When he repeated the claim in , he once more agreed he was in error. I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God: 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms i. The premises of Hovind's offer have been rejected both by scientists and fellow creationists as fundamentally flawed.
Some forms of evidence would be excluded prior to judging. The school board chairman's actions raised issues when, in his capacity as a citizen, he helped fund a series of seminars by Hovind, but he was within ethical guidelines. More controversy was raised when a school employee was sent to videotape the lectures, although without intention for rebroadcast.
Senate appropriations bill, directed towards the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education". After a reporter's inquiries, the document, which called evolution "not a harmless theory but a dangerous religious belief" and blamed it for atrocities by Adolf Hitler , Joseph Stalin , and Pol Pot , was removed from their website.
The earmark was withdrawn from the bill. His presentations on creationism and evolution are a mix of Christian Fundamentalism and conspiracy theories. At this point Hovind would surely cry "sour grapes", though these conventions of format and style are typical, minimal and reasonable for a "real" Ph. It becomes more evident that this thesis fails as a Ph. A thesis contains original and new data or theories that ADD to the body of existing knowledge.
This fundamental requirement, more than the length of a thesis, differentiates a thesis from a high school theme or term paper. PU says very little about the doctoral dissertation except "Minimum of typewritten pages; a popular writing style is permitted for the dissertation" PU Catalog, From the content of this particular thesis one can conclude that either Patriot University has substantially lower standards for content and style than conventional degree-granting institutions for its Ph.
This may well reflect the "popular writing style" accepted by PU. At this point in time no later than early Hovind already claims to be preaching about creation times a year and has a weekly radio program where he claims to have gotten some of the ideas for the thesis chapters. Though he states that as a science teacher he wants to keep an open mind, he also says that if the Bible says that something was created in a particular way, then that's just what happened. He admits that there is nothing new in the thesis, and it is just an explanation of the things that he has learned.
Chapter descriptions are included: Chapter 1 is the history of evolution; chapter 2 is evolution as a religion; chapter 3 allegedly deals with the effects of evolution, and chapter 4, allegedly with the age of the Earth. CHAPTER 1 38 pages The first chapter demonstrates Hovind's abysmal grasp of the nature and scope of science and his inability to write at the postgraduate level. Hovind begins with a non-standard definition of evolution - that with time, things left to themselves can improve - and a ramble about thermodynamics.
For the first time evolution is described as a religion hang on to your hats. He then proceeds to a long pair of inaccurate definitions of microevolution and macroevolution. Hovind then begins the actual purported history of evolution, starting with Satan, whom he believes fell from heaven about years after the creation of Adam and Eve.
It is alleged that the snake brought the theory of evolution to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. No Bible verses are cited to substantiate this assertion. Then there are nearly three pages of Biblical quotations dealing with pride and how God hates it. Pride and evolution are conjoined in Hovind's mind because evolution allegedly teaches that man is its ultimate product. Evolution proceeded through Cain, Hovind goes on, and continued to be propagated after the Flood BC , like a virus.
Pride caused Ham to laugh at the naked Noah, so Ham's son, Canaan, was cursed! After the fall of Babel, the people dispersed all over the world and the religion of evolution bing went with them. Ancient Greek civilization, from Thales to Alexander, takes it on the chin next, with a regurgitation of the Henry Morris-type biographies that I saw when I visited the Institute for Creation Research.
Since Hovind's only reference in this chapter is a passing mention of Henry Morris' The Long War Against God, I suspect that most of this material is rehashed from that book. Having trashed Western civilization, Hovind gives thumbnail sketches of Eastern religions Hinduism, Confucianism, Zoroasterism, Buddhism, and Taoism , but has very little to say about how they relate to the subject of this chapter until the big whammy - Hovind alleges that communist takeovers of these countries were very simple because their religions did not place much importance on God.
Kinda makes you wonder how they did so well as civilizations until communist takeovers within the last years. According to Hovind, evolution also made an easy entry into these cultures, as it did not challenge the existing religions. It is interesting that there is no mention of evolution in Chinese or Indian literature, and that it took a couple of mid-nineteenth century Europeans to formulate the theory of evolution!
After a page of digression about how to reach people who have been brainwashed by evolution, Hovind takes on the early Christians. Clement tried to make God a pantheist God; the Alexandrians rewrote parts of the Bible; Origen taught Genesis as a myth; Augustine was a theistic evolutionist.
Islam is squeezed in here also, and it is alleged that this religion accepts evolution. Tell that one to your favorite Islamic fundamentalist! No supporting evidence or references are given for any of these assertions. Hovind then concentrates on the secular, early evolutionary thinkers, and it is here that the poor writing style is most evident. These short, choppy biographies include more commentary on lifestyle than on science.
Since I am precluded from direct quotations, but want to make the reader aware of the style, here is the identical sentence structure of one of the biographies, substituting Charles Darwin as the subject of the biographical sketch: He was born in and died about He was very anti-Christian and tried to influence anyone he could not to believe in God.
He was very full of godless ideas. He was a very avid agnostic, racist, and an evolutionist. He believed in a great infinite age of the universe. He was very influential in furthering the ideas of evolution, particularly in the country of England. Substantial numbers of sentences are of the "He was" or "He did" type.
This is not typical of postgraduate-level writing; high schools and colleges encourage complex, varied and interesting sentence structure. Erasmus Darwin is described as a very fat, immoral doctor. The number of legitimate children 12 and illegitimate children 2 are listed, as is this Darwin's tendency to have affairs. The section on Lyell is shot through with flood geology and references to II Peter 3 the scoffers verse. It is mentioned that Lyell was a lawyer by trade, not a geologist.
Though any good history of science book details the development of the geologic column in the years prior to Lyell, Hovind inaccurately states that Lyell developed the column. Darwin's contributions are summarized as a justification for nasty social consequences like child labor and sweatshops.
The racism prevalent in the mids is exploited and is supported by a magazine quotation! This is a recurring theme with Hovind today, who seems oblivious to the fact that the Christians of that time period tended to have the same racist ideas. Haeckel and the recapitulation theory are tied to Adolf Hitler and as a justification for abortion.
Freud is mentioned briefly, as are Julian and Aldous Huxley, the latter being blamed for the drug culture of the s. CHAPTER 2 12 pages This chapter begins with the assertion that evolution is a religion bing and that there is no empirical evidence to substantiate it.
While these options may be worthy of discussion, they are not germane to the topic at hand. The remainder of this chapter is largely a discussion of Humanist Manifesto and Humanist Manifesto II and an attempt to link the theory of evolution to humanism, thereby making it a religion. There are also undated and uncited quotations by "evolutionists" such as Sir Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable.
We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable". From this, Hovind concludes that evolution is a religion bing , and restates this one page later bing.
After a lament about how preachers are portrayed in movies and TV, Hovind digresses to an attack on what he perceives as the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record using out-of-context and uncited quotations by Gould and Eldredge, D. Woodruff, and a Newsweek article. The racism prevalent in the mids is exploited and is supported by a magazine quotation! This is a recurring theme with Hovind today, who seems oblivious to the fact that the Christians of that time period tended to have the same racist ideas.
Haeckel and the recapitulation theory are tied to Adolph Hitler and as a justification for abortion. Freud is mentioned briefly, as are Julian and Aldous Huxley, the latter being blamed for the drug culture of the s.
CHAPTER 2 12 pages This chapter begins with the assertion that evolution is a religion bing and that there is no empirical evidence to substantiate it. While these options may be worthy of discussion, they are not germane to the topic at hand. The remainder of this chapter is largely a discussion of Humanist Manifesto and Humanist Manifesto II and an attempt to link the theory of evolution to humanism, thereby making it a religion.
There are also undated and uncited quotations by "evolutionists" such as Sir Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable" From this, Hovind concludes that evolution is a religion bing , and restates this one page later bing.
After a lament about how preachers are portrayed in movies and TV, Hovind digresses to an attack on what he perceives as the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record using out-of-context and uncited quotations by Gould and Eldredge, D. Woodruff, and a Newsweek article. One last mention of evolution-as-religion bing and an evolution-as-faith bing , and the chapter concludes with Romans cutting off in the middle of verse 28 and an undated, uncited letter-to-the-editor by Hovind.
In this last section Hovind perpetuates the creationists' oft-repeated-but-never-cited Arthur Keith quotation. The quotation is probably really revised from a D. Watson quotation in a article in the journal Nature. Even if it is somehow traceable to Arthur Keith , it is outdated and probably out-of-context.
Pages are identical to pages ; page 56 is repeated nearly verbatim on page 63 and again on page The Newsweek quotation on page 55 shows up intact on page 65; D. Woodruff, as well as Gould and Eldredge from page 55, are reprised on page There is also an attempt to link evolution with acceptance of abortion.
Towards the end of the chapter evolution or the waste of class time teaching it is blamed for the crisis in science education, and the fact that students in other countries score higher than US students never mind that many of them come from countries where evolution is taught without apology.
The remaining eleven pages are composed of a disjointed ramble about how great it is to live in a free country where we are free to discuss these issues not great enough, apparently, to pay income taxes!
The evolution-as-religion bing mantra continues. There is another inaccurate description of microevolution and this is followed immediately by a Scientific America [sic] quotation about the inflationary universe and an exhortation for those who want to teach evolution to start private schools.
More partially-cited quotations by "evolutionists" are used to "prove" that since evolution cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer, it's a religion bing , and yet another evolution-as-religion bing statement. A discussion about the separation of church and state follows, including an assertion that the first amendment precludes the teaching of evolution because evolution is a religion bing.
The last three pages of this chapter are a rehash of Hovind's caricature of evolution no fossil record, no observation, no experimentation, evolution-as-religion bing. Rather than drawing his evidence about the effects of evolution sparse as it is to a conclusion, the chapter ends with a discussion of life on the moon and the pads the lunar lander needed because scientists feared a deep layer of cosmic dust!
I have focused on the content of this chapter in particular to demonstrate Hovind's inability to stick to the topic, which was, after all, the EFFECTS of evolution. If one read the chapter without knowing the title, one would be clueless about its subject. Hovind has success in some debates because he uses the same style: no issues are discussed in depth and he can flit rapidly from flower to flower. He refuses to participate in long-term exchanges via the Internet or other media where these issues can be discussed in depth and where his material is easily refuted and HAS BEEN refuted.
As an example, I have retained Hovind's sentence structure in his introductory paragraph on time, but changed the subject to a discussion of money: First we will look at the subject of money. Lack of billions of dollars is the Achilles heel to [sic] Democrats.
If there isn't a lot of money, the argument is absolutely over. Money is essential to the Democrats. Their entire argument is built on the premise that there is plenty of money.
Rather than continuing on the topic of time, Hovind spends the next four pages digressing on the apostle Paul's vision of heaven, that God is not locked into time, and that in heaven there will be no time. A further digression talks about the electromagnetic spectrum hence the textbook cut-out of the electromagnetic spectrum , and an explanation of the fact that there are other "colors" that the eye can't see; yet that does not mean that these colors don't exist.
The conclusion is that just as a blind person accepts that there are colors by faith, we who have limited senses also admit by faith that God exists. The makings of a philosophical argument, perhaps, but not germane to the age of the Earth.
When he returns to the age of the Earth, Hovind asserts that its age can be reasonably estimated by adding up the "begats" in the Bible. He ties the publication ofOrigin of Species to the falling-away of Christians from the year-old-Earth ignoring the huge body of evidence that the age of the Earth had been a subject of controversy way before Darwin.
He blasts gap-theory creationists and mistakenly says that theistic evolutionists consider the six days of creation in Genesis to be longer geologic ages some might, but this is characteristic of "day-age" creationism.
Scientists are accused of being deceitful by selecting only the few dates that confirm a great age of the Earth and ignoring all evidence for a young Earth. No confirming evidence is offered. Hovind's "proofs" of a young Earth are from Henry Morris' list and largely unchanged on his website today, despite numerous rebuttals by scientists including those from other young-Earth creationist organizations like the ICR.
They include the old "dust-on-the-moon" argument, lack of helium, presence of comets, the slowing of the Earth's spin, and the "declining magnetic field" theory. After a slight digression about not being able to measure the distances to the stars accurately, he returns to the subject at hand, believing the Earth to be six to seven thousand years old. The supporting evidence for this belief is that he taught high school science for fourteen years, college level science for three years, and he knows that "science" has been wrong before.
He specifically notes that once it was thought that the Earth was flat gee, where did they get that idea I wonder? Because of this, much of modern science is wrong! A radical gearshift then occurs and it appears that Hovind is writing a conclusion of sorts.
He returns to the evolution controversy, Darwin, and missing links, and then within a paragraph is back to the age of the Earth, this time ragging on Ken Taylor, the author? It seems that this translation tends toward a day-age interpretation. In the same paragraph, he associates Communism with evolution. A quick Gish frog-to-prince story and then it's back to proofs of a young Earth: coral reefs, bristlecone pines , and the pressure of oil wells All of these "proofs" are "oldies-but-goodies" and have been refuted elsewhere.
His total ignorance of plate tectonics is apparent when he discusses the ocean floor and continental erosion. Actually, I take that back: he attributes plate tectonics to evolutionists He finishes with an argument about the recession of the moon, actually stating that scientists taught for years that the moon was pulled from the Pacific Ocean and that this is offered as an explanation for volcanoes in Hawaii.
George Darwin, Charles's son, did offer a "fission" hypothesis in but no serious scientist has considered it as a possibility in the 20th century. Someone who has taught high school science for fourteen years should be aware of this fact.
Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tips for Sources After Submitting Tips Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions.
Please review these basic guidelines. Contact us if you have specific problems If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.
What computer to use If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer. Do not talk about your submission to others If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks.
No original thought is presented. There are no prescribed lengths for these documents, although individual universities may require a certain minimum number of pages. It is mentioned that Lyell was a lawyer by trade, not a geologist.
In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations. The remaining eleven pages are composed of a disjointed ramble about how great it is to live in a free country where we are free to discuss these issues not great enough, apparently, to pay income taxes! The thesis that Mr. Though any good history of science book details the development of the geologic column in the years prior to Lyell, Hovind inaccurately states that Lyell developed the column. He also makes some pretty silly remarks about the Church Fathers which are backed up with the same sort of evidence as everything else in the dissertation — that is, about the same quality and quantity as you get in a Chick tract or the Weekly World News. In fact, he even used the prefix in Pensacola, Florida's phone book.
To award a Ph. There is usually a copy in the university library, and most universities require a thesis to be microfilmed and sent to a depository. This hypothesis also explains the resistance to Chinese Communism by the Tibetan Buddhist monks really well, and the religious history of Russia and Cuba.
Kent Hovind says in his statement above that he doesn't care whether he is addressed as "Mr.