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.”
"What's an f.christian and what relevance it has to God's creation of all that it is?"
HAH! Adrift I WAS! Seek the TRUTH! Demo-sodomite cast their lot with SATAN - long not will they live. REPENT - EVOLUTION = DEATH.
If you are unaware to the contributions f.christian has made to scientific inquiry over the years, you're struggling for a solid D in this class, mister.
Of course, the Darwinists view anyone who doesn't subscribe and conform to their version of things as uninformed narrow minded Christians.
Scary in fact. Given the shenanigans that many scientists are engaged in I wonder what their hubris will bring down on all of us.
According to my calculations (anyone, please feel free to correct these), it would take 8.8x10^27 cc of water to cover the Earth with 5 miles of water. The volume of the Earth is only 1.1x10^27 cc. Now where did all that water come from? Out of the bowels of the Earth?
Yeah, except it should read, "SCIENCE is built on a supposition...". The assumption that only natural causes are in play, for the restricted purpose of explaining and understanding natural processes, is common to ALL scientific theories. It is also EQUALLY common to all scientific theories. It is not one sinlge fraction of a degree more characteristic of evolution than of any other theory, law or principle.
Now, this may bother you; that science only considers natural cause. If so there's a solution for that, although a successful outcome is by no means guaranteed: Just develop a genuinely useful and successful theory that incorporates supernatural, non-natural, psychic, spiritualist (whatever) causes.
Science has never failed to accept a genuinely successful theory just because it violated what was then understood to be the nature of science. Instead the understanding of the nature of science was adjusted to accommodate the theory. This worked, for instance, for Newton's gravitation which appealed to an "occult" force that could act at a distance and transmit itself without physical impact between bodies.
What doesn't work, however, is whining. There are good reasons why scientists, even piously religious ones, think that science won't work with supernatural causes. (For instance, to be brief, if you can always invoke a miracle then any theory can always explain any result.) You have to DEMONSTRATE by example that supernatural science can work as science.
Muchos thanks. I'll read it when I have time, which most likely is after Christmas. It's a long read, you know.
What's an f.christian and what relevance it has to God's creation of all that it is?
"An" f.christian was a creationist poster who was banned some time ago. He posted from Hawaii and would, from time to time, mention his wife, who is Polynesian. (I don't know why he was banned; I was on a hiatus at the time). His posts were nuggets of incoherence presented in a haiku-like form, but lacking the terseness. AFIK he's still living in Hawaii. He wasn't malevolent, at least to me, and I looked forward to his posts, as weird as they were.
Effdot, as he was affectionately known, is undoubtedly one of God's more interesting creations.
That's about the best I can do. I can't seem to tease any meaning out of your second sentence.
Yeah, but how much was built in the 7th century? And while some technology was relatively advanced at points in the Middle Ages, an overwhelming amount of learning was lost.
"When evidence controverts an existing scientific theory the theory is refined in face of the new evidence and retested."
My Grandpa used to call this "making the shoe fit."
NOT TRUE!
Some of them are uniformed and narrow-minded Islamists. Others are uniformed and narrow-minded Hare Krishnas. A few are uniformed and air-headed "new agers". Still others are uninformored and ...
Impossible. Reread Ichneumon's post and you will see why.
If you point to me to the essay, I shall read it and report. What essay are you talking about?
I'm talking about the one I linked in the post you disagreed with -- which you obviously did without bothering to actually *read* the link in the first place.
Hint: Post #540.
Question: If you didn't bother reading the link, why did you feel qualified to insult it?
Lo! the poor Indian, whose untutor’d mindI think I prefer the alternative I posted. There is a lot less hate.
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk, or milky way;
Yet simple Nature to his hope has giv’n,
Behind the cloud-topt hill, an humbler heav’n;
Some safer world in depth of woods embrac’d,
Some happier island in the watry waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold,
No fields torment, no Christians thirst for gold!
To Be, contents his natural desire,
He asks no Angle’s wing, no Seraph’s fire;
But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
His faithful dog shall bear him company.Alexander Pope, An Essay On Man.
"I was serious about you changing the subject because you had no answer to my statement that spontaneous generation has nothing to do with evolution, nor do any evolutionists believe in it."
Spontaneous generation it's exactly what evolutionists believe. It's part of their belief of the origin of life. They believe that life happened out of nothing. Nothing from nothing gives you nothing.
Actually, towards the end, if you parsed your way through all the punctuation, more than a few of his posts were quite nasty. Think he finally blew his wheels for good, but if you're longing to relive the past he's over on LP under the handle "byeltsin"
I am not sure technology was lost. I haven't seen Notre Dame, but have seen the cathedral in Cologne. They were just using old technology to build a new type of thing. That's why these things are so "clunky" on the outside. It had to be that way to make them open and beautiful on the inside. What wasn't happening was development of new tools, ideas and materials. Progress was very slow, if at all. It took the Enlightenment and climbing out from under Rome to push progress. Something we all don't want to happen again and something that could very well happen under a Fundamentalist Theocracy.
My Grandpa used to call this "making the shoe fit."
When the "shoe" is the knowledge, and the "foot" is the evidence, then yes, that's rather an apt analogy, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Shoes *should* be adjusted to fit the feet, and theories *should* adjusted to fit the reality.
If, on the other hand, you meant that in some kind of derogatory fashion, then read post #712 until it becomes clear.
"Spontaneous generation it's exactly what evolutionists believe. It's part of their belief of the origin of life. They believe that life happened out of nothing. Nothing from nothing gives you nothing."
Incorrect - the Theory of Evolution does not address the origins of life.
Almost every culture on Earth had their start by a river, lake, sea or ocean. All of these locations suffer from local floods.
For your hypothesis to hold any water at all, you need to show that all of these stories are referring to the same time period. You would also have to explain why there are areas of the earth that show no evidence of flooding.
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.
