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.”
I am not a Catholic...but I am willing to bet, that the Pope, has a much greater knowledge of the Bible, than you do(true, I dont know you or your background, but I do know that the Pope has studied the Bible in great remarkable detail, and no doubt has access to great Biblical scholars, as well as access of great scientific minds)...
If the Pope, with all his knowledge, with his access to experts, can say that the scientific evidence supports evolution, while still maintaining that it was God, who put the whole thing in motion, well, thats good enough for me...
You have your 'interpretation', of what certain Biblical passages say, and millions of others have a different 'interpretation' of those same passages...just take a look sometime on any of the religious threads that are on FR...sometimes those folks cannot even agree on the meaning of a simple word like 'brother', 'sister', 'all', 'day', 'year' and on and on...if people can honestly disagree about the meaning of a single word in the Bible, there will be even more disagreement on whole passages...
You cannot prove that your 'interpretation' of the Bible is correct and mine is wrong, nor can I prove that my 'interpretation' of the Bible is correct and yours is wrong...
But I do like to rely on scholars of the Bible, and even those scholars disagree...I believe the Pope to be a scholar of the Bible, and as such I stand with him on the ability of evolution and belief in God to be compatible...
You may not agree with that, and thats a choice you make...
What I detest, is when mere humans take it upon themselves to condemn others to hell, merely because they have a different 'interpretation' of what is said in the Bible...I am not saying that you yourself have done such a thing, but there are enough ID/Creationist posters who have done exactly that...in their pride and their arrogance, they have chosen to speak for God in deciding who goes to hell and who does not...I was not aware that God appointed special people on earth today, who can actually devine where my or anyone elses actual destiny after death may be...
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Just glad I didn't have fluid in my mouth when I read that.
You, ilk , you....
I don't hate evolutionist, I just think they been duped by a lie perpetrated by an illusion. Anything to take the eyes off the TRUTH.
And as I've stated, I don't really care if you want to make a choice to believe in evolution, but please call it what it really is as I argue from a LOGICAL point of view, it's FAITH.
You can "a maze" us with all your knowledge but bottom line is that
Evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation.
Or maybe biological substance came from another planet...yeah that's the ticket.
What logic? Give me an example.
Pasteur's a' comin' placemarker.
"Darwin lovers don't like to debate...every time they do, they lose. They would rather scream and yell and hide behind the status quo...hateful atheists ..."
They also love to digress and speak of things not germane to the discussion, eg, tax returns.
It's interesting to see evos' idea of having fun.
Thanks...I am usually a little timid to post, but what the heck...tonite I am sipping on spiked eggnog, and have let my guard down a little...
LOL. Bro, these guys are laughing all the way to the bank. It's like people who bray at the NYT, et al as if they are worthy of actual debate. At some point, you have to realize that operetors will fill a market niche if there is sufficient demand.
There are enough America haters for the MSM to serve an audience, and there are enough dunderheads for the crevo charlatans to cater to as well. Heck, given the free-market orientaton of this Web site, one would think that a few evo experts would jump in the fray try and write a breathless 'insiders' view of the horrible Darwin mandated curricula they are forced to follow.
The supreme irony would be that they could then take these ill gotten gains to finance further scientific study.
How many witnesses have there been that have seen and bird evolve into a dinosaur or a fish evolve into a man?
How many? I gotta try that time travel machine you've got! Again, ignor my argument all you want, it doesn't change evolution into a factual occurance.
Which is precisely why Hovind would NEVER agree to it. The fact of the matter is he could, anytime he wants, show up on FR, Panda's Thumb, or ony one of a dozen other websites that offer posting priviledges, and take on his detractors. The fact that he embraces the 30 second live soundbite "debate" format over a written format where BOTH sides would have the opportunity to do research before providing WRITTEN responses is very telling indeed: IOW, he's just a PUSSY.
If you are so sure that evolution is nothing but sci-fi, could you give me an example of which tenet(s) of the ToE you have trouble with.
What a racket evos have...when one theory is found to be false, another theory is quickly postulated to cover the first error.
Are you under the impression that life is just a meaningless chance? I won't guess where you must receive your knowledge...
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.