A RESPONSE TO KENT HOVIND'S "26 QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS"
Kent Hovind is in the forefront of the anti-evolution movement. He testifies before governmental committees and has wide public support. This is unfortunate, because his arguments are based on deception. To be fair to Mr. Hovind, he himself is a victim of his own self deception. He knows nothing about science, but doesn't know that he doesn't know. Click here for background information on Kent Hovind.
His "26 Questions for Evolutionists" are listed below. My responses are in red lettering.
If I say I don't know the answer to any of the above, then how does that disprove the idea that present species are descended from primitive ancestors? The answer is: it doesn't. These questions are based on the biased, untrue, and unproven idea that evolution must have occurred by mere chance alone. The above also represents the creationist deception of raising issues for which no clear answer exists while ignoring issues which are strongly supported by factual data.
What does this have to do with the disproving evolution? The answer is, it doesn't.
Where is the evidence that it could not? Again, Hovind uses the false argument that unless you can answer his question, he must be right. His example of English and Chinese letters proves nothing.
Evolution does not rule out the existence of a creator. It merely states that present species are descended from a primitive ancestor. Where is the evidence to show that evolution rules out a creator God? There isn't any! Creationists believe that anything inconsistent with the account in the Book of Genesis is atheistic and (according to them) immoral.
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
Hovind would have you believe that evolutionary science has no answers at all for the above questions. Hovind is trying to capitalize on the fact that no one person is likely to be able to supply ready answers to all these questions. He is trying to convince the reader that science has no answers. In fact, a great deal is known, and the information is generally readily available. This web page and its links to other web sites represent a good place to start.
This statement is not supported by any factual evidence. Symbiosis is a technical subject that the average person is not familiar with. Hovind is aware of this, and attempts to hoodwink the public. (For a definition of symbiosis refer to p. 2143 of Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 5th Edition.) In fact, no example of symbiosis "defies" evolution.
20. * How did thought evolve?
21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
The above represents the typical creationist tactic of confusing the viewer with a barrage of questions designed to attack science. Questions 17, 18, 20, and 22 are irrelevant to the issue.
Fossil records show that the coelacanth existed 60 million years ago. Since 1938 at least eight specimens of coelacanth have been caught. Evolution does not proceed at the same speed for all living things. In some cases, new species evolve in a relatively short period of time. Other species, like the coelacanth, may remain essentially unchanged for millions of years.
25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
These questions can't be answered in 25 words or less. For example, a complete answer to question 25 would require the contents of texts on atomic physics, chemistry, biology, and geology.
The question is ironic, since biblical fundamentalists (and Hovind is one, see below) believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
Evolution does not rule out the existence of a creator. It does not take a position on the subject. Quoting the personal opinions of evolutionists, either pro or con, proves nothing. This is not avoiding the issue; it is merely recognizing that it is not a scientific issue. On the other hand, the creationist movement is imposing religious dogma on science.
a. It is all they have been taught.
b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Typical examples of creationist prejudice. What Mr. Hovind is really saying is that persons who don't agree with his religious dogma are immoral. This is bigotry!
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we dont have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Hovind is flailing away with a barrage of misinformation and distortion. Creationists never give up on an argument, no matter how illogical. See a list of spurious creationist claims in this web site.
11. Arent you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldnt it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
12. Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
What is really frightening about the above is the obvious effort to impose sectarian religious dogma in our public schools. It would be a mistake to dismiss Mr. Hovind as a harmless crackpot. He has a magnetic personality and enjoys huge fundamentalist support.