times cause confusion. It did confuse you and it was resolved.
"In any case, why are we not allowed to respond to points you make by quoting text from another source?"
But you ARE responding to quotes not attributed to the poster, and I'm trying to respond to them as best I can.
"If you quote something you should be prepared to defend it, not disclaim all knowledge of what you quoted as you did to me."
Absolutely agree that one should be prepared to defend it. But, I did not disclaim all knowledge; I only disclaimed that last sentence being attributed to me, which was not.
How did my post appear twice?
I only clicked "Post" once. Could the fault lie with my mouse?
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.