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: 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 of Origin 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: His total ignorance of plate tectonics is apparent when he discusses the ocean floor and continental erosion.
Actually, I take that back: 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. Though he provides NO recession speed for the moon, Hovind states that by multiplying the recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon should be much further from the Earth than it is. Finally, he cites Kelvin, incorrectly stating that Kelvin thought that the Earth was thousands of years old it was actually at least tens of millions of years old according to Kelvin.
After one last slap at day-age theory and The Living Bible effectively repeating pages , Hovind finishes with the classic Henry Morris population argument for a young Earth.
The document ends here. One is forced to conclude that by doing so, Hovind is attempting to dazzle his largely scientifically-illiterate audience with the large number of pages.
However, there is no page dissertation; when one subtracts the duplicated material, the document is pages. The "I added material to it later" excuse is in the same league as "My dog ate my homework". If a page thesis exists, Hovind could silence his critics by producing a document of the purported length that was obviously written in No original thought is presented. This is nothing more than a rehash of long-discredited theories. It is a rambling, low-quality book report, sans the references.
It is not an original, thoughtful, coherent body of knowledge. To award a Ph. No one, regardless of race, color, sex or religious background should be able to produce a work of this quality and claim an advanced degree. If Stephen Jay Gould had produced a thesis like this, I would be writing about him.
If Patriot University did, in fact, accept this dissertation and award a Ph. Formatting errors are rampant. The writing style, as well as Hovind's lectures, are reminiscent of drive-by shootings, where many disjointed topics are presented in rapid-fire order so as to not allow the reader or listener to really think about any particular topic.
Kent Hovind says in his statement above that he doesn't care whether he is addressed as "Mr. In fact, his Ph. One has only to look at his itinerary to substantiate my claim that being called "Doctor" is very important to him. It is certainly possible for a person to acquire expertise in a scientific field by studying that topic independently. However, such a person does not claim to have an advanced degree in the field.
There is NO EVIDENCE from his thesis that he is widely-read in the areas of evolution, astronomy, geology, paleontology or even the history of science beyond what is written in a few young-Earth creationist books. Ask yourself whether you would visit a medical doctor, an auto mechanic, a plumber, or an investment counsellor with similar dubious credentials. If so, then Hovind is your science guy! Or see him for what he is, the snake-oil salesman, peddling salvation and pseudo science in the late 20th century and even unto the 21st century.
I join the ever-growing list of those who challenge Kent Hovind to clarify his background in the sciences and participate in an in-depth, web-based discussion of his assertions and ideas.
John Wiley and Sons, Patriot University Course Catalog. Skip Evans acquired a copy of Kent Hovind's Ph. Evans requested input from several people who have written Ph. I proof read and critiqued my husband's entomology Ph. For the last eight years I have been on the faculty of a small liberal arts college that emphasizes writing across the curriculum.
Our curriculum includes designated "writing" courses where writing excellence is expected. Even though my subject area is chemistry, I teach two of these "W" courses, and am quite accustomed to assessing college-level writing. Furthermore, some of our students transfer from Hovind's first "alma mater", Illinois Central College, so I am aware of the level of writing expertise typical of a year-old student from Central Illinois.
I am also well-acquainted with Hovind's website and presentations. I further agree that copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with 'fair use' as described in the U.
Thanks, Steve, for reminding me of Doc Blakely, one of my favorite humor speakers, who says his Ph. Post Hole Digger in case your reference flew over the top of skim readers. A typical user of crayon is a young child, who might be excused for a while for not knowing any better about the matters under discussion. But an adult should know better. Modern man is not as old as Hovind claims.
And why would the younger abrahamic myth have precedence? Excavations in Iraq have revealed evidence of localized flooding at Shuruppak modern Tell Fara, Iraq and various other Sumerian cities. A layer of riverine sediments, radiocarbon dated to ca.
Polychrome pottery from the Jemdet Nasr period BC was discovered immediately below the Shuruppak flood stratum. Else writings years old have been found. Just that you mentioned the Romanian patriarch oiling a high resolution LCD screen, it can be worse.
Because this guy is quite obvious a fake. A former generalist who found more money in homeopathy. Theresa of Calcutta with a medical diploma.
He even got a Phd in theology to sign as dr. Later moved to professor of bioethics so now he presents himself as prof. This guy is one of the main reasons why the HPV vaccination campaign failed in Romania with a combination of 1. Phd in bioethics, right? I only started believing in evolution so I could support my homosexual crack-smoking habits. It is a little pantheistic god of nature.
Because of this, the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching. That upsets me greatly! What I am upset about is the fact that their faith is being taught as science in the public school system at my expense as a taxpayer. Indeed, it is easy to refute the accusation that evolution is a religion, and then what you are left with is the fact that the religionist used this accusation of being a religion disparagingly.
Is it not obvious to a religious person who values faith that disparaging any idea by accusing it of being a religion or that it takes faith, is implying that religions are bad and faith is not a virtue? From the Patriot website: We agree, this is very good advice, if you are planning to attend a traditional college.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Why Evolution Is True. The Harvard of Del Norte! I wonder what Ken Miller would think of that! This entry was written by whyevolutionistrue and posted on June 23, at 8: Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Posted June 23, at 8: Posted June 24, at 4: Posted June 24, at 7: Hovind, needless to say, has no such modesty and refers to himself as Dr. In fact, he even used the prefix in Pensacola, Florida's phone book. D vs Ben Goldacre. Hovind attempts to provide a genealogy of evolution that starts with Satan himself of course before he was cast out of heaven, then to God striking down the Tower of Babel. He traces this through ancient Greek philosophy, eastern religions, and the Church Fathers.
He gets large chunks of this ancient history wrong, and what little bits of truth do sneak in are surrounded by oceans of irrelevance and idiocy. Socrates , Hovind tells us, didn't write "many" books. Socrates didn't write any books, and is infamous for asserting that one shouldn't write books! Hovind describes Socrates, Plato , and Aristotle as being " pantheists ," and thus attempts to understand in modern terms a religious system that does not easily match modern expectations and categories.
If you want to apply a modern label, polytheism catches the spirit a lot better than pantheism. There are some ancient philosophers you can describe as holding broadly pantheistic ideas: Hovind fails when he attempts to understand Plato and Socrates, ascribing positions to them that are held by participants in Platonic dialogues, most of which feature Socrates as a character, but only some of the dialogues can be thought of as containing the Socrates of history, while the others have Socrates as a literary tool that Plato can use.
Most scholars actually state it was much earlier, around BCE. He completely misunderstands Zoroastrian beliefs, claiming that the essence of it is that "Satan and God are equally powerful.
According to Hovind, in Zoroastrianism "a lack of importance [is] placed on God. Which is fine, except for the fact that if the ancient Greeks, Zoroastrians, and eastern mystics were all budding proto-Darwinists, you might expect some historians and philosophers who study the ancients to have spotted it — and that the work of Darwin and Wallace in the nineteenth century might have been a bit less revolutionary and surprising than it actually was.
Ditto with the Comte de Buffon, who supposedly "was very influential in spreading the doctrine of evolution around the world", this after a long paragraph discussing "Voltair".
Hovind claims that Hinduism , Zoroastrianism, Buddhism , Taoism , and Confucianism , which all are really evolution cults in disguise, made it easy for Communism to take over in China. How this is possible is not known. Evolution was not initially researched till the s. On the same note, Communism has spread really well in Iranian Zoroastrian communities and in India , where Hinduism and Buddhism are prevalent. This hypothesis also explains the resistance to Chinese Communism by the Tibetan Buddhist monks really well, and the religious history of Russia and Cuba.
In reality, the survival of the fittest found in Capitalist market economics has more to do with natural selection than the Communist ideal of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Hovind also claims that "the Islam religion [sic] accepts evolution very readily", conveniently ignoring Islamic creationists like Harun Yahya.
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. Using the text from the OCR version of "Dr. The Wikipedia page states that the average year-old student's written assignment has a "Reading Ease" of 60—70, which would indicate that the writing style of Kent's supposed PhD-level paper is on par with that of a pre-pubescent student.
Similarly, the "Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level" indicates the approximate number of years of education needed to understand a piece of writing. According to these metrics, a student in the 7th grade should be able to fully understand Kent's "doctoral research". The Automated Readability Index is another way of calculating the approximate grade required for a student to fully understand a piece of written work.
Once again, the average 7th-grade student approximately 12—13 years old should be able to fully comprehend Kent's new research. None of these metrics are damning in and of themselves; all else being equal, being able to express one's ideas in simple and accessible language is a good thing.
Kent Hovind promotes himself as Dr. Kent Hovind or Dr. eroticlesbian.ml to his 58 felony convictions and ten-year prison sentence, Hovind received a Ph.D. from Patriot Bible University, an unaccredited Christian eroticlesbian.mle of Hovind's use of the title of "Doctor" based on a degree from an unaccredited institution, legitimate scientists have closely examined his bona fides, including the work he.
The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read. A Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D.. What is a thesis or dissertation anyway? A thesis is a body of ORIGINAL research, and is one of the requirements for an advanced degree (M.A., M.S., Ph.D.).
We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. Kent Kovind Hovind is a well-known "young-earth" biblical creationist. As such the strength of his dissertation is of broad interest. According to our source, contrary to accepted practices in academia where doctoral dissertations are available to the public.
Kent hovind dissertation museum. 13 Sep, in Uncategorized by. Asked mom for help on spanish essay, she writes it for me! #thanksmom #senioritis. Kent hovind dissertation broccoli @eng_41 my rhetorical analysis essay will be on the women in stem jobs. it is unlikely for them to get a job even if they have the skills.