Kent Hovind’s doctorate revealed
Oh the joy. Kent Hovind’s doctoral thesis has emerged courtesy of wikileaks.
Here it is. It’s joyous. I remember when Carl Baugh‘s doctorates turned out to be junk; this one’s at least as much fun.
For those who don’t know, Kent Hovind is a famous Creationist who is currently serving a ten year jail sentence.
I warn you: this post may contain snark.
A few observations (I’m writing as I’m reading, so later parts may contradict or correct earlier parts of the post):
The first sentence is “Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.”
There’s no bibliography.
The first reference to any external source comes nine pages after the thesis starts in earnest, and it’s to the book of Isaiah.
Plagiarism is one of many things this thesis should have failed for.
Almost none of these arguments is original, but I can’t find a single citation in this thesis (obviously, I haven’t read the whole thing, because I value my time more than that). Huge amounts of the thesis are given to trotting out standard evangelical theology, but Hovind is talking like they’re his own ideas.
The punctuation is novel.
We can conclude that Kent likes the exclamation mark. For example, in reference to God’s view of pride, he writes:
“He hates it!!”
I can’t give you a page number, because there aren’t any.
Kent almost seems to understand evolution.
I like this paragraph:
As we trace the history of evolution, it becomes slightly confusing at this point because there are going to be several different branches on the tree. I will focus on just two of the main branches.
By “the history of evolution”, Kent means the history of the idea of evolution (obviously, he doesn’t think evolution itself has a history, because he doesn’t believe it), which he claims originated with the fall of Satan (no, really). But I find it just too stunning that he would use the analogy of branches on a tree to describe the development of this idea. It’s almost as though the idea evolved. It’s almost as if branches on a tree are a superb analogy for evolutionary development…
There is at least one cited reference
Kent quotes a book called The Long War Against God, but unless there’s part of the thesis missing, he doesn’t give an author or a date.
Ooh, it’s quoted again later and turns out to be by another Creationist, Henry Morris. This is the only cited book so far in the entire thesis.
Kent on Islam
“The God of Mohammedism is not the God of the Bible by any stretch of the imagination. It is a little pantheistic God of nature. Because of this, the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching.”
Darwin invented racism, apparently
“Racism started, or was greatly enhanced by Darwin and Thomas Huxley.”
He quotes Darwin as writing, in The Descent of Man, “the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.”
According to Talk Origins, this is a Creationist quotemine. Their discussion of the context is here. In any case, if Darwin was a massive racist, that doesn’t mean that modern evolutionary theory doesn’t have explanations which are both well supported by evidence and not racist.
OK, so we’re running at a whopping three books referenced now, and at least one of those quotes is possibly in context.
Oh no, the second half of thesis actually has quite a few quotes from books and magazines. I’d say parts of this border on an acceptable standard for GCSE coursework. I saw more than one quote from a scientist that had no citation whatsoever though.
He saves the best for last
“All of the ancient writings we have show a young age of the earth. Why don’t we have people writing about kings that lived fifty thousand years ago? Why is it that all of recorded history happened in the last four thousand years?”
OK, so I’ve wasted enough of my life on this crap. We’re going to play a game. Go and look up the thesis, scroll to a random page, and post your favourite quotes in comments!
Posted on May 13, 2013, in Creationism, Fundamentalism. Bookmark the permalink. 86 Comments.
“As i was thinking on this subject, I wrote a poem to try and explain this…”
He included a 56-line poem (his own, no less) in his thesis! Now, that deserved an exclamation mark 🙂
Oh damn, it get’s better a few lines down:
“I’m not one of these fellows who says Adam was created on April 7, at 4:00 p.m. I don’t know the exact date.”
Not even the argument from lack of documented history before a certain date is original. It comes straight from Epicurus, who thought the oldest recorded event was the Trojan War.
Not to mention that…there are 7,000 years of written records out there.
In the Chapter on Time Hovind shoots himself in the foot with:
“Taking only evidence that supports a preconceived idea and rejecting all other evidence is not very intelligent or scientific.”
There’s a good blog post to be constructed somewhere showing Creationists accusing scientists and vice versa. The criticisms they make of each other are identical. An uninformed observer could get quite confused.
That statement is actually true. If anyone has a preconceived notion and he/she goes to find evidence for it, while rejecting all other evidence that says otherwise, without taking a good look at it, that person are coming from a biased and distorted view. That statement was actually very intelligent. He never “shot himself in the foot.”
“Taking only evidence that supports a preconceived idea and rejecting all other evidence is not very intelligent or scientific.”
So when Kent holds to a position in the manner described he is being “actually very intelligent.”
“He never “shot himself in the foot.””. True – but only because he has never had a leg to stand on.
I don’t think you understand what he meant with that comment. He means to ONLY keep the things that support the theory, and if they find facts that go against the theory they are thrown out. That is NOT scientific at all.
I believe Cohen’s point was that Hovind is only showing evidence that supports his views but then he says, “Taking only evidence that supports a preconceived idea and rejecting all other evidence is not very intelligent or scientific.”
Which makes me laugh out loud.
“The Colorado River did not form the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon was formed as the flood went down.” Just that… no evidence, no authority, just assertion. I despair of my first year students sometimes, but I’m fairly sure that none of them would try to sneak this past me.
[Comment edited at Elth’s request to remove a typo.]
He actually did give evidence for the Colorado River not forming the Grand Canyon. He stated that Lake Mede is below the height of the top of the canyon. This means that the Colorado River would have had to have flowed up. That is impossible though as water cannot flow up. The best example we have for a global flood is the eruption of Mount St. Helens. The pyroclastic flow created a miniature Grand Canyon complete with rock layers. NOTE: I do not intend to give evidence for Creationism in this post. None of this was ever intended to give such evidence, just to clarify what Kent Hovind said. I do apologize if this is seen as evidence for Creationism.
He did not put the evidence for the Colorado River not forming the Grand Canyon because he likely grew tired of saying it over and over again. He stated it in his Creation seminary videos(I have them) and in multiple debates. On top of that he likely believed that there was no confusion on his arguments for the global flood creating the Grand Canyon.
“The best example we have for a global flood is the eruption of Mount St. Helens. The pyroclastic flow created a miniature Grand Canyon complete with rock layers.”
No, it didn’t. The pyroclastic flow created a fairly uniform unconsolidated debris field which later experienced heavy rainfall rather than a flood.
In the case of the Grand Canyon there are many different rock layers present some of which contain stromatolites, some laid down under desert conditions and others laid on top of eroded rock. These are just three amongst many examples of why the St Helens event is not representative of the formation processes of the Grand Canyon. You will not find Hovind addressing these difficulties.
“He did not put the evidence for the Colorado River not forming the Grand Canyon because he likely grew tired of saying it over and over again.”
In the same way that the ten years he took to write his supposed “thesis” at the rate of ten pages a year so exhausted him that he only managed to complete four of the sixteen chapters he originally intended? In fact, it seems that he became so exhausted by his crayoning that he didn’t even notice that he hadn’t written them otherwise he would have made a note at the end of the “thesis” to the effect that there was lots more brilliance still to come – just as soon as he had had a good snooze.
Given the “countless hours typing, correcting and retyping the manuscript” spent by Miss Kim Van Gundy one can only imagine the juvenile quality of the hoot-filled original document. I’d give a few bob to get my hands on it.
…Lake Mede is a man-made lake. It exists because of the Hoover Dam.
Total crap. I would expect this from a fifteen year old student, no disrespect meant to those students. It has been written without academic rigour of any kind, no referencing, no arguments and full of personal waffle and hearsay. This is the worst I have ever seen.
It’s enough to make me think that “Dr.” ought to be a protected title. When I finish my thesis after three years of blood, sweat, and hard work, I will have the same title on my business card as Kent Hovind has on his.
If you were to study out the eruption of Mount St. Helens and the wheather following it, you would find that there never was any rainfall between the times of the eruption and the time the miniature Grand Canyon was found.
I admit to having a good laugh at that thesis. And I now have a better understanding of the term “Diploma Mill”.
C’mon guys, play the game! A quote each would enrich all our lives.
Ask, and ye shall receive!
“If a document is being questioned, the benefit of the doubt is given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” First line of page 61 (as displayed by my browser since there are no page numbers on this academic masterpiece).
I’m a bit late to this game since I just discovered this page, but this “dissertation” is pure gold! Also, I do believe I’ll do a bit more exploring on this page as the title (leaving fundamentalism) has piqued my interest.
Excellent! Thanks Steve.
Where are the citations! *cringe*
And I love how Satan’s feelings are so apparent to him:
“I believe that he had watched Adam and Eve have fellowship with their creator with pride and envy in his heart” (who knows what page)
To know how Satan felt and what he saw and did is one hell of a feat!
I opened it up, scrolled to a random page and this is literally the first thing my eyes fell on – page 69: “Hitler was an evolutionist and it was the crazy doctrine of evolution that is fundamentally responsible for World War II.”
AMAZING!! Quick someone, burn all the history books, turns out Kent knows the truth!
I think we can start with the fact that it was submitted to Newman from Seinfeld :o)
He KNOWS dinosaurs and man lived together! A dilophosaurus spat at him!
On 66 of 102 “Evolution is just a religion.” facepalm!
Anyone interested in the self torture that is the careful pier review of Kent Hovinds dissertation should go to the You Tube channel paulchartley and go to the playlist, Kent Hovinds Doctoral Dissertation. It is a line by line review containing no less than 70 videos. I have watched them all, I could not stand it but I could not turn away until getting to the end for some reason.
Last I heard Kent was transferred here to a prison in my home state of Colorado and is scheduled to get out in just 27 months. Is it too much to hope that he might have spent his time well and come up with some new material in prison? You know, like Hitler and Mein Kamph.
Pilgrim’s Progress was written in prison. So was Bertrand Russell’s Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy.
The reason Kent Hovind was in prison was for tax evasion. His reasons, though noble, do not justify his unbiblical actions. His reasons were because his tax dollars were going toward things like the murderous act of abortion and gun control and things like that. There was an incident that was recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that Jesus was asked about whether to pay tribute to God, or Caesar. Jesus asked for a coin and asked who’s image was on it. The Pharisees who asked Jesus the question replied “Caesar’s.” Jesus then said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” He said not only to give tithes and offerings to God at church( the synagogue in those days), but also to pay your taxes PERIOD. He gave no ifs, ands, or buts about it. He just said pay your taxes.
Didn’t he make some argument about how he shouldn’t have to pay taxes because he’s a citizen of Florida, not of the United States? Apparently he’s as clueless about geography as he is about science.
Unfortunately, there’s no way to pick a favorite. I thought this was pretty hysterical: “Chapter 9 discusses the “best evidence” evolutionists have for evolution, that is, the archeopteryx.” Till he tried to use the laws of thermodynamics to disprove evolution. His reasoning: It’s a scientific fact that everything in the universe tends towards disorder. Evolutionists claim evolution moves towards GREATER order. So it can’t be true. Boy, that was easy!
Even if I write fiction, I almost never use the exclamtion mark. And I have written a lot of fiction.
This is an incredible look into the inner workings of a fully indoctrinated mind. I’ve only read through the first 20-odd pages or so, but I thought, ‘The faulty teaching of evolution is hindering scientific progress.’, was a pretty grand statement to declare with such fortitude, whilst shouting that a Bronze Age book is flawless and beyond reproach.
It is incredible that this is the work of a 38 year-old. I wanted to quote from chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 which Kent promises us on the fourth page of his introduction. Unfortunately, time seemed to have run out before Kent could set crayon to sugar paper. Perhaps the missing chapters will appear in the two “theses” he tells us he has been writing while in prison.
Also, I question whether Kent was ever a “high school science teacher” as he claims at the beginning of his introduction. He taught his own version of science in his own baptist schools but I doubt such institutions could be described as high schools.
Apparently his ‘university’ claimed this was a leaked work-in-progress, not the final thing.
I don’t really care if that’s true; this wouldn’t even be an acceptable first draft at undergraduate level.
And Kent claims that he has subsequently added to the document and it is now over 200 pages long.
But within the document he describes the opus a number of times not as a thesis but as “a book”. Doubtless we can look forward shortly to its publication in the vanity press. Where else? As the Good Book says “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? In Kent’s case, ten years in the slammer.
No, Samphire, you’re correct; the unaccredited teaching that he did in his own schools, and the homeschooling that he put his kids through, are what counts as “high school science teacher” to him.
Nohm, presumably you meant that I was incorrect. Am I correct?
The problem is that “high school science teacher” can mean a teacher teaching science in a public high school or a teacher in a private school teaching science to high school level. I think that Hovind deliberately obscures the meaning to imply that he was something he was not.
I’ve also seen a claim by him (but cannot now lay my hands on the source) stating that he taught college level science for three years. As he refers to “Boyle’s gas laws” in one of his so-called seminars I wouldn’t even let him near a physics classroom of 13 year olds. God help his still ignorant students.
When I had a hobby of contributing to the comments column on the blog he used to run some ten years ago never once did anybody write in to claim that they had been one of his school students and praising his abilities as a science teacher and, in proof, now they were a(n) undergraduate/graduate/professor of geology/paleontology/biology etc at some well-respected university. In fact, none wrote in even to claim they had gone into any form of higher education as a direct result of Kent’s briliiant teaching abilities. I found that strange.
As for Kent home-schooling his kids, watching Eric bloviate identical nonsense to his father in his recent videos it is as though the advantages of sex to lend diversity to the species have utterly by-passed the Hovind household. Eric wasn’t born, he was cloned. Very sad.
^^ “Unfortunately, time seemed to have run out before Kent could set crayon to sugar paper.”
Can that be my favourite quote?
You might also enjoy my “Kent Hovind’s Resume”
If you can summon the strength (or just get drunk enough), Kent Hovind’s videos are all on-line. You will soon realize that his 1991 “dissertation” is basically the transcript of his tapes.
Oh, this is too much fun.
“The pressure in oil wells in Texas is another indication that the earth is young. I lived five years in Texas. I saw a flame shooting up in the sky one night and went over to investigate. There were some men burning off the natural gas as they were drilling an oil well. I began asking them questions, talked about the oil there in Longview, Texas, they told me that they have a blowout protector that they put about a thousand feet down in the ground in case they drilled into a pocket of pressure. I asked them what kind of pressure they were talking about, how much pressure is the oil under down there in the ground. When drilling down about 35 hundred feet, often the oil has twenty thousand pounds per square inch. If you have ever pumped up a bicycle tire to seventy or eighty pounds of pressure, you understand that it is pretty hard to do. That pressure would crack the rock in the strata because after a period of time the rock could only withstand the pressure for so long. Some scientists spent quite a bit of time studying different rock strata that oil is found in and the strata that the oil is found under, and try to determine how long the oil could withstand the intense pressure that it was under. Melvin Cook did quite a bit of study on this. The studies indicated that the oil could not have been under that pressure for more than ten thousand years. The fact that the oil is still under that pressure indicates that it has been down there less than ten thousand years. Often when they first began drilling oil wells in the early 1930’s, they would hit that pocket of pressure and it would blow everything up out of the ground. The thirty or forty thousand feet of pipe would just be shot up out of the ground like spaghetti because of this intense pressure. I would like to ask the evolutionists if he has some kind of answer to the fact that if the earth is indeed million of years old, why is the oil still under such incredible pressure? Why hasn’the it disipated into the rock, and formed cracks, and leaked out through the years?”
I don’t even know where to start, aside from adding [sic] to the whole paragraph. I have a doctorate. And my dissertation does not read like my grandfather’s retelling of a conversation with a neighbour over the fence.
I got to reading the last pages, (by the way there are some page numbers added by hand, there must be 101 pages in total) and I got a bit confused. The language that he uses is almost childish, he doesn’t seem to know how to explain an idea, and he has also a few grammar mistakes.
Around page 93 he says: “For instance, Communism is a direct offshoot of evolution.” What is it with creationists that have to medle science with political regimes, and he obviously has no idea about what communism really is (cf. the end of history etc).
‘Evolution teaches that things gradually increase’
Okay, I scrolled with my eyes shut and got this:
‘It was Shintoism, based on evolution, that was responsible for Japan’s actions in World War II. They were determined to take over and rule the world, just like Hitler was doing in Germany. Both of them were motivated by a desire to help evolution along. This goes right back to the Garden of Eden where Satan said, “Ye shall be as gods.” ‘
But we’ve already had WW2 and evolution ones, so I also did some deliberate searching and found:
‘Paul went to heaven where he got a foretaste of eternity. He saw Heaven!!! God said, “I’m sorry, Paul, you must go back down to earth. I’m not done with you yet.’
DUN DUN DUUUUUN.
Gah, underlining didn’t show. As well as having three exclamation marks, “He saw Heaven!!!” is underlined.
Yeah, the underlining gives it the necessary emphasis, but it is the three exclamations that really make you think about foretasting eternity.
The God of the Bible and Allah (god of the Muslims) are indeed two different gods. The biggest difference between the two though is that Jehovah God(God of the Bible) gives a message of love for all. Allah (god of the Koran) gives a message of hate for non-Muslims.( infidels as they are called by the Muslims) The best display of this is in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The world is under constant threat of terrorist attacks by radical Muslims (Jihadis as they are called) in a holly that they call jihad. The purpose of this war is to eradicate all other religions, take over the world, and ‘unite’ the world under Islam. If you were to ever hear the radio talk shows in the Middle East, you would hear nothing but hate.
I’ve lived in the Middle East, napplegate. You have been highly brainwashed if you think you ‘would hear nothing but hate’.
I suggest you do some travelling when you’re finished with your ‘education’. Learn something with your own eyes instead of just believing everything you’re told.
Am I a fan of Islam? No. But what you’re spewing above is straight Fox news propaganda and then some. We’re all human beings, napplegate. Yes, even Muslims.
First, I never questioned whether Muslims are humans. They are humans just like we are, there is no denying that fact. You are right on that you will not hear just hate and hate alone though. A missionary from the Middle East recently came to our church. His name is Edgar Feghaly. His ministry was surprisingly allowed by the Muslim government of Iraq to start a Christian radio station. His station is surprisingly successful. Even the straight forward Muslims will listen to it. Feghaly was giving his testimony of being in Baghdad. He was in a taxi, and was surprised to hear the taxi driver, a Muslim man listening to his Christian radio station. When he asked if the driver knew what he was listening to, the driver said ‘yes, I would listen to all the Islamic stations and hear nothing but hate. I did not like it. Every single station you go to, you hear the same thing, hatred. However, I like your station because it is the only station that preaches a message of love. This is a Muslim saying these things about a Christian station. In conclusion, 99.99% of what you will hear on Middle Eastern radio is hate. The other 0.01% is love.
The facts probably won’t interest you particularly, napple_, but the Quran at least asserts that all the “children of the Book” follow the same god. You probaly imagine that you are all biblical and groovey using the word “Jehovah.” In fact it is the poor English gloss for the German attempt to write a pronounced version of YHWH. (This board can’t manage Hebrew). But, the gods worshiped in the Bible, particularly the earlier bits are directed to the god known as YHWH. They are directed to worship the god “El.” In fact the bronze/early iron age gods in the Pentateuch are El, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah. To avoid being ignorant, and appearing stupid and pompous to people who are better informed, I recommend reading:
Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God 2nd ed.” Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
2003 “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts” Oxford University Press.
Sparks, Kenton L.
2005 “Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible” Peabody PA: Hendrickson Publishers
Speiser, E. A.
1962 “Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes” New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday
These are fairly accessible in that your lack of linguistic skills won’t make impossible to read them.
Listening to radio talk shows anywhere seems to be nothing but hate.
“The God of the Bible and Allah (god of the Muslims) are indeed two different gods.”
In the same way that a purple people-eater and a leprechaun are two completely different organisms with different anatomies, diets, habitats etc.
The god of the Jihadist seems to me to bear a close similarity to the god of the OT the belief in which few christians now hold.
I do see where you are coming from, but it is not a correct view. The reason God had the Israelites conquer the Canaanites was because they inhabited the land that God had promised the Israelites. They were furthermore wicked and practiced human sacrifice. Never did the Israelites go and try to conquer the whole world like the Muslims are wanting to do. They did conquer a good portion of the world in the times before and/or during the Crusades. Whereas Jehovah God is a God of love and mercy(as seen in Jericho with Rahab and her family), on the other hand we have Allah, who is a god of hatred.( as seen in the Middle East in the fact that it is very dangerous to be in any other religion except Islam. Punishments for being an ‘infidel’ include, but are not limited to, death, imprisonment, and torture.
The discussion was about gods – not about Jews/Christians/Muslims. However, the god of the Jews is the same fellow as the god of the Christians. Are you suggesting that the Spanish, French & British didn’t colonise the world with their religion and armies?
As for the Canaanites practicing human sacrifice what makes you think that the early Israelites didn’t also engage in the same rituals? Perhaps you also think that propaganda is a recent invention.
Your view of Jehovah is at odds with the portrait described in the OT; you should take off those rose-tinted glasses and read it sometime. Your misunderstanding reflects more on the goodness of your own conscience than it does on the moral character of the Ancient of Days. I cannot comment on anecdotal reports of Iraqi radio station polemics but have you ever listened to the right wing ravings of Glenn Beck and his sick ilk? It sounds to me that they have much in common.
The number of genocides in the OT qualify YHWH and his followers as a mass murderers. And let’s not forget the “temple cleansing” of Hilkiah under King Josiah (18 years old at the time).
It’s amazing how hateful atheists can be. Does it make you fel good inside to try to destroy another human being? And why is it that atheists are so fixated on Christians? What is this obsession? Could it be a deep down need to connect with God? You really need to ask yourselves why you seek out these conflicts, and them find out what your really looking for.
I’m fairly sure you’re a troll, but I’ll play ball once.
I’m not interested in destroying Kent Hovind. I am interested in critiquing his ideas.
This is a blog about the ways in which I perceive Christian fundamentalism to be harmful, based on my own experiences of it. It’s based on my optimism that the world can be improved if we challenge harmful ideas.
I have watched Kent Hovind in action. I am very glad he will stay in jail for several more years.
Gary, I would keep Kent inside until he had produced a 101-paged fully-referenced document explaining why the statement “I’ll believe in evolution when a dog gives birth to a non-dog” is the very antithesis of evolutionary theory.
Actually he’ll be out rather soon 🙂 haters make him famous 😉
Atheism is rather irrelevant in this particular discussion. Kent Hovind is a Creationist, so the topic at hand is evolution and people who contest it. Evolution is only connected to atheism in the sense that at this point in history, the only arguments against evolution are of religious nature. Otherwise, we aren’t being atheist at all here–in fact, I don’t believe the post or even the comments were anti-Christian.
We’re discussing Kent Hovind because this man teaches science, yet his doctorate thesis shows stunning incompetence.
Page 50: “[The people of Louisiana] contested that law… they immediately claim the ‘separation of church and state.” This ideal is not found in the Constitution. It is found in Jefferson’s writings.”
1) Speaking of citations, this would have been an ideal place to cite both the Jeffersonian writings he refers to and the Constitution. However, citing the Constitution is problematic because…
2) “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” –Constitution, Amendment I.
Just in general: he spends so much time on history. Why isn’t he citing any of it? It would be so easy.
While you might agree with you in being fair and honest, you have to give Hovind credit for someone who has been through nothing more than a diploma mill, he has given some of the best scholars in our country fits in debates…I have attended some of them! I find that pretty funny no matter where we stand on the issue. Maybe Higher Education is JUST overrated period.
Sad to see so many dumb people becoming doctors and getting master’s degrees. Oh well. Just wanna say thank you, Lord for Kent and please hurry, we need you NOW.
Some choice quotes:
“The Egyptians taught a form of evolution, saying that life evolved from the slime along the Nile River.”
“Actually, evolution fits into the realm of religion. Webster’s definition of religion says belief in a divine or super-human power to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator and reuler of the universe.” If this process of evolution created and rules the universe, then that is the super-human power that the evolutionists worship.”
“I believe that the current teaching of evolution that is going on in our public schools and public univeristies has spawned a great number of social evils. For instance, Communism is a direct offshoot of evolution.”
He doesn’t even go on to explain the communism thing as far as I could see. Also on page 64 he confuses biological evolution with a physicist using the word ‘evolution’ in a general sense to mean change over time. I think it was talking about expansion of the universe so not exactly a subtle point! I couldn’t be bothered typing it out, but it’s worth a read.
Obviously the person who posted this didn’t post everything Hovind said, watch Hovind’s seminar number five he goes into it. Do you’re research before you post something you know nothing about.
On page whatever, we see Hovind’s reasoning at its best:
“Those canaries will never, given all the time you want, will never change into elephants, or dinosaurs, or trees, or tomatoes. If they did, that would be macro-evolution.”
That’s superb. Welcome to the blog, by the way, Fuchan.
Thank you! It’s a very interesting blog (and entertaining, heh) 🙂
You are clever. But not that clever.
I think you might also want to do some research into the credentials of EUGENE PETERSON—-you-know , that guy who wrote the ‘MESSAGE’ FROM HELL
He also says he has four degrees unlike Hovind ,Eugene bvelieves he is credible
something about where the most dirt will stick
Eugene in a freemason ( gave the Pope a masonic handshake , and also uses masonic symbolism in his book , also uses phrases from Wiocca and clairvoyants
worth the research?
You appear to have made some errors in reasoning somewhere along the way; you won’t find a sympathetic audience for this comment here.
LMAO! “Darwin invented racism, apparently”
This put a smile on my face in spite of the bleak weather.
There’s such long list but first to mind (because they never get mention for it around here): The Irish! Will someone tell them they never suffered due to their race because Darwin hadn’t gotten around to it. Well, it has to be due to their race ’cause it couldn’t have been due to their religion given they were Christians also.
You’re just being a hater. You are certainly not an unbiased observer you really should open your mind a bit maybe someone can drop an intelligent thought in there. God loves you have a nice time focusing on you’re game and musing on what man can do.
My favorite line is “He was a lawyer, not a scientist.” on page 34.
He says this as though he is.
His videos always amuse me to no end.
OoOOooOOoo! I nearly forgot! My second favorite (4) line(s) is (are) when he takes (as I previously said) four lines describing how fat Erasmus Darwin was. What an $&@, eh?
I just realized how old this page is, but I care not! Ever higher, EXCELSIOR! (Cowabunga d00d!) FROM HELL’S HEART I STAB AT THEE! FOR HATE’S SAKE I STAB MY LAST BREATH AT THEE! POST, POST, POST!
Self-righteous pompous people. Not a one would argue to his face. That’s alright – believe we magically appeared from the head of a pin that contained all matter in the universe and I’ll believe in God. When we both die: If you’re right then we both simply cease to exist and I would have been happy living a life with kind acts and a happy soul but, if I’m right then you will spend an eternity (f.o.r.e.v.e.r.) in hell. I’ll take my chances there. I win with both scenarios. You lose with both.
I love Dr. Hovind’s humor on page 94.
“If a frog turns into a prince instantaneously, we call that a … fairytale. But, if that frog turns into a prince very slowly, … we will teach that … as scientific fact.”
Its obvious that we evolved from frogs. We will all eventually “croak”.
evolutionists believe we evolved from a rock. a tomato a dog and a human are not the same but evolutionists believe they all came from a common ancestor. you want to believe we came from nothing. face it, you believe that you have evidence for evolution but in reality you are closed minded and hate God and thats why this lie looks like evidence to you. it is convenient to believe that you wont be judged after this life. well my friends it is not. I hope you find Jesus because he is the only one who can make it right.
This is one instance where I have to agree with Kent Hovind. Its obvious that we evolved from a rock! Animals eat plants, or, animals eat other animals that eat plants, so, animals must have evolved from plants. But, plants can only survive on organic matter. A plant in sand will wither and die. Excluding space aliens, the obvious origin of organic material is inorganic material (rocks). This has been a fact established by science for centuries. Originally labeled spontaneous regeneration, its now called abiogenesis. Its obvious we evolved from a rock.
Some great quotes in this.
Pingback: Kent Hovind’s doctoral thesis | EvoAnth
Pingback: Open Access Scholarship
Pingback: Kent Hovind Teaches World History
Pingback: 100 Reasons Kent Hovind is Stupid! | thegreatantagonizer
Pingback: Christians, Be Cautious! 50 Disgraced Christian Leaders