Wednesday, December 9, 2009

"Hello, my name is Kent Hovind..."

As you may have seen, Kent Hovind's 'dissertation' has been released online. The 101 page scribblings of the good 'Doctor' were made available from Wikileaks and you can read the masterpiece itself here.

Some highlights include;

  • "Another man that is very important as we trace the history of evolution is Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. He was born in 1731 and died in 1802. He was an extremely fat person."

  • "Darwin's book was just what the world needed to justify the cruel ruthless tactics of the industrial revolution. Darwin had a theology degree."

  • "It was Shintoism, based on evolution, that was responsible for Japan's actions in World War II"

  • "Evolution is not a scientific fact. It actually is not even a good theory. It is just a hypothesis 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 worshiped as the creator and ruler of the universe."
  • "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."
  • "In Japan, the same thing was going on with the Shintu [sic] religion... Japan and Germany got together and we had an awful time in World War II."
  • "The cosmic dust layer [on the Moon] was only six or seven thousand years old."

It goes on.

This guy still refers to himself as 'Dr.' Hovind, as do his fans. He has been one of the major contributors on the YEC side of the Evo-Creo debate for years and his 'ideas' are often quoted near-verbatum by those who think research is a dirty word.

It would be depressing, if it weren't so funny.

Let me know if there are any other quotes that should be included in the highlights reel.

Cheers,


Edit:

Thanks to BeamStalk for the TalkOrigins link that debunks every single thing that Hovind says (as if it were needed!). Nice.

8 comments:

londonlad said...

Kent Hovind appears to have the same amount of credibility as Clarke Kent...

My favourite quote is: ‘Darwin's book was just what the world needed to justify the cruel ruthless tactics of the industrial revolution...’. As one of my own little ‘Thought for the Day’ for many a Christian blogger and/or poster who believes the world would be a better and more just place if we filled the churches’ pews and regularly read the Bible, is to note that, here in European liberal democracies at least, the more secular society has become the greater its tangible social morality. Whereas when the pews were full and the Bible better known the majority of the population was treated shamefully by a plutocratic, often church attending, elite. Here’s to Liberalism...

Mr Hovind should perhaps know his history a little better – then he might realise that the Industrial Revolution is generally reckoned to have taken place between 1770-1840 (depending on the historian...); whereas Origin of Species was published in 1859. But when do the likes of Hovind take any notice of facts?

For my own part, I am more than willing to say that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. may contain certain truths; truths that cannot be scientifically measured, or measured from within a positivist paradigm. I am confident in my assertion that science itself is not without its flaws and limits; its motives are not altruistic and it is not able to explain all aspects of human life. Alas the Hovinds of this world (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc.) rarely, indeed almost never, concede their own creed has limitations and failings – though are more than willing to attack other creeds or secular or positivist values. Speaking as someone who was at one time a committed Evangelical Christian who then gravitated to a catholicism (purposeful small ‘c’) which led me to live in a religious community for several years, I lay the blame for this endemic intolerance on the part of some of those with a religious bent (often with a palpable Right Wing bias) as part and parcel of the narcissism which is the foundation of much religious belief – particularly monotheistic belief.

Hovind is of course worthy of ridicule and we can smile an indulgent and patronising smile at his scribblings. Yet we should be wary that there are others in far greater positions of power who hold similar views...

ExPatMatt said...

Hey londonlad,

Have you given up on Chris Greiser? I still stop by to see what inanity he's posting these days but I never post.

"Yet we should be wary that there are others in far greater positions of power who hold similar views..."

That's the scary part!

Regards,

Chris Geiser said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
londonlad said...

Odd you should mention this Ex-Pat as I was just pondering what a good subject Creationism would be for a PhD thesis – subjects for PhDs are not unlike green fields and those other than your own always look greener (or more interesting at least!).

I am sure that in the hearts of hearts of many of those who claim to be Creationists there is the nagging doubt that there is substantial evidence to suggest Evolution is also a worthy contender for describing how the earth came to be peopled. However I do not for one minute think Creationism is about truth! It is rather an ideological and political rallying point and a means of saying I am a card carrying Protestant Christian of a certain (usually Right of Centre) worldview. Yet on an individual level it is also a means of shoving all what is awkward and inconsistent about belief grounded in a hermeneutical reading of the Bible neatly under the carpet and stamping one’s foot and saying ‘The Bible says so – so it must be true...’ even though the Bible is contradictory, much was not meant to be read ‘literally’ (e.g. the stories of Jonah and Job are from a Hebraic tradition of Wisdom Literature and are not pretending to tell us ‘real events’) and not one scrap of original texts remains – the earliest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament were written 300 yrs after the events they purport to tell and are not consistent witnesses.

However such subtleties are of little interest to many Creationists; their concern is related to espousing a certain worldview and finding some compromise between their inner self with its doubts, fears, hopes and hatreds and the outer world where they find themselves not being taken seriously (and thus not having much of a voice in Western society) because the wider Western world has chosen to align itself with a loosely evidence based worldview. Hence the Creationist solution is to just state that the ‘evidence based’ worldview is wrong; the simplicity of this epistemological coup could be admired if it were not for its arrogance! Yet it is more than this, as Creationists tend to be particularly prone to the vice of pride. When reading blogs by those with a Creationist slant you get the sense that few, if any of these people, could be described as ‘humble’ or ‘selfless’. The overriding sense one gets from their blogs is that of unmitigated and undiluted ego – not to mention poor self-knowledge! I think this egocentricity is something Evangelical Christianity (and, ironically, High Islam) is particularly adept at producing. Individual salvation, an individual relationship with God through Jesus and personal revelation and immediacy with the ‘Divine’ via Scripture. It all makes for a rather overly inflated view of the self and self importance; it is in short, a recipe for narcissism. The fact Evolution and its allied disciplines tends to move humanity out of the centre of things and somewhat downgrades man’s importance in the scheme of things is what really irks those for whom their perceived part in God’s Great Plan says more about their own view of their importance than any real concern about the integrity of science or The Bible for that matter.

Yes, there is much that could be written about Creationism, but alas I have my own interests and I really must get on with them!

As for Mr Greiser, I do have an occasional look at his blog – though I note few people comment on his postings anymore. If there was just a tinge of genuine ‘debate’ I would continue to comment; but it is useless to debate with those wearing the blinkers of dogmatic faith. Their concern is only what they see immediately in front of them - though I suspect this goal is more concerned with achieving some psychological equilibrium between the inner self and the outer world than anything as mundane as the origins of life on earth!

Happy Christmas!

L.L.

Heavy snow forecast for the London area tonight! Makes its oh so Christmassy!!

Debunkey Monkey said...

"Another man that is very important as we trace the history of evolution is Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. He was born in 1731 and died in 1802. He was an extremely fat person."

I loled!

BB-Idaho said...

"Listener's letter: [.....] It is said the Sun is a burning ball of gas, in other words fire. What is the one thing that fire needs to burn? Oxygen. How come that stars continue to burn if they have no oxygen to keep them burning? [.....]
Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one."
..er, try hydrogen 'fusion'..and
'Dr.' repeat grade school, please.

Ward said...

Odd you should mention this Ex-Pat as I was just pondering what a good subject Creationism would be for a PhD thesis – subjects for PhDs are not unlike green fields and those other than your own always look greener (or more interesting at least!). I am sure that in the hearts of hearts of many of those who claim to be Creationists there is the nagging doubt that there is substantial evidence to suggest Evolution is also a worthy contender for describing how the earth came to be peopled. However I do not for one minute think Creationism is about truth! It is rather an ideological and political rallying point and a means of saying I am a card carrying Protestant Christian of a certain (usually Right of Centre) worldview. Yet on an individual level it is also a means of shoving all what is awkward and inconsistent about belief grounded in a hermeneutical reading of the Bible neatly under the carpet and stamping one’s foot and saying ‘The Bible says so – so it must be true...’ even though the Bible is contradictory, much was not meant to be read ‘literally’ (e.g. the stories of Jonah and Job are from a Hebraic tradition of Wisdom Literature and are not pretending to tell us ‘real events’) and not one scrap of original texts remains – the earliest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament were written 300 yrs after the events they purport to tell and are not consistent witnesses. However such subtleties are of little interest to many Creationists; their concern is related to espousing a certain worldview and finding some compromise between their inner self with its doubts, fears, hopes and hatreds and the outer world where they find themselves not being taken seriously (and thus not having much of a voice in Western society) because the wider Western world has chosen to align itself with a loosely evidence based worldview. Hence the Creationist solution is to just state that the ‘evidence based’ worldview is wrong; the simplicity of this epistemological coup could be admired if it were not for its arrogance! Yet it is more than this, as Creationists tend to be particularly prone to the vice of pride. When reading blogs by those with a Creationist slant you get the sense that few, if any of these people, could be described as ‘humble’ or ‘selfless’. The overriding sense one gets from their blogs is that of unmitigated and undiluted ego – not to mention poor self-knowledge! I think this egocentricity is something Evangelical Christianity (and, ironically, High Islam) is particularly adept at producing. Individual salvation, an individual relationship with God through Jesus and personal revelation and immediacy with the ‘Divine’ via Scripture. It all makes for a rather overly inflated view of the self and self importance; it is in short, a recipe for narcissism. The fact Evolution and its allied disciplines tends to move humanity out of the centre of things and somewhat downgrades man’s importance in the scheme of things is what really irks those for whom their perceived part in God’s Great Plan says more about their own view of their importance than any real concern about the integrity of science or The Bible for that matter. Yes, there is much that could be written about Creationism, but alas I have my own interests and I really must get on with them! As for Mr Greiser, I do have an occasional look at his blog – though I note few people comment on his postings anymore. If there was just a tinge of genuine ‘debate’ I would continue to comment; but it is useless to debate with those wearing the blinkers of dogmatic faith. Their concern is only what they see immediately in front of them - though I suspect this goal is more concerned with achieving some psychological equilibrium between the inner self and the outer world than anything as mundane as the origins of life on earth! Happy Christmas! L.L. Heavy snow forecast for the London area tonight! Makes its oh so Christmassy!!

Anonymous said...

top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]free casino games[/url] brake the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]casino online[/url] manumitted no consign hand-out at the leading [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]no put reward
[/url].