DD wasn't aware when he sang Hovind's praises to us that Kent is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence resulting from being convicted of 58 federal counts related to tax fraud. Before being jailed, Hovind ran a successful Creationist theme park, which brought in a significant amount of money that he never paid any taxes on. Hovind's defense at his trial, and I'm honestly not making this up, was the money wasn't his - it was God's, and God doesn't have to pay taxes.
If you want to kill brain cells for a few hours but can't find any paint cans or gas fumes, you can view the entire "Dinosaurs and the Bible" video here, as well as the rest of Hovind's seminars. Another one of note is "The Dangers of Evolution," which is just as silly as the rest, but also actively offensive to anyone with any ability to think through arguments or use reason. Humorously enough the video is hosted on a site called "Free Hovind" that wants to overturn all of Hovind's criminal convictions and set him free. One of the most telling factors of the total lack of credibility is the opening segment when a Hovind supporter talks about cryptozoology, which isn't even a psuedo-science, it's just plain science fiction.
If you'd just like to catch some of the highlights and not waste two hours, you can check out this humorous rebuttal video here (the user didn't allow embedding for some reason).
There have been several champions of creationism or intelligent design throughout the years, but three of the most infamous are the previously mentioned Kent Hovind, evangelist Ray Comfort, and Ken Ham, who runs the Creation Museum and the organization Answers in Genesis. For a little more information about Ray Comfort, you can check out my previous blog about Comfort's lack of understanding of evolutionary biology. I've also got another blog about the movie "Fireproof," that includes a video refuting the ideas behind Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron's beliefs about evolution.
Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and their peers aren't scientists, and they do not in any way follow the scientific method, as shown by this humorous comic strip:
The problem with how Creationists operate is that they start with the presupposition that the Bible is true and all the stories contained within it actually happened. They then filter all information they find to make it fit within that belief, and ignore any evidence that contradicts that belief. That isn't science, that is religion, which is the exact opposite of science. They do not in any way seek out evidence first to see if the Bible is true, or seek out evidence to see if their God actually exists. They simply assume these ideas are true without any facts, which corrupts any information they look at from that point onward.
Ken Ham directly explained why Creationists operate this way in his interview with Bill Maher in the movie "Religulous." Maher asked Ken Ham why he felt so strongly that the creation myth in Genesis needed to be supported. Ham responded by saying that he had to prove the Christian creation myth, because if the creation story in Genesis wasn't true, then there was no reason to believe any of the rest of the claims of the Bible. You can check out a brief video of Ham in the movie explaining this belief here.
Ham starts with the belief the Bible is true, and then either distorts any information he receives to try to make it fit that belief (putting a square peg in a round hole), or outright ignores any contradictory information. It doesn't matter to Ham that there is evidence for evolution and no evidence for the Christian creation tale, because he needs to keep believing the Christian creation myth in order to continue believing that a big invisible man in the sky has a plan for him and is watching out for him.
Science works exactly the opposite of this behavior. Science requires evidence to support a claim before anyone can take the claim seriously. Rigorous testing is required before an idea is given credibility, and science actively attempts to disprove its own claims in order to reach the correct conclusion.
Before moving on to Hovind's seminar on dinosaurs, I thought it was pertinent to point out that even the insane folks from Answers in Genesis take exception to Hovind's stupidity. Answers in Genesis put together a list of arguments Creationists should never use, which includes basically all of Hovind's arguments.
It shouldn't be surprising that even other creationists disagree with Hovind, as his background in science is incredibly shaky. He claims to have been a science teacher for 15 years (those poor children's minds!), but leaves out that they were private schools that did not require teachers to have any sort of accreditation. Hovind has touted that he has a master's degree and a doctorate, but fails to mention he got them from a non-accredited school that lets you receive a doctorate in months and (thankfully) no longer offers that particular program. There is a page all about Hovind's attempt at a thesis paper at this location.
Moving on to the actual seminar, I knew we were in for a horrific thrill ride like no other when Hovind put a picture up on his wall screen of a daddy and baby dinosaur reading the Bible together. It doesn't take long for the crazy to come out full force, but before that hits Hovind tries a few methods of discrediting evolution by mentioning common Creationist tactics.
The most notable example is when he tries to say that Piltdown Man somehow disproves evolution. For anyone not familiar with the story, Piltdown Man was a skull fragment originally thought to be the skull of an early human ancestor, but which was later proven to be a hoax. This event is frequently cited by Creationists, and was referenced many times in the "science" class at the Christian school I attended.
What Creationists always fail to mention is that skepticism of the Piltdown Man skull existed from the very beginning, and that it was evolutionary scientists who discovered it was a hoax and promptly announced their findings. It's not like some avenging Creationist crusader swooped down and proved the evil scientists were actively lying to people. As was stated before, science actively tries to disprove its own claims to reach the truth, which is what happened with Piltdown Man.
Later during the seminar, Kent tries to discredit the idea that the earth is older than 10,000 years by pointing out that the commonly accepted age of the Earth has changed throughout history. This just further shows that he doesn't understand the scientific method, and that he has failed to realize that our estimates of the age of the Earth continuously get OLDER, not younger. The number has changed because more information has been gained and a more accurate number is being reached.
It's not long after that Hovind brings out the big gun crazy: he believes that dinosaurs still exist today. Yes, that's right, according to Kent Hovind, there are dinosaurs wandering around unseen all over Earth. He starts off sneaky, trying to lay a groundwork for making the idea seem less amazingly absurd. He quotes an article that begins with an innocent statement about no one alive having seen dinosaurs. Hovind claims that the author can't possibly know that, unless he has personally questioned everyone alive on Earth. This is an idea that Christians love, because it lets them believe things that have no evidence behind them. Christians don't understand how the burden of proof works, or that ideas don't have to be accepted just because they are put forth. Until valid, verifiable evidence comes to light to back up a claim, that claim doesn't have to be taken seriously.
So Hovind starts with the idea that we can't possibly know for sure that no one alive today has seen a living dinosaur, because we aren't all knowing. He then quotes a Bible verse, which does not in any way say that Adam saw dinosaurs, to make the claim that Adam saw dinosaurs. Apparently he's already forgotten that he just said he can't know for sure whether someone has seen dinosaurs unless he asks them first?
He then goes on to explain that Noah took dinosaurs on the ark to escape the world wide flood described in the Bible. To explain how dinosaurs fit on the ark (remember that the Bible actually lists its exact measurements), he says that Noah only took baby dinosaurs. I suppose at the very least its good to see Hovind trying to apply logic to an exceedingly illogical story, but he can't get around the fact that its still an insanely illogical story. Somehow every single species of animal on the entire planet lived within walking distance of Noah's house, and they all just followed him on the ark? We are still finding new species of animals today on every continent of Earth, so there's no way Noah was able to round them all up. They all just coexisted peacefully without the carnivores eating the other animals? There is a reason Noah's Ark is frequently a theme for baby rooms - its obviously a fairy tale. This is a no-brainer.
Hovind tries to avoid the issue of how many species there are on Earth by claiming Noah didn't get two of every species, but rather took two of every "kind." What he means by that is that Noah took two dogs, from which all other types of dogs eventually sprang, and so on. Apparently he doesn't realize that he's actively advocating for evolution by using this argument.
Later on, Kent proclaims that evolution "takes faith," which is similar to the infamous Christian apologist argument that they don't "have enough faith to be an atheist." First off, apparently this man doesn't understand what the word "faith" means, as it denotes a belief that has no evidence behind it. The theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the way that the theory of gravity is accepted as scientific fact. While scientists continue to learn new things about evolution, and debate some of the particulars of how it works, it is a foregone conclusion that evolution is a reality.
This site has an easy to follow list of the evidence for evolution that is broken down by topic and builds on previous information. There is a massive collection of references for the evidence behind common descent at this location, covering topics such as the fossil record, evidence from gene sequences, evidence of observed natural selection, and much more.
But the issue of evidence aside, its never clear if this claim that evolution "takes faith" is meant as an insult or a compliment. Is Hovind trying to say that believing in something without evidence is a bad thing? If so, then he'd better stop believing in talking snakes and zombie saviors right away. Is he trying to say that believing in evolution without evidence as an act of faith is a good thing, since that's what he does with his beliefs? If so, then what was the point in the statement to begin with?
To further lay the groundwork for how he will try to explain that dinosaurs still exist today, Hovind discusses how there are supposedly 270 different flood legends throughout history. He feels the number of flood legends must clearly prove that the Biblical flood happened. Hovind goes through some of those legends, which come from a variety of different cultures. What's interesting is how Hovind picks and chooses which parts of those legends he wants to believe, and discards the rest. He likes the part about the flood, so he accepts that part of the legend is true. But he then ignores the other legends from those cultures, which frequently contradict a Biblical worldview and are the basis of belief systems for opposing religions. He also ignores how there are many legends of a son-of-god character, born of a virgin who eventually dies and is resurrected, that all took place well before the advent of Christianity.
At this point I'm thinking to myself "If he's willing to accept that multiple flood myths proves the Biblical flood, then obviously he needs to believe in other absurd myths that are prevalent throughout history, like dragons." I'm chuckling to myself, thinking that idea is ridiculous. I should have known better. His next point in the seminar is that all the dragon myths throughout history somehow prove that dinosaurs still exist. I don't think I've ever face palmed as hard as I did at that moment.
He goes through many legends of dragons, and again selectively picks the parts he likes to believe. He's more than happy to believe that the Norse dragon Fafnir existed, but then forgets all about the rest of that particular legend, which involves dwarves and a magic sword. He's fine with accepting Chinese depictions of dragons, but rejects the rest of the legends surrounding those depictions.
As another "proof" that dinosaurs survived the Biblical flood and still exist, he talks about finding artifacts of children's toys that show dinosaurs and people living together. Think about this argument for a second. Fast forward two or three hundred years, and picture a descendant of Kent Hovind giving a lecture to a future generation. "Archeologists have dug up plastic children's toys from the ruins of old America, and can you believe it, they have dinosaurs and people together! The people of 21st century America MUST have seen living dinosaurs!"
You'd think that believing dinosaurs still exist, with no proof whatsoever, would be about as crazy as you can get, but you'd be wrong. Hovind also believes that creationism isn't taught in schools because of a conspiracy among the "New World Order" (which he thinks consists of Jane Fonda, Ted Turner, the English royal family, Israel, and the ACLU). He proclaims that, were he President of the United States, the first thing he would do was abolish public schools and dismantle the Department of Education. Thank fuck Kent Hovind will never be President.
As a humorous side note, Kent mocks Saddam Hussein's belief that he was Nebuchadnezzar reincarnated as obviously ridiculous. Does this man not listen to the things he himself is saying? His beliefs are far more absurd!
After the seminar ends, Hovind interviews a few people who claim to have seen living dinosaurs. Almost every time I watch a religious documentary, engage in a debate with a religious person, or read any sort of religious literature, I again have to link to the video below about personal anecdotes. People claiming they have seen dinosaurs does not prove that dinosaurs are still alive. These people need to have evidence to back up their claims, of which there is absolutely none.
Although it's not touched on much in this particular video, Creationists frequently put forth the idea that evolution or the Big Bang aren't science because they are in the past and can't be recreated. Apparently these people are unaware of archeology or paleontology or geology? We absolutely can make informed, scientific claims about past events based on the evidence left behind. It also shows that Creationists don't understand science, as they are unaware that evolution is biology, and the Big Bang is cosmology. These are two completely separate areas of science that don't rely on the other. The Big Bang is a complex subject beyond the scope of this blog, but it should be stated that there absolutely is observable evidence for the Big Bang, and its currently the best answer to explain what we see in the universe. You can find out more about the evidence for the Big Bang here, here, and here, among many other easily obtainable resources.
Kent Hovind, and many other Creationists, claims that the theory of evolution is dangerous because it directly led to Hitler's atheism, quest for war, and the eradication of the Jews. The atheism bit is actively at odds with reality, as Hitler identified himself as Christian, argued against atheism, and frequently cites God and Jesus throughout "Mein Kampf" as the inspiration for his future atrocities. But lets put that issue aside for a moment, and pretend that Hitler was some kind of evil atheist who felt that the idea of survival of the fittest gave him free reign to eradicate specific groups of people. Guess what? That doesn't in any way invalidate the theory of evolution. Even if evolutionary ideas were used for absolute evil, that doesn't make them wrong. The invention of gun powder has led to an absurdly huge number of deaths throughout history. Does that fact somehow disprove the existence of gun powder?
As a final note about common Creationist claims from Comfort, Ham, and others, I'd like to briefly go over the claim that there are no transitional forms or "missing links." What Creationists are failing to understand is that literally every thing is a transitional form. Every creature is going from something to something else due to environmental pressure. If Creationists were willing to perform a 2 second Google search, they would see that there are many, many, many examples of transitional forms that have been discovered. Two specific examples of known transitional forms can be found here.
To finish off this blog, I'll leave you with the humor of another atheist blogger who organized a group of skeptics to visit Ken Ham's Creation Museum. This wonderful comic strip depicts Ken Ham riding a dinosaur battling cephalapods summoned through the power of Cthulhu. What could be more awesome?
