|
It was a cool spring evening, near the end of the semester. I sat outside the Kent Auditorium scribbling notes, as people filed into the new building. Most of them were dressed as if they were about to attend church -indeed, many of them came with bible in hand- though some were only clad in t-shirt and jeans. There was one fellow who was toward the more casual end of the spectrum who had a t-shirt that read "The Man, The Legend" with arrows pointing to his head and genitalia respectively. There was a coed frat there, undoubtedly Christian based. As I sat there, I noticed Hovind's merchandise truck pull up. It bore an inversed American flag magnet on its side. Perhaps he is a Communist. I do not know.
I helped them carry up boxes in order to gain favor. Indeed, I got myself a free catalog. He is selling gospel truth for about $20 a DVD. One titled "Why Evolution is Stupid." from which I have titled this post. I argue, how can anyone think this man is not a beacon of scientific integrity after labeling a lecture like that?
After helping his crew with the DVDs, I returned outside to breath a bit before entering the auditorium. I felt like Daniel being thrown to the lions. I felt like Hunter at the DA convention. Though, I knew, this must be done. As I braced myself to walk in, a man not much older than myself sat next to me. He lit up a cigarette and asked if I was from around the Kent area. I replied that I was and he eyed some of the girls entering the auditorium, making some comment on the quality of the "tail" here. His name was Christopher and he had been raised a Roman Catholic, but left that to practice non-denominational Christianity with Pentecostal beliefs. He had actually been the one to let Kent Hovind into the theatre, and had reserved seats in the front row. After small talk, he must've taken a liking to me, for he offered me a seat with them. I politely declined.
I took a seat near the back of the hall, in case I should be overwhelmed and have to leave. As the pre-lecture slideshow started, I realized that this was no mistake. The slides mostly consisted of what most of us consider SPAM. Unfunny, photo-shopped JPegs or captioned photos. Some of the ones that I felt appalled enough to write down were:
1.) Two ostriches, one looking angry and shouting, and the other calmly looking forward. Captioned "Don't ignore me!"
2.) A series of images of President Clinton morphing into a chimp (this got a big laugh).
3.) Several Far Side cartoons -ironic given that Larson is a wonderful promoter of science-based humor.
4.) Osama bin Laden's head pasted over a Quik-E-Mart attendant (I would call this racist).
5.) A picture of George W. Bush's head pasted over Arnold Schwarzeneggar's body, captioned "The Turbinator" (I would call this racist, as well)
Soon, a scrawny kid with a buzz cut came out and introduced Hovind to the crowd. Hovind came out and smiled brightly, then began to work the room.
One of his first points was that no professor at Kent would debate him, and that he'd fly back on his own expense if they changed their mind. Given the nature of his demagoguery and the overwhelming majority of non-science minded, but God-fearing peoples in the room, I can't blame anyone for not wanting to debate him. He also neglected to tell us why they didn't want to debate him. For all we know, they were asked that afternoon. Then again, it is quite possible that the professors have heard of Hovind's reputation. "Hovind´s lack of scientific training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level." But, let us press on.
"Two of the seven things God hates are liars!" he said, after commenting that evolution was just a series of lies. This coincided with most of the beginning of his lecture which consisted of displaying a bible quote then talking about how evolution is ungodly. He went on to say that the Theory of Evolution should have an "ism" like "communism" or "nazism" and that "creationism" should be called "creation science." He managed to forget "patriotism," "capitalism," "baptism," and so on and so forth. This got the crowd worked up a bit. Often times, you'd hear an "Amen!" when he'd come to a particularly dramatic point. He went on to state (without any backing) that the Big Bang didn't happen and that there has never been a cave man, "unless you count Osama bin Laden." Maybe he's why the terrorists hate us. Once again, I don't see how any right-minded person could question his scientific merit.
His arguments started with a shallow analysis of the Grand Canyon...About how the Canyon actually is evidence of the Flood. There was no hard data to back this. He simply pointed at the lines in the Grand Canyon and claiming that people just can't know how long ago they were made. I guess he doesn't just hate evolution, but really all science. But then, where did he get his information from? The answer is, as he stated once or twice, that studying the Grand Canyon is a personal hobby of his. He made no mention of any sort of degree in geology. In fact, he only has two degrees: One in "religious education" and another in "Christian education." Here's the kicker: both are from unaccredited universities. Knock Knock. Whose giving the lecture? Not really a doctor or scientist of any type. Not really a doctor or scientist of any type who? Kent Hovind.
He went on to attack other evidence of evolution. For example, he showed no understanding that dogs and cats came from a common ancestor. He talked about how all dogs are variations within the same species, all based on previous dogs. It's just not common sense to think of this any differently, he implied. He showed four pictures on a screen; three of dogs and one of a banana. He asked a four your old child in the audience which one was different. The child answered banana. He laughed. The audience laughed. I nodded since the banana was the only thing on the screen that didn't belong to the genus Canis. He gave the child a free DVD, which I think is a mistake, given that he's faced so many financial troubles in the past. At any rate, the point is that he stood up there and overly simplified one of the notions of evolution. In step with this, he continually stated that "Evolutionists say we came from rocks." I have yet to hear any Evolutionary Biologist make such a claim. Life might've sprung from inorganic matter, but that's different. I wouldn't expect him to understand.
His claim about homologous structure was that God simply reused the same parts. Given that we don't have God's blueprints, how can he consider this science? He brushed over his argument for the appendix not being a vestigial organ, claiming that if it is removed, people can get a slew of diseases. He listed such diseases, but quickly moved on. For all we know, he could've made up the diseases. Or, what I find more likely, that they were infections that occur with any surgery, and as such are not a product of losing an appendix, but of gaining a deep cut into one's abdomen. He also claims he's heard evolutionary biologists claim that certain bones aren't necessary, however, these claims were new to me, and I think he was lying directly to the audience. He also claimed that whale vestigial pelvic bones are actually not vestigial at all, but used for mating. Nobody is exactly sure how whales mate currently, so I find it astonishing that he would have the audacity to make such a claim.
He then went into how embryo development is not evidence for evolution. He claims that he contacted publishers of textbooks and that they agreed that it was not evidence for evolution. He was lying. The similarities in the development of fish, mammal, bird, and reptile embryos show that we have common evolutionary backgrounds; that we are all so genetically similar that up until a few weeks into development, we can barely be told apart.
It was somewhere around this time when he said, "You students ought to have another rebellion at Kent State. And this time, do it for the right reasons!" This was met with a great deal of applause. As an after-thought he added, "Don't get shot this time!"
Unprofessional. Unscientific. Inhuman. He may have it in his heart to make little of the deaths of four beautiful, young people, but I, and far to few others, were appalled at this disgusting display of insensitivity.
His charismatic rambling went on a bit longer. Always speaking too fast to meaningfully convey information. At the end of the lecture, we had ten minutes to ask him questions. Shaking, I made my way down to the front of the auditorium. Another scrawny, buzzed-cut boy came up to me, holding a mic. Hovind sat on the stage, grinning, and, voice trembling from having to talk in front of the large crowd, I asked my question. "Do you think creationism..."creation science" should be taught in a classroom? If so, how can you claim it's a science when every scientific theory needs to be falsifiable and you can't disprove God?"
I spoke too quickly, and had to repeat it several times. I hate my nerves in front of crowds. Thankfully, I have no dreams of Broadway.
Hovind replied, "I would argue that evolution can't be falsified. How would you falsify it?"
I wasn't thinking clearly, or else I would've pointed out that he had just spent the better part of an hour trying to falsify evolution. So I answered. "A human bone dating back to the time of the dinosaurs would do it." Indeed, he had a picture of such a fossil in his presentation, though skimmed over it in, literally, less than a second. Can you think of a reason why?
"And how would you date the fossil?"
"We're getting away from my question."
"It's a red-herring question. You didn't even ask me if I think it should be taught in public schools."
"Yes, I did, that was the first part of my question."
"Well, first off, I don't agree with public schools."
I might've agreed to this out of nervousness because at that moment, the auditorium erupted in applause. The only things I don't agree with in public schools are abstinence- only education and teaching any form of creationism.
"Well, no, I don't think it should be taught in a science classroom."
I thanked him and that was it. At some point, I told him that I "question [his] sources," but given my level of nervousness, I forget where that fit. The bottom line is that I got him to say that creationism shouldn't be taught in a classroom. For all his rambling and arrogant ignorance, he betrayed his reason for going to that school. What good is it to try to debunk evolution if there is no theory to take its place? As he admitted, no such scientific theory exists.
| 
