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.”
:Placemarker
Right. I'm going to be real gullible about this and take you at your word, and explain to you why it is important if you really want to understand what is going on to read as many of the links on Ichneumon's homepage as you can. Take as long as you need to think about them and digest them, and understand them.
Thing is, most people don't know much about science. So a huckster like Hovind can make convincing stuff up, squirt it out at a rate of 30 seconds/claim, and people who don't know a whole lot about the scientific field that Hovind is talking about think that he is putting up genuine objections to accepted mainstream science, that somehow the rest of the scientists have been too dishonest or stupid to see. Yet somehow even gradeschoolers can understand that Hovind is right and the rest of science is wrong.
I've got a shock coming for you now. Understanding science is hard. Really clever people like Ichneumon and VadeRetro and physicist (I don't include myself at that intellectual level) spend their *whole lives* studying this stuff. To get to a level of understanding where you might be able to contribute something new of any significance typically takes 10 years unless you luck into a new field. To adequately understand the rebutals of much of Hovind's material you need to put a whole lot of work in.
Alternatively you can just turn it into a "my experts versus your experts" debate. Evos aren't too interested in that as a subject, even though the experts who agree with evo outnumber those who don't thousands to one. We agree that the truth of a scientific idea doesn't rest on the number of supporters it has. But most of those who post here on the evo side have a considerable understanding of the science being debated. And it is painfully obvious that most of those who debate against evo have zero understanding of that which they reject.
Hence the endless canards surrounding the word "theory". The endless harping on about the tiny number of frauds and errors associated with evolution over the last 150 years. The endless quoting of scientists out of context to make it seem as if they reject evolution. The endless lists of pre-Darwinian scientists who didn't support evolution. The bizarre nonsense about geology and biology posted by those who have never spent ten minutes studying either subject. Interminable claims that pre-columbian europeans thought the world was flat. Claims that the inability of scientists to make life disproves evolution. Claims that if scientists could make life evolution would be disproved. Claims that there is no evidence for evolution (Ichneumon posted a ton of it, but you justed carried right on posting without pausing to read it. Isn't it more important to post accurately than to post quickly?). Claims that evolution is anti-religion. Claims that evolution is communist. Claims that evolution supports unfettered free-markets. Claims that evolution leads to a collapse in morality... All utterly without foundation.
Notice how much it takes to refute one of my arguments...a zillion words...of mostly extracted copied and modified rubbish. Hey whatever gets you thru the night...
Yep, we all got your answer Eleni. Ichneumon goes to the trouble of carefully providing a detailed point-by-point refutation of lies that you perpetuate and you respond with an airy handwave.
You are utterly without shame, and the evidence is there for all to see.
In simple words for your intellectual highness, (heh), if it's taken this long for the courts to decide the matter, I'd say open your trap when the courts have decided it.
Contention not in evidence.
BTTT
Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Bob Tilton, Kent Hovind et al. You just keep on believing...and they'll keep on fleecing.
P.T. Barnum said one is born every minute. Where do they find the rest of them? Apparently defending the Hovinds of the world.
Sorry, Charlie.. Try again. The Christian Community decried these guys you would categorize Hovind with - when it was found they were in the wrong. I have not seen such a finding of fact in Hovind's case. And it's been how long...
Smells more like smear tactics in avoidance of what he has to say. But then cut and paste monkeys are that way...
I've evolved. The same cannot be said of those who believe that dinosaurs co-existed with man, snakes can talk, virgins give birth, the dead can be resurrected, there is a supreme being who sits around with nothing better to do than answer the prayers of nitwits, or there was a guy who spent three years partying with twelve of his buddies but remained abstinent the whole time.
You know, this "500 theses about Piltdown" lie a few posts up in the thread has reminded me of an FR crevo classic.
Do you remember the guy who had the same bugbear, that somehow Piltdown was a major plank of evolutionary beliefs. In promotion of his belief he posted a list of about 15 scientific papers that cited Piltdown...
Problem was, that when you examined the papers they came up as follows:
The frantic weaseling by the poster when his error was pointed out was wondrous to behold. In an effort to deflect the subject he then posted another list to demonstrate the mendacity/gullibility of paleontologists. This was papers about "Brontosaurus". Naturally enough google was once again his friend (hurrah!), and he managed to find and include in his list, "Bully for Brontosaurus" by Gould.
You forgot about trees with magic fruit, and ancient civilisations building seven-story towers that frightened God.
Thanks for the reminder!
Don't worry, she'll be back. And don't be surprised to see the 500 Piltdown Theses lie repeated as if it had never been debunked. It is the standard MO.
Elsewhere you speak of your "logic". It seems sadly lacking here in your response. I don't think you should believe in evolution just because you have it explained to you what scientists mean when they use the words "fact", "observation", "theory", and "law". The actual evidence that sustains the theory is what counts.
But at least you can stop using the word theory in its non-scientific "wild-assed-guess" sense when referring to the theory of evolution. As in "It is just a theory". Or "your THEORY". Or "Let me know when it has become a law". You are long past the point where such rejoinders have become dishonest. Reject the theory of evolution if you are comfortable rejecting the evidence that sustains it. Equally well it is your right to reject germ theory, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity. But don't pretend that scientific theories are weak wishy-washy things that can be handwaved away because "they are just theories".
I have a dim memory of that thread. The usual range of responses when a creationist's post is clearly shown to be worthless trash is that the creationist will:
1. Run away.In some cases, the creationist's response will be more than one of the above. Note: one option is missing from the above -- the creationist will never support his claims with verifiable evidence.
2. Deny the original post.
3. Dig in a creationist dumpster for similar material, which starts it all over again.
4. Condemn you to hell.
5. Hit the abuse button.
6. Freepmail his insane buddies for backup.
7. Claim victory.
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.