Why not
e-mail us?

The Voice

Topping the News

Speaking Out

Blog

Spare Time

Athletics

Free Box

Morgue

e-mail

Faculty/Staff

Student

Resources

WebCT

Faculty/Staff directory

Search Engines

Tina,

  This is the promised response to your letter of 12/9/05 where you posted the Dr. Dino questions. Kent Hovind would be among my first choices as a representative if I wanted to make Creationism look even sillier than it already does. His arguments are so ludicrous, and his assertions have been so thoroughly debunked, that even the Creationists themselves argue with him.

   Most of the questions that Hovind puts forward are forms of rhetorical questions in that they are actually statements. If you agree with the assumption of the question (which, as you can see, are sometimes actually explicit!), you have already conceded the point that the author is trying to make. More importantly, the answers to some of these questions fill up volumes in scientific literature, and I think Tina wants me to recount all of it in this forum, or at least die trying. I cannot address every question in your post even if I wanted to. The ones I selected are those that best demonstrate why you do not have to be a scientist to understand how Creationists put honesty to shame, and engage in polemics intended to deliberately mislead the public.   

Questions 1-6: “Where did it all come from?”

   The origins of life questions—how did living matter come from non-living matter?—are better addressed by another scientific field that Creationists conflate with evolution called abiogenesis. Neither field bodes real well with their religious beliefs, but since evolution—change in genetic diversity over time through a process of descent with modification from a common ancestor—is what really gets all the attention, is so well substantiated, and is the object of most of their slogans (“monkeys to man,” “no transitional forms,” “violates the 2^nd Law,” etc.) that they just find it easier to lump all that heathen stuff together under one label: evolution. For Creationists, evolution is essentially anything about the history of life on earth that they find offensive. When Creationists do confront biological evolution head on, it is usually THEIR VERSION of it, not anything with which a professional biologist would agree. This argumentative fallacy is called building a straw man: restating your opponents’ argument in terms that suit you, that are much easier to pick apart than the actual argument itself. Abiogenesis equally does not deserve all the derisions that Creationists conjure up about it, although it is admittedly a much more infant science. Abiogenesis would never have gotten as far as it has, nonetheless, had it been for the curiosity-vacuous approach to the natural world promoted by organizations such as AIG and the Discovery Institute. 

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

   Indeed, they sure do though, don’t they? Reproduce, that is! The individual has an instinct to survive and to reproduce. As I understand it, “species” is still a contentious concept, but a single species generally consists of a population of individuals with enough common genetic material that they can mate and perpetuate more individuals. Surely an oversimplification to say, but those populations geographically isolated long enough from their parent population may, accounting for other variables like environment, become genetically distinct enough from the parent population to constitute a new species. For the individual, reproduction is instinctive regardless of where instincts might “come from.”

   Do members of a single species compete amongst each other for food? Sure they do, not to mention with members of other species. Is competition for food the only variable that determines the survival of one member of species, along with his genes, over that of a member of his or another species? How about prevention from BEING food as a variable in survival? How about the role of intra-species cooperation versus competition? Hovind’s question begs for, among other things, a bit of naivety on the point of individual survival and its role in population genetics, and surely that objective is intended here. It is almost as if Hovind doubts that reproduction takes place at all, much less macro-evolution! Can anyone say “the stork did it”?

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) 

   Two words: natural selection. Mutations are an important feature of evolution. And even more important, mutations do create new variations. It seems to me, also, that the use of the word “improved” here to describe organisms is misleading. Improvement implies that there is some benchmark against which all organisms are measured for some evaluative construct like the old Spencerian reference to “fitness.” The only inherited genetic traits that are “selected” for future generations are those “selected” by the fact that their possessors survive long enough to have descendents onto whom they pass those traits. Remember, too, that not only do organisms possess a number of suboptimal characteristics, but the possession of those characteristics is even predicted by evolutionary theory (see the link). And as for the “recombining letters” statement, this is simply a classic false analogy.  

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

   No. When archeologists deduce a “common creator” for, say, two different artifacts, they are working with background knowledge about the agency that created the artifacts that we do not possess regarding the natural world (See here and here). And not always is it determined that the creator was one and the same. Common descent is a theoretical framework that has predictive and explanatory power. The use of the verb “prove” here to suggest confirmation, substantiation is misleading. Creationists misuse this concept almost as much as they do “theory.” Generally in scientific epistemology, “proof” has special meaning that is more attuned to the mathematical idea of abstract certainty, like the “proof” found in an equation. Sometimes science essayists and others will take liberty with the English language and use some variation of the word “proof” in reference to confirmation of a theory. But strictly speaking, science does not operate in a purely mathematical universe—if it did, there is more than just evolution that we would have to shelve as “just a theory.” The idea of “absolute certainty” is, however, certainly in harmony with the dogmatic religious fundamentalism from which Creationism spawned.

   It is interesting to note that Creationists will accept reconstructive theories, as the one implied by this question, as long as the result is “a common creator instead of a common ancestor,” even if the “proof” is something that is suspended. On the other hand, those “evolutionists,” by golly, better recreate the history of global biodiversity down to every last individual organism that has ever lived, down to the location of every last subatomic particle that has ever come into existence, if we are to accept their harebrained “theory.” Oh, and it all has to fit on a bumper sticker, too. See Stephen J. Gould’s essay on the meaning of “theory” in science.

   Since the next question deals with the topic of “genetic information” and natural selection, for this question check out a nice page discussing the genetic evidence for common descent.  

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

   This question is my favorite because of the “complexity” aspect of it. Perhaps you could pick this question as your focus question (you likely won’t) as I want to learn more about it (you likely don’t). The underlying assertion of the question is that “increasing complexity” cannot be explained by evolution (“only works with the genetic information available”), but at the same time there is a necessary correlation between “increasing complexity” and evolution (“must have occurred if evolution were true”)! Huh? So which one is it! As it turns out, yes, evolution does produce increasing complexity.

   The first statement is clearly wrong. This statement sounds an awful lot like the confusion that Creationists promote regarding the difference between macro and micro evolution. You can learn more about the topic of macroevolution here. The question itself sounds an awful lot like the old “evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics” canard, which has been so thoroughly refuted over the years, that Creationists are today finding new ways to disguise the basic argument in other language, like “increasing complexity.” To explain the “increasing complexity” in the genetic code is difficult, but to find resources to get you on the way to understanding is less difficult:

• Bibliography of science articles on evolution of new genes
• EvoWikiPedia entry on the evolution of new information
• An article (PDF) on the origin of new genes

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

   Because Creationism is not an explanation for anything; it is, rather, an assertion based solely on negative criteria. Evolution is the best explanation we have for the mechanism behind the history of life on earth. Creationists essentially use dubious reasoning to assert that one or another facet of their version of biology is wrong, apply their conclusion to all of evolution, and then argue that the only “alternative” is one that is remarkably similar to a monotheism that rests on an unchanging universe.  

   As for the “many thousands of examples,” can you be more specific? How do you know? Where do you get this number to which you make the vague reference of “many”? Who counted them? Is it 8,721? 15,209? Name some of them, and then pick one or two (one at a time is most manageable) to talk about. I searched in vain for any of these “many thousands of examples.” I had more success finding articles explaining symbiosis in evolutionary terms. Try doing a search on ScienceDirect, which is not even really a database, but rather a selective collection of science journals. (A true science database, by contrast, like Web of Science, would give a much larger search result). Using the keywords “evolution” and “symbiosis,” and also limiting my search to only the last five years, I still found 22 full-text scientific articles. And just for fun, another search on the exact phrase “evolution of symbiosis” yielded seven articles.

   Indeed, co-evolution and symbiosis seem to be paramount in the study of biological evolution. See Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (Basic Books, 2001), 210-212. And why not look in the library catalog? You can also access ScienceDirect from off-campus if you are affiliated with UAM. But actually looking something up would be no fun, would it? It would shatter the whole illusion that Creationists are actually on to something.

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

   I was tempted to ignore this question for the reasons I stated in the opening. You simply must be ignorant of the fact that there is a field called evolutionary psychology to believe the implication of this statement. Charles Darwin wrote a book on the topic of the evolution of emotions, a copy of which is freely available on the Internet: The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (posthumously published in 1898). Today, it seems to me that there is enough scientific literature on the topic to address a particular point of fact at length instead of just generalizing. If you really want to pick something in this area for which an evolutionary explanation is truly a challenge, why not pick the evolution of altruism? A good book that introduces the topic is Paul Ehrlich, Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect.

22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or 10 kinds?

   Try the other three kinds, all of which were refuted over fifty years ago principally by findings in genetics, and paved the way for the acceptance of Darwinian natural selection. So before the early thirties there were essentially four: Darwinian evolution, Lamarckian evolution, orthogenetic evolution, and saltational evolution. The later three of these were truly different “kinds” of evolution that disagreed with natural selection as the main mechanism of genetic change— orthogenetic evolution, for instance, held that evolution proceeds along a teleological pathway—but all three ultimately did not hold up to scrutiny. Otherwise, the Creationists might today be objecting to “Lamarckism” and its hold on our public school biology curriculum. Once again, I have to tip my hat to Ernst Mayr (see One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard UP, 1991, 132-140, especially 134-135. Second floor, QH 371 M336). Since the evolutionary synthesis of the late 1930s and 1940s, we no longer really have biologists running around claiming to be one “kind” of evolutionists as apposed to another. I think what Dr. Dino wants to do, however, is imply that there is some kind of “dissention in the ranks” among the scientific community by pointing to what are actually supplemental theories. One such example is the often cited theory of speciational evolution (also known as punctuated equilibria) that is hardly in conflict with Darwinian natural selection (see Mayr, One Long Argument, 153-154).

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

   Probably something similar to what I would say today if you told me you had a living member of any other species thought to be extinct. I would say, “No you don’t, that species went extinct.” But if we were to find a living member of an extinct species, demonstrating that we were wrong to think that it was extinct, is Hovind implying that this discovery would somehow undermine the theory of evolution? Creationists suggest that evolution is in trouble since the coelacanth has remained unchanged (which it hasn't) for millions of years. According to their straw man version of the theory, common descent necessitates that everything remain in constant flux. Even with species that remain relatively unchanged for millions of years, like certain bacteria, this fact only suggests that the environment has not changed for them sufficiently enough to necessitate relatively great change in the organism.

24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

   There are at least twenty-nine (29), and I am not about to divulge them all, nor can I dream of putting it any better than has Douglas Theobald. Why don’t you pick one of these and ramble on about it? All twenty-nine of these “evidences” are predictions that you would expect to find in nature if common descent were true, and indeed they are found in nature. And anyone of these can be discussed in a forum like this one. Creationists will never focus on one topic, though. It creates the impression that you are gaining ground in an argument if you can bury your opponent in pithy challenges, as Hovind is doing, or change the subject every time the going gets tough: “Yea, but what about...?”

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

  What is there in evolution that even implies a ‘something-from-nothing’ assertion? Fewer accusations are greater examples of the misunderstanding that Creationists want to propagate regarding evolutionary biology. It is this question and others like it that allows non-biologists to see Creationism for what it really is: religion in the guise of science. Descent with modification from a common ancestor through the very non-random selection of randomly generated heritable traits says nothing about “where it all came from.” Creationists have a problem with evolution because it simply does not bode with their views of the “perfection” of God’s creation and his direct involvement with the state of things, especially mankind.

   Creationists like Hovind use the shotgun approach to argument, as your post makes clear. The strategy involves spewing out so many “stumpers for Darwinists” that the opponent appears to be on the defensive, to be trying to dig his way out of a hole answering them. As one analogy has it, it takes a baby a second to spill a bowl of cereal; it takes a good ten minutes or more to thoroughly clean it up. This is essentially the best analogy that can be made for the Creationist method of argument. It is easy to confuse complex concepts from the fields of physics, genetics, biology, geology, etc. using folksy “common sense” and sound bite-type arguments. It takes much more time to explain how those catchy phrases and expressions are gross misrepresentations of science. And this is where scientists “lose” their debates with Creationists, specifically oral debates. Honest, and often times lengthy, scientific explanations cannot compete with the color and splash of the sermons that Creationists produce with their followers in mind. Creationists usually don’t care what evolution actually is, unless they can find some point of fact to bend and distort to fit their purposes; they simply want a Sunday school interpretation of earth history to enjoy the same authority and currency in public discourse as modern mainstream science.

Jeff Dickens
Librarian

Dear Editor,

   I would like to first thank Mr. Dickens and Mr. Wegley for their sincere desire to spread knowledge.  This is very admirable and inspirational in just about all aspects.  I contribute this post to give an example of some public criticism directed toward Dr. Kent Hovind, one of the foremost leaders in Creationism and who has for 12 years offered a quarter of a million dollars to anyone who can prove Evolution actually happened.  Here he challenges the wrongs written in a popular magazine.  I want to stress that Creationism is a SCIENTIFIC debate and can be debated SCIENTIFICALLY.   

   The following is a reprint of the N.Y. Times article “Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back.” Dr. Hovind’s comments will be in italics throughout the article after each paragraph or sentence. Bold print is written by the author of the article.

ITHACA, N.Y. – Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution. They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so think and fast that she found it hard to reply. After about 45 minutes, “I told them I needed to take a break,” she recalled. “My mouth was dry.”  That encounter and other like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.

This is ludicrous for numerous reasons. Just because the concept is settled in science doesn’t mean it cannot be challenged. The long history of science should show any thinking person this. Secondly, the Creationists are not rejecting science; they are rejecting lies and things that have been proven wrong. It seems like the evolutionists are living two centuries behind the times hanging on to things that have been proven wrong years ago. See our video, “Lies in the Textbooks,” for more on this. Thirdly, people reject evolution for scientific reasons. There simply is no science that indicates a dog has ever produced a non-dog or has ever come from a non-dog. Fourthly, the museum directors here are confusing evolution with science. We are not against science. Everybody I know dealing in this field loves science, they just don’t think evolution is part of it. The fact that some people have a religious belief in evolution is certainly true. But the fact that people believe in something does not necessarily make it science. Evolution is certainly a religion.

Similar efforts are under way or planned around the country as science museums and other institutions struggle to contend with challenges to the theory of evolution that they say are growing common and sometimes aggressive.

If these museums are funded by tax dollars in anyway, certainly everyone has a right to object to content that is inaccurate or out-dated or patently idiotic, such as the idea that we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. If these people want to start private museums and science centers and teach evolution at their expense that is perfectly fine, then I don’t think there would be much argument. The problem is that they want to use tax dollars to spread their religion through our museums and science centers. I don’t think anyone that I’m aware of in my camp is ever going to be okay with this situation.

One company, called B.C. Tours “because we are biblically correct,” even offers escorted visits to the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. Participants hear creationists’ explanations for the exhibitions.

This is a great idea and I wish there were creationists doing this at every museum across the country.

So officials like Judy Diamond, curator of public programs and the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln, are trying to meet such challenges head-on. Dr. Diamond is working on evolution exhibitions financed by the National Science Foundation that will go on long-term display at six museums of natural history from Minnesota to Texas. The program includes training for docents and staff members. “The goal is to understand the controversies, so that people are better able to handle them as they come up,” she said. “Museums, as a field, have recognized we need to take more proactive role in evolution education.”

Again, if they are using confirmed facts of science to support their theories that is one thing. But the fact is, hundreds of lies are being told to support the evolution theory and that is what creationists are against.

Dr. Allmon, who directs the Paleontological Research Institution, an affiliate of Cornell University, began the training session here in September with statistics from Gallup Polls: 54 percent of Americans do not believe that human beings evolved from earlier species, and although almost half believe that Darwin has been proved right, slightly more disagree. “Just telling them they are wrong is not going to be effective,” he said.

They don’t seem to consider the option that possibly they are right. I see ego written all over this last paragraph on the part of the evolutionist.

Instead, he told the volunteers that when they encounter religious fundamentalists…

Not all creationists are religious fundamentalists, first of all. Secondly, I would say it is the evolutionist that is the religious fundamentalists. They seem unable to even consider any other options.

...they should emphasize that science museums live by the rules of science.

Science deals with things we can observe, study, and test. Why is evolution included at all? No one has ever observed a dog produce a non-dog.

They seek answers in nature about nature, they look for explanations that can be tested by experiment and observation in the material world, and they understand that all scientific knowledge is provisional – capable of being overturned when better answers are discovered. “Is it against all religion?” he asked. “No. But it is against some religions.”

Evolution certainly is against the Bible and evolution in itself is a religion, and a dangerous one at that. We cover more about this on our video, “The Dangers of Evolution.”

There is more than one type of creationist, he said: “thinking creationists who want to know answers, and they are willing to listen, even if they go away unconvinced” and “people who for whatever reason are here to bother you, to trap you, to bludgeon you.”

They don’t seem to be considering here the option that creationists are right and are here to convert you.

Those were the type of people who confronted Dr. Durkee, a former biology professor at Grinnell College in Iowa. The encounter left her discouraged.

Anyone who believes they came from a rock should be discouraged.

“It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers,” she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. “It is as if they aren’t listening.”

This is just plain stupid. The creationists certainly are listening and we are not seeing any evidence. I’ve been offering a quarter of a million dollars for over twelve years now for anyone with real empirical evidence for evolution. I’m listening intently. Where’s the beef?

Dr. Allmon says even trained scientists like Dr. Durkee can benefit from explicit advice about dealing with religious challenges to science exhibitions.

It’s not a religious challenge to a science exhibition. It is a scientific challenge to a religious exhibition.  

“There is an art, a script that is very, very helpful,” he said. A pamphlet handed out at the training session provides information on the scientific model, the theory of evolution and other basic information. It offers suggestions on replying to frequently raised challenges like “Is there lots of evidence against evolution?” (The answer begins, simple, “No.”)

This is a deceptive slight of hand with the definitions here. Exactly what do they mean by evolution? “Lies in the Textbooks,” our DVD, has a more thorough explanation. But if they mean dogs and wolves have a common ancestor then certainly there is lost of evidence for that. If they mean dogs and bananas have a common ancestor, then no, there is no evidence for that whatsoever. So they are not defining the term evolution here. They need to watch, “Lies in the Textbooks.”

When talking to visitors about evolution, the pamphlet advises, “don’t avoid using the word.” Rehearse answers to frequently asked questions, because “you’ll be more comfortable when you sound like you know what you’re talking about.”

This sounds like a cult-training manual. Rehearse the answers so you sound like you know what you are talking about. This certainly shows their desperation.

Dr. Allmon told his audience to “be firm and clear, not defensive.” The pamphlet says that if all else fails, and docents find themselves in an unpleasant confrontation, they excuse themselves by saying, “I have to go to the restroom.”

Are they saying here you should lie to get out of an unpleasant confrontation? Why don’t they consider the option that they are wrong?

Eugenie C. Scott, who directs the National Center for Science Education…

The National Center for Science Education consists of a few people in Berkley, California. I believe it is less than six who are committed to teaching evolution. There is nothing scientific at all about what they do. Eugenie Scott refused to debate me for any amount of money. You can tell her, or Skip, or anyone else at the NCSE that I will come to Berkley and debate all of them simultaneously, on the condition that I get half the time and we talk about one topic at a time.

…and is conducting training sessions for Dr. Diamond’s program, said that within the last year or so efforts to train museum personnel and volunteers on evolution and related topics had substantially increases. “This seems to be a cottage industry now,” Dr. Scott said. Robert M. West, a paleontologist and former science museum director who is now a consultant to museums, said several institutions were intensifying the docents’ training “so they are comfortable with the concepts, not just the material but the intellectual, philosophical background – and they know their administrations are going to support them if someone criticizes them.”

Sure their administration will support them, but does science support them? Again, no one has observed any of the evolution they make so why are we teaching this as science and why are the tax payers paying for this?

At the Denver science museum the staff and docents often encounter groups from B.C. Tours, which for 15 years has offered tours of the museum based on literal readings of the Bible. The group embraces young-earth creationism, the view that the earth and its plants, animals and people were created in a matter of days a few thousand years ago. “We present both sides from an objective perspective and let the students decide for themselves,” said Rusty Carter, an operator of the group. Mr. Carter praised the museum, saying it had been “very professional and accommodating, even thought hey do not support us.” A typical group might have 30 or 40 people, he added.

Kirk Johnson, a paleontologist who is the chief curator at the museum, was philosophical about the group. “It’s interesting to walk along with them,” he said. Participants pay the admission fee and have as much right as anyone else to be in the museum, Dr. Johnson said, but sometimes “we have to restrain our docents from interacting with them.” John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, whose researchers endorse intelligent design, said he was not aware of organized efforts to challenge museum exhibitions on evolution. He added, “It is not unheard of for museum exhibits to be wrong scientifically.” Dr. Scott, who trained as a physical anthropologist, said that in training docents she emphasized “how the public understands or misunderstands evolution and some of the misconceptions they come in with.”

Again, she doesn’t seem to be capable of considering the option that possibly they are right.

She hopes to combat the idea that people must choose between science and faith – “that you are either a good Christian creationist or an evil atheist evolutionist.”

Actually, those two choices are not far-fetched, but she is muddying the water here. Actually, these terms; Christian and evolutionist would need to be defined. You certainly cannot be a Bible-believing Christian and an evolutionist.

“It’s your job,” she told docents, “not to slam the door in the face of a believer.”

This is pure hypocrisy. Eugenie Scott is very much in favor of slamming the door in the face of a believer when it comes to our public schools. Her whole organization says on her home page that they are dedicated to keeping creation out of the schools. They definitely want to slam the door in the face of believers.

At the American Museum of Natural History, which is about to open what it describes as “the most in-depth exhibition ever” on Darwin and his work, curators and other staff members instruct volunteer “explainers” on the science behind its exhibition, according to Stephen Reichl, a spokesman. If visitors challenge the presentations, the explainers are instructed to listen “and then explain the science and the evidence.”

I can’t wait to see this one. What evidence could they possibly show that hasn’t been proven wrong already in the last 140 years? I’d be glad to debate Steven Reichl or anybody else at this museum any day of the week.

Sarah Fiorello, and environmental educator at the Finger lakes State Parks Region who took part in the Ithaca training session in August, said she was no prepared to take the same approach. When she describes the region’s geological history on tours of its gorges, visitors often object – as even a member of her family once did – that “it does not say that in the Bible.”

This is a straw man. People object to the geology teaching based on the geology itself not just based on the Bible. All over the world petrified trees are found standing up, running through these layers that they are telling us are millions of years different in age. Why don’t they ever discuss that? See “Lies in the Textbooks” for much more on this or check out website for pictures of these petrified trees in the vertical position. The Geologic Column is a joke, it does not exist any place on planet earth.

Now, she said, she will tell them, “The landscape tells a story based on geological events, based on science.”

This is ridiculous. The geology of the world clearly shows a great catastrophe like the flood described in the Bible in the days of Noah. Some people may choose to interpret it as millions of years of evolution, but that is only their interpretation. Certainly not what the geology shows clearly.

Dr. Durkee also said she found the session helpful. “When you are in a museum, you can’t antagonize people,” she said. “Your job is to help them, to explain your point of view, but respect theirs.” “I like the idea of stressing that this is a science museum, and we deal with matters of science.”

That would be great if this were true. But the fact is they have to include their religion in with the science. There is much good science in most museums. I have a museum in Pensacola myself. But to include evolution with it is ludicrous. Having to support your evolution theory with lies in unconstitutional. I suggest we get people to stop funding museums that present their religion, i.e., evolution. Encourage government to pass laws to prohibit tax-funded institutions from presenting a religious view like evolution and get creationists to start their own museums. Come visit ours.

Thanks,
Kent Hovind

   Dr. Hovind has debated nearly 100 times around the world.  Tapes can be purchased at drdino.com.  He has debated professors at Berkeley, Rutgers, and elsewhere. I would suggest watching these so that you could get a good idea of how he actually debates scientifically.

   After, for the second time, reading Mr. Wegley’s offer on further discussing this issue by another means,  I took him up on it. I am looking into getting someone to this campus to debate Creationism with any Evolutionist who is willing to step up to the plate. Mr. Wegley has graciously offered to help in any way he can and give his support.  I thank him for that sincerely. I hope this turns out well and this issue can be further debated. Further updates on the next letter.

Colt Roan
Freshman Student