Question(s) about Hovind.

[Etcetera]

Today, at a very conservative evangelical church, I watched about an hour of Kent Hovind for the first time ever. I had heard of him a couple of times, but had never read or heard him.

Now, I am no expert on anything scientific. I hold not even so much as a B. S. in any field. But much of what Hovind said seemed... well, odd. (Keep in mind that this video was probably about a decade old. He mentioned the year 2000 as coming up.)

For example, he kept lumping evolutionists in with New-Age population-control gurus. Not just once, but several times. I understand the need to be wary of whither a scientific outlook may lead, but how many professional scientists who hold to evolution are also of the New Age movement? Is this connection more common than one might suspect? Does Hovind have his finger on a real threat?

He also mentioned that atheists sometimes ask him about how Cain got his wife. Fair enough. But he said that his response to such atheists is that creationism might have this (easily handled) problem, but evolutionists have much more difficult dilemmas. And his example was that evolutionists had to believe that somewhere in the primordial soup two unicellular organisms of opposite sexes had to evolve and then find each other to mate. My mind immediately raced: Do unicellular organisms have genders? I recall learning in high school biology that (most or all?) unicellular organisms reproduce by splitting (called mitosis, if I recall correctly). They are asexual. Have I missed something? Is Hovind correct about genders amongst primitive life-forms?

Again, this was an older video, and I am no expert. But I am wondering... how well respected is Hovind in the field of biology?

Thanks.

In his name.

Etcetera.

[A Beautiful Truth]

But I am wondering... how well respected is Hovind in the field of biology?


He is not a biologist and not respected in the field of biology. "Answers in Genesis" a YEC ministry as well as Hovind's even warns against him.

In case you are interested, here a link that tells you more:

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

[Etcetera]

Charleen:

Hello again.

Thanks for that link. As you may have gathered, I was not very impressed with the hour that I watched. But I just wanted to make certain that I was not out in left field.

In his name.

Etcetera.

[Maimonides]

Hovind... believe me, the guy is the laughingstock of scientific amateurs who have the time to bother with him. I'm not much of a science whiz either, but there's reams of material falsifying everything he says online. Let me give you some URL's:
http://web.archive.org/web/20001109133000/www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/
some good stuff here. geocities probably the best, but you've already got that one.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_young.htm check this one out too.
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/links.htm good resources- but evolutionist. Don't want to impose my views on you or anything; don't go unless you're okay with evolution.
Sincere and best wishes, ~Maimonides.

[jhappel]

He also mentioned that atheists sometimes ask him about how Cain got his wife. Fair enough. But he said that his response to such atheists is that creationism might have this (easily handled) problem, but evolutionists have much more difficult dilemmas. And his example was that evolutionists had to believe that somewhere in the primordial soup two unicellular organisms of opposite sexes had to evolve and then find each other to mate. My mind immediately raced: Do unicellular organisms have genders? I recall learning in high school biology that (most or all?) unicellular organisms reproduce by splitting (called mitosis, if I recall correctly). They are asexual. Have I missed something? Is Hovind correct about genders amongst primitive life-forms?

Again, this was an older video, and I am no expert. But I am wondering... how well respected is Hovind in the field of biology?

Thanks.

In his name.

Etcetera.

His point was evolutionists believe we all descended from a single cell self-reproducing organism. From this organism supposedly all the complexities of life eventually arose including sexual reproduction.

As a side note I do respect Dr. Hovind. He is very well informed on creation evolution issues and he is an outstanding speaker. The problem is he is too uncritical on arguments he uses. He supports Ron Wyatt who is a proven fraudulent 'archeologist'. He is also KJO supporter and believes the bible codes have validity. Its because of these issues and he being one of the most visible defenders of YEC, YEC unfortunately gets linked with these other dubious ideas. He also tends to be too willing to comment on issues and debate with people outside of his area of expertise. Its no surprise that Ross jumped on the chance to debate Hovind on the age of the earth knowing full will he would make the ideal strawman of the YEC position. Though I do think Hovind held up fairly well there were many places were a more informed defender of YEC would have made a better defense of the position.

[Minnesota]

His point was evolutionists believe we all descended from a single cell self-reproducing organism. From this organism supposedly all the complexities of life eventually arose including sexual reproduction.

Well it would be "organisms," plural. Not a single individual. And just what is the problem that Hovind imagines evolutionists have with this idea?


As a side note I do respect Dr. Hovind. He is very well informed on creation evolution issues and he is an outstanding speaker.

I suggest you take a look at the following--and with an open mind.

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

http://www.nmsr.org/hovind.htm

http://hometown.aol.com/ibss3/hovind.html

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/116/11.0.html ALSO http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/041704/Local/ST006.shtml

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hovind.htm

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sorry Minn, this is a theist only area

[jason]

But I am wondering... how well respected is Hovind in the ield of biology?

He is regarded as as nut as a general rule.

Jason

[Eleutherius]

I have not heard Kent Hovindg speak in person, but I have seen a few of his videos. I have heard his son, Eric Hovind, on two occasions. The son is even worse than his father--that is, the son simply parrots the junk that his father hands out as gospel truth to eager listeners who love to have their ears tickled by an aggressive, outspoken antievolutionist. It's exactly the situation we had 70 years ago with Harry Rimmer, another self-taught and self-proclaimed "authority" on science who thrived on rhetorical conquest without substance.

I've seen Hovind's doctoral dissertation (allegedly in science education), and it's exactly what you'd expect from a diploma mill (which is where it is from).

Let me offer an illustrative example, one that is well known among creationists, I hear people refer to it (favorably) quite often. It goes like this. The planet Uranus has what is known as "retrograde rotation," that is, it spins on its axis in a direction opposite to that of the other planets (this is a statement about its axial rotation, not about its motion around the sun, which is not unusual). Hovind clams that this interesting feature of Uranus "proves" that the Big Bang theory is wrong--that by the conservation of angular momentum, you can't start the universe with a bang and end up with one of the planets spinning in the opposite direction from the rest. That's pretty much it. I asked Eric Hovind to fill in the steps for me, to show me the logic of the argument, and he was unable even to get started on an answer. His father might have gotten started, but he wouldn't finish it b/c the argument does not exist. There is no logic to connect those dots, the big bang and the angular momentum of the solar system are utterly unrelated things.

To an audience that is anxious to deny the big bang, however (despite its strong consonance with theism), Hovind's "proof" simply confirms what they already "knew." This is the "logic" behind the success of most creationist speakers I have heard. There are a few exceptions (one would be Paul Nelson, another Kurt Weiss), but those creationist speakers who evaluate the scientific evidence fairly and admit the scientific problems with their position are few and far between. They are however the ones I respect, for their honest admission that they hold their position for biblical reasons, *despite* the weight of current scientific evidence against their position.

[A Beautiful Truth]

...but those creationist speakers who evaluate the scientific evidence fairly and admit the scientific problems with their position are few and far between. They are however the ones I respect, for their honest admission that they hold their position for biblical reasons, *despite* the weight of current scientific evidence against their position.

Good post. Please let me ask you, what do you think of creationists as they speak on the area of human evolution? I don't see *any* admitting that they hold to their view of special creation of man for biblical reasons, *despite* the weight of current scientific evidence against their position. I would very much like to see it, at least I would take heart that they have considered the challenges seriously.

[Eleutherius]

I'm less familiar with current creationist arguments about human evolution--although of course that is something that no creationist will ever accept, regardless of the scientific evidence.

When I said that I respected those YECs who are up front about their reasons for believing their view, I meant exactly that: I respect them for their honesty. I do not agree with their position, however; I think the evidence against a young earth is overwhelming, and one need not rely simply on contested radioactive dating methods to arrive at that conclusion. Leaving the earth aside, the universe itself is probably at least 12-13 billion years old. Leaving the whole universe's age aside, Andromeda and other "nearby" galaxies are far enough away, that the light with which we see them must have left their constitutent stars hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. As soon as one gets past a few thousand years, some sort of non-literal hermeneutic has to be applied to Genesis--or else, as with my YEC friends, one simply has to dig in ones heels and hope for future discoveries that are more favorable to a YEC position.

[brett]

Today, at a very conservative evangelical church, I watched about an hour of Kent Hovind for the first time ever. I had heard of him a couple of times, but had never read or heard him.

Now, I am no expert on anything scientific. I hold not even so much as a B. S. in any field. But much of what Hovind said seemed... well, odd. (Keep in mind that this video was probably about a decade old. He mentioned the year 2000 as coming up.)

For example, he kept lumping evolutionists in with New-Age population-control gurus. Not just once, but several times. I understand the need to be wary of whither a scientific outlook may lead, but how many professional scientists who hold to evolution are also of the New Age movement? Is this connection more common than one might suspect? Does Hovind have his finger on a real threat?

He also mentioned that atheists sometimes ask him about how Cain got his wife. Fair enough. But he said that his response to such atheists is that creationism might have this (easily handled) problem, but evolutionists have much more difficult dilemmas. And his example was that evolutionists had to believe that somewhere in the primordial soup two unicellular organisms of opposite sexes had to evolve and then find each other to mate. My mind immediately raced: Do unicellular organisms have genders? I recall learning in high school biology that (most or all?) unicellular organisms reproduce by splitting (called mitosis, if I recall correctly). They are asexual. Have I missed something? Is Hovind correct about genders amongst primitive life-forms?

Again, this was an older video, and I am no expert. But I am wondering... how well respected is Hovind in the field of biology?

Thanks.

In his name.

Etcetera.

Hi Etcetera. Here are two articles from AIG that are critical of faulty YEC arguments. The first was a general article critiquing general arguments that even they themselves had used in the past. Even though it wasn’t addressed specifically to him, Kent Hovind decided to publically respond, and so the second article is a response to his response.

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Maintaining Creationist Integrity
A response to Kent Hovind
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

My personal feeling is, AIG and ICR would be the places to go to learn about the YE creationism. I do like much of what Hovind says, and I do appreciate that he’s made many retractions. The question is, has he made enough and are they strong enough? I recommend you read these articles and decide for yourself.

Is he a nut? Of course not. He’s a faithful servant of God who desires to defend the Bible against naturalistic assumptions. He’s simply made some bad arguments in the past (as have all scientists).

Regarding KJV only, this is also being blow way out of proportion. The KJV only adherents can be divided into two distinct factions. Those who believe the actual 1611 english King James version is inspired (these truly are nuts), and those who believe the manuscripts used to translate the King James (texus receptus) are the most reliable manuscripts available. Hovind fits into this latter group. These not nuts by any means. It’s a very technical debate on which there are good people on both sides. I, BTW, am not a KJV only adherent.

[Maimonides]

Hi Etcetera. Here are two articles from AIG that are critical of faulty YEC arguments. The first was a general article critiquing general arguments that even they themselves had used in the past. Even though it wasn’t addressed specifically to him, Kent Hovind decided to publically respond, and so the second article is a response to his response.

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Maintaining Creationist Integrity
A response to Kent Hovind
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

My personal feeling is, AIG and ICR would be the places to go to learn about the YE creationism. I do like much of what Hovind says, and I do appreciate that he’s made many retractions. The question is, has he made enough and are they strong enough? I recommend you read these articles and decide for yourself.

Is he a nut? Of course not. He’s a faithful servant of God who desires to defend the Bible against naturalistic assumptions. He’s simply made some bad arguments in the past (as have all scientists).

Regarding KJV only, this is also being blow way out of proportion. The KJV only adherents can be divided into two distinct factions. Those who believe the actual 1611 english King James version is inspired (these truly are nuts), and those who believe the manuscripts used to translate the King James (texus receptus) are the most reliable manuscripts available. Hovind fits into this latter group. These not nuts by any means. It’s a very technical debate on which there are good people on both sides. I, BTW, am not a KJV only adherent.
By all means talk to the ICR, but don't expect to get anywhere. If they think you're serious about scrutinizing their beliefs they'll find a way out. I tried to debate their webmaster to see if he could give me any solid reasons for his belief. That didn't go very far.

[grmorton]

And his example was that evolutionists had to believe that somewhere in the primordial soup two unicellular organisms of opposite sexes had to evolve and then find each other to mate. My mind immediately raced: Do unicellular organisms have genders? I recall learning in high school biology that (most or all?) unicellular organisms reproduce by splitting (called mitosis, if I recall correctly). They are asexual. Have I missed something? Is Hovind correct about genders amongst primitive life-forms?

No one responded to this part. I heard Hovind speak once. His science was abysmally sophomoric, but the audience ate it up. Why? Because they weren't scientists and they wanted to beleive what Hovind said.

concerning the origin of the genders, Hovind is wrong. This is a passage from a major text on developmental biology

Sexual reproduction is one other invention of the protists
that has had profound effect on more complex organisms. It should
be noted that sex and reproduction are two distinct and separable
processes. Reproduction involves the creation of new individuals.
Sex involves the combining of genes from two different
individuals into new arrangements. Reproduction in the absence of
sex is characteristic of those organisms that reproduce by
fission; there is no sorting of genes when an amoeba divides or
when a hydra buds off cells to form a new colony. Sex without
reproduction is also common among unicellular organisms. Bacteria
are able to transmit genes from one individual to another by means
of sex pili. This transmission is separate from reproduction.
Protists are also able to resort genes without reproduction.
Paramecia, for instance, reproduce by fission, but sex is
accomplished by conjugation. When two paramecia join together,
they link their oral apparatuses and form a cytoplasmic
connection. Each macronucleus (which controls the metabolism of
the organism) degenerates while each micronucleus undergoes
meiosis followed by mitosis to produce eight haploid micronuclei,
of which all but one degenerate. The remaining micronucleus
divides once more to form a stationary micronucleus, thereby
creating a new diploid nucleus in each cell. This diploid nucleus
then divides to give rise to a new micronucleus and a new
macronucleus as the two partners disengage. No reproduction has
occurred, only sex.
The union of these two distinct processes, sex and
reproduction, into SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, is seen in unicellular
eukaryotes. Figure 13 shows just one copy of each chromosome
(like a mammalian gamete). The individuals of each species,
however, are divided into two mating groups: plus and minus. When
these meet, they join their cytoplasms together and their nuclei
fuse to form a diploid zygote. This zygote is the only diploid
cell in the life cycle, and it eventually undergoes meiosis to
form four new Chlamydomonas. Cells. Here is sexual reproduction,
for chromosomes are resorted during the meiotic divisions and more
individuals are formed. Note that in this protist type of sexual
reproduction, the gametes are morphologically identical the
distinction between sperm and egg has not yet been made.
In evolving sexual reproduction, two important advances had
to be achieved. The first is the mechanism of MEIOSIS (Figure
14), where by the diploid complement of chromosomes is reduced to
the haploid state. (This will be discussed in Chapter 22.) The
other advance is the mechanism whereby the two different mating
types recognize each other. Recognition occurs first on the
flagellar membranes (Figure 15: Goodenough and Weiss, 1975;
Bergman et al., 1975). The agglutination of flagella enables
specific regions of the cell membranes to come together. These
specialized sectors contain mating type-specific components that
enable the cytoplasms to fuse. Following agglutination, the plus
individuals initiate the fusion by extending a "fertilization
tube. This tube contacts and fuses with a specific site on the
minus individual. Interestingly, the mechanism used to extend
this tube the polymerization of the protein actin is also used to
extend processes of sea urchin eggs and sperm. In the next
chapter, we shall see that the recognition and fusion of sperm and
egg occur in a manner amazingly similar to that of these protists.
Unicellular eukaryotes appear to have the basic elements of
the developmental processes that characterize the more complex
organisms of other phyla: cellular synthesis is controlled by
transcriptional, translational, and posttranslational regulation;
a mechanism for processing RNA through the nuclear membrane
exists; the structures of individual genes and chromosomes are as
they will be throughout eukaryotic evolution; mitosis and meiosis
are perfected; and sexual reproduction exists, involving
cooperation between individual cells. Such intercellular
cooperation becomes even more important with the evolution of
multicellular organisms.

Colonial eukaryotes: The evolution of differentiation

One of evolutions most important experiments was the creation
of multicellular organisms. There appear to be several paths by
which single cells evolved multicellular arrangements; we will
discuss only two of them. The first path involves the orderly
division of the reproductive cell and the subsequent
differentiation of its progeny into different cell types. This
path to multicellularity can be seen in a remarkable series of
multicellular organisms collectively referred to as the family
Volvocaceae, or the "Volvocaceans.
The simpler organisms among the Volvocaceans are collections
of numerous Chlamydomonas-like cells; but the more advanced
members of this group have developed a second, very different,
cell type. A single organism of the Volvocacean genus
Oltmannsiella contains four Chalmydomonas-like cells in a row,
embedded in a gelatinous matrix. In the genus Gonium (Figure 16),
a single cell divides to produce a flat plate of 4 to 16 cells,
each with its own flagellum. In a related genus Pandorina the 16
cells form a sphere; and in Eudorina, the sphere contains 32 or 64
cells arranged in a regular pattern. In these organisms, then, a
very important developmental principle has been worked out: the
ordered division of one cell to generate a number of cells that
are organized in a predictable fashion. Like most animal embryos,
the cell divisions by which a single Volvocacean cell divides to
produce an organism of 4 to 64 cells occur in very rapid sequence
and in the absence of cell growth.
The next two genera of the Volvocacean series exhibit another
important principle of development: the differentiation of cell
types within an individual organism. The reproductive cells
become differentiated from the somatic cells. In all the
Volvocacean genera mentioned above, every cell can, and normally
does, produce a complete new organism by mitosis (Figure 17A,B).
In the genera Pleodorina and Volvox, however, relatively few cells
can reproduce. In Pleodorina californica, the cells in the
anterior side can reproduce. In P. californica, a colony usually
has 128 or 64 cells, and the ratio of the number of somatic cells
to the number of reproductive cells is usually 3:5. Thus, a 128-
cell colony has 48 somatic cells, and a 64-cell colony has 24.
In Volvox, almost all the cells are somatic, and very few of
the cells are able to produce new individuals. In some species of
Volvox, reproductive cells, as in Pleodorina, are derived from
cells that originally look and function like somatic cells before
they enlarge and divide to form new progeny. However, in other
members of the genus, such as V. carteri, there is a complete
division of labor: the reproductive cells that will create the
next generation are set aside during the division of the
reproductive cells that are forming a new individual. The
reproductive cells never develop functional flagella and never
contribute to motility or other somatic functions of the
individual; they are entirely specialized for reproduction. Thus,
although the simpler Volvocaceans may be thought of as colonial
organisms (because each cell is capable of independent existence
and of perpetuating the species), in V. carteri we have a truly
multicellular organism with two distinct and interdependent cell
types (somatic and reproductive), both of which are required for
perpetuation of the species. (Figure 17C). Although not all
animals set aside the reproductive cells from the somatic cells
(and plants hardly ever do), this separation of germ
(reproductive) cells from somatic cells early in development is
characteristic of many animal phyla and will be discussed in more
detail in Chapter 7.
Although all of the Volvocaceans, like their unicellular
relative Chlamydomonas, reproduce predominantly by asexual means
(as described earlier) they are also capable of sexual
reproduction. This involves the production and fusion of haploid
gametes. In many species of Chlamydomonas, including the one
illustrated in Figure 13, sexual reproduction is ISOGAMOUS, since
the haploid gametes that meet are similar in size, structure, and
motility. However, in other species of Chlamydomonas as well as
many species of colonial Volvocaceans swimming gametes of very
different sizes are produced by the different mating types. This
is called HETEROGAMY. But the larger Volvocaceans have evolved a
specialized form of heterogamy, called OOGAMY. This involves the
production of large, relatively immotile eggs by one mating type
and small, motile sperm by the other. Thus, the Volvocaceans
include the simplest organisms that have distinguishable male and
female members of the species and that have distinct developmental
pathways for the production of eggs or sperm.

[CatholicSage]

Yes, he is definitely wrong about evolution's "primordial soup" containing cells with genders. If that's not on AiG's "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use" list, it definitely should be.