Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind

[cyr]

They didn't die, they live in loch ness!

The fact that anyone actually takes this guy seriously makes me want to cry...

[thatguywhojuggles]

Shermer briefly showed a slide of a drawing of what a "intelligently designed" human would look like. It had thick legs, and a very thick spine. I've been trying to find a copy of that image. Has anyone seen it online?

thanks...

[thaiboxerken]

If I designed a human, it would have wheels and built-in internet capabilities.

[Garrette]

And a really cute, busty redhead.


I don't really consider this a derail; Hovind deserves this much serious attention.

Breaking his hold on his followers, though, deserves quite a bit of attention, I suppose.

[Alkatran]

Ya, the whole "This is what we would look like if we were designed" argument was a bad idea IMO. There's no way you can say "this is what we would look like", as if you could know the BEST way to design something.



Does anyone know anything about the eyes argument Hovind used?

[Garrette]

Quote:

Originally posted by Alkatran:

Does anyone know anything about the eyes argument Hovind used?

You mean the eyes as an example of irreducible complexity?

It's wrong.

[Garrette]

Sorry, Alkatran, that was unnecessarily blunt.

My non-scientist understanding is this:

Hovind (and other creationists) say that the eye is an example of an irreducibly complex structure, i.e., something that could not have evolved because its constituent parts confer no advantage on the larger organism of which they are part.

Besides the fact that even some of their creationist brethren admit this is wrong (e.g. Michael Behe admits the eye could have evolved), they really are wrong. Intermediate eyes are quite viable and useful. A photo-sensitive patch of skin would confer an advantage over other slugs to the slug that possessed it.

You can find more at Talk Origins

[Alkatran]

No that's not what I meant.

Shermer said the eye was badly designed. "Upside down" he put it, with the cones and rods at the back. Hovind said that this was beneficial because it provided necessary UV protection. He said the reason some animals underwater have 'correct' eyes is that the water gives that protection.

My question was if this was correct (it definitely sounds plausible, but I don't know enough to be sure).


Also, one more point against Hovind:
"If you copy a program a thousand times between computers and try to run it it's not going to run."
Uh.... yes it will. Hell, if we lost a single bit in any program the whole program would probably crash incessantly.
The mere existance of 'open source' software, where people trade the code around thousands of times...

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
Better question about Hovind:

Anyone care?

I think it might be an important question. It's an indication of his credibility. Certainly some of you might not care, but I think that anything that shows what this guy's character is like would surely have an impression on fencesitters, not to mention some of his own followers.
Look at Jim Bakker. One of the largest scandals in evangelical history, due to monetary problems and scandal. That pretty much ended the PTL club, even though it did continue for a short while before collapsing in bankruptcy.
Link

[Garrette]

Ah. Got it, Alkatran.

Can't help you with that bit, though.

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote:

Originally posted by Alkatran
Shermer said the eye was badly designed. "Upside down" he put it, with the cones and rods at the back. Hovind said that this was beneficial because it provided necessary UV protection. He said the reason some animals underwater have 'correct' eyes is that the water gives that protection.

My question was if this was correct (it definitely sounds plausible, but I don't know enough to be sure).

Perhaps this link will clarify for you:
http://www.schools.net.au/edu/lesson...wksht4_p1.html

The cones and rods are closer to the front of the eye on a fish because light helps them to see in the water. The location of the cones and rods enable the fish to see light better.
Quote from above link:

The fish eye fundamentally has the same visual components as the human eye, but because fish have to make the most out of any light available to them some of these components show special modifications in order to enable the fish to respond to the level of available light and capture it most effectively.

[Yeah_Right]

When Hovind mentioned that Dinosaurs are still alive in Loch Ness, I wonder if he did lose any credibility points with the bleevers? I know that if I were listening from a fundie perspective I'd certainly dismiss Hovind as a representative of my beliefs. His argument reminds me of this other chap that said: "Scientists say that there is no water in heaven, so the flood could not have happened. But there is a polar ice cap on Mars and that's water". I am paraphrasing there, but that is essentially what he said. As with Hovind, I hope that there were some thinking fundies out there that were shaking their heads in shame.

[Zep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yeah_Right
...some thinking fundies...

Sorry? You've lost me on that. What are these people exactly?

[Alkatran]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yeah_Right
When Hovind mentioned that Dinosaurs are still alive in Loch Ness, I wonder if he did lose any credibility points with the bleevers?

Something tells me it made them go "OH! Well that solves that mystery!"

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If I designed a human, it would have wheels and built-in internet capabilities.

Stephen Hawking?

[DavoMan]

Baaahahahhaha! Brilliant.

[Ryokan]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
Stephen Hawking?

OMG, you just made me spit tea all over the screen! Brilliant, simply brilliant!

[Oso]

Here's some comments I sent to Dr Shermer shortly after the debates

Quote:

God I wish I had been there, well that's a lie, I couldn't possibly sit through a Hovind sermon. I grew up in the Church of Christ in Arkansas and Texas, so I'm familiar with the Hovind style. No offense but I suspect the 'atheists' were right, you got your ass kicked and never even realized what the rules were.

BUT... there are rules. It is more a sport than any kind of debate. Unfortunately the guy who's making the pitch sets all the rules and it's done in his house. It may seem different from a tent revival but not much. I suspect it didn't really make any difference whether you were there are not, he could do the whole thing to an empty seat and I doubt it would change much.

I agree with your conclusion that further 'debates' are counter productive but only because it's not worth it to develop the skill set necessary to be successful in the game. Hovind does this very specific shtick for a living but he can be beat. The problem is he sets all the rules, to beat him you have to either accept his rules or introduce new ones. If you accept his rules then you'll have to spend months developing effective rebuttals and then years forcing him to reveal all his tools. Establishing new rules will be extremely difficult. You can't do it in advance. He would never agree, for example, to limit the debate to specifics such as "The theory of evolution is a religion that leads to communism, abortion, and atheism". You would have to do something like, in your introduction simply say you will only continue the discussion if Hovind will first entertain a few simple questions such as "Is it possible to debate Creationism vs Evolution?". Of course you could only do this once.

But even if someone were willing to spend the time to become competitive in the Hovind arena he would only debate them once, and Hovind would still probably win, because I guarantee you no one's going to get far enough ahead of him to beat him with only one swing. So your talking about a career debating Hovind. I think Hell has now been defined.

He agreed.

Thanks for the file Chocolate Chip, It'll be my Saturday night movie.
.

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote:

Originally posted by Oso
Here's some comments I sent to Dr Shermer shortly after the debates He agreed.

Thanks for the file Chocolate Chip, It'll be my Saturday night movie.

Your Welcome Oso.

[EGarrett]

I don't see how Kent Hovind can be considered a threat when he got embarrassed by Ali G.

(Anyone else remember that episode?)

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote:

Originally posted by EGarrett
I don't see how Kent Hovind can be considered a threat when he got embarrassed by Ali G.

(Anyone else remember that episode?)

Reference?
As long as he can preach, lecture, debate, whatever you want to call it. He is a threat. He has opportunity to convince others of his views.

Or we could just poo-poo the whole thing and ignore it. Tell ourselves he's not worth confronting in some way, shape or form because we don't want to give him any kind of recognition he is supposed to be wanting and craving.
While we're at it, let's just ignore Sylvia Browne too. Hell, her woo is just as incredible. Mr Randi, are you reading this? Let it go, don't bother with Sylvia Browne, take that counter down off your homepage. I mean really, we think she's a fraud, therefore how can anyone else NOT see she's a fraud too, how could they not?
Leave John Edward alone Mr Randi. We see he is using cold reading methods, therefore everyone else should be able to as well. How could they not?
Don't bother with Dr Schwartz Mr Randi. We can see he is probably fudging his results, and using poor controls in his experiments with PSI. Oh hell, WE understand what he's up to, everyone else should be able to as well. How could they not?
I guess just because guys like Dawkins and Shermer don't want to engage these cretins in SOME kind of way, it's OK that the rest of us should just follow along? Is that what's happening?
Why bother Mr Randi? Why give ANY of these people any kind of recognition they supposedly crave? Maybe it's time to retire.

[EGarrett]

Reference? He was on the Ali G Show. That was the point of the post. Chill.

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote:

Originally posted by EGarrett
Reference? He was on the Ali G Show. That was the point of the post. Chill.

Quote:

Originally posted by EGarrett
I don't see how Kent Hovind can be considered a threat when he got embarrassed by Ali G.
(Anyone else remember that episode?)

So you're saying that the point of the above quoted post was that he was on the Ali G show and not that you don't see how Kent Hovind can be considered a threat?
I ask you for a reference of the show, or a link if possible so that I can see for myself if I think ALi G embarassed Hovind.

Quote:

Chill.

No.
Know that I am not targeting you specifically. But the laissez-faire attitude of some people towards this guy. Here is a quote from the very front of Hovind's web page:

Welcome to Creation Science Evangelism. Here at CSE, our goal is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not heard, and to strengthen your faith if you are already a believer. We do this by showing how Science actually gives glory to God by supporting the Biblical account of creation.

He is dedicated to trying to convert as many people as possible to this belief. Some of you may make jokes about this guy and ridicule as to how could anybody believe him.
But people do believe him, and he will most likely continue getting people to believe him. That is what one of the things religion is good at, spreading the "word". He is an evangelical, evangelism is specifically preaching and missionary work. This is Hovind's specialty, getting people to believe him. Unless we want to have a fortress mentality, we should consider confronting this. Question THEIR ideas, debate them on what THEY put forward. If they refuse, then it is THEY who are "scared", it is they who cannot defend their position, thus refusal to debate.

[Chocolate Chip]

Sometime in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would "win" the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public that is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist.....snip.....I have followed his advice ever since,
Richard Dawkins

Thursday, 14 March, 2002
Professor Richard Dawkins and others claim fundamentalist Christian teachers at the top school are steering children towards a purely biblical explanation of how the world was created.

Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools

May 7, 2001
Creationism, With New Name, Is Taught in Schools

11/29/2004
School science debate has evolved

Nov 6, 2004
Wis. City's Schools Allowing Creationism

I do not mean to spam. But I hope that some of you get what I mean.

[dann]

Quote:

Originally posted by Alkatran
Shermer said the eye was badly designed. "Upside down" he put it, with the cones and rods at the back. Hovind said that this was beneficial because it provided necessary UV protection. He said the reason some animals underwater have 'correct' eyes is that the water gives that protection.

My question was if this was correct (it definitely sounds plausible, but I don't know enough to be sure).

As I understand it the eyes of all vertebrates are basically the same. The 'wiring', i.e. the nerves that transmit impulses from the cones and rods to the brain, are placed above the cones and rods, which, of course, is an obvious 'designer' flaw caused by the eyes of vertebrates having evolved from parts of the brain, unlike the eyes of squid and octopusses that have the 'wiring' in the back because the eye evolved from skin cells. This also means that their vision is not impaired by our own blind spot where the wiring is collected and enters the brain.

But look it up for yourselves. If you google "evolution of the eye", you get a lot of very good links, the best of them illustrated. In my experience anybody who wants to confront creationists should know as much as possible about this question. It has turned into their favourite argument.

Sometimes when I read texts about creationism versus darwinism with my students, I play the devil's (the devil's? whatever!) advocate and attack their belief in evolution with the creationist eye argument, and it never fails to work because their belief in evolution isn't much more than a belief. They have no real idea how evolution works. They tend to argue like this: 1) We need eyes! (which, of course, is the reason why God in his wisdom gave them to us! ) 2) Therefore, given enough time, evolution will provide us with them. (at this point a reference to our lack of wheels comes in handy!).
They simply don't have a clue, and sometimes I've succeeded in convincing even groups of (is seniors the right word?) very bright 20-year-olds that the eye couldn't possibly be a result of evolution - in spite of the fact that I had started out being a defender of evolution, but, of course, they were confused about when exactly I was playing the devil's advocate.

It is usually very easy to undo my creationist indoctrination with the help from illustrations found on the internet. And here in Denmark I can even see the relief in their eyes when they realize that I'm not a creationist and that it's fairly easy to explain eyes as a result of evolution. I can imagine that it may be harder in the US ...

Some creationists who have a degree in biology and know about evolution favour this argument, too, and fail to disclose the well-known fact that eyes of all 'stages' and models exist in living animals even today. They are also trying hard to dismiss the evolutionist explanation. Their favourite argument right now seems to be: OK, sure, when you've got the beginning of an eye, then it's very easy to explain how an eye could 'evolve', but where did the beginning come from?
As always, they recourse to the 'missing links' in any explanation. If there is one little step that isn't covered in the stepladder of fossil evidence for evolution, they are quick to use this - not as an example of a lack of knowledge, but as positive proof of creationism - as if they were holding God's casting mold in their hands!

[dann]

Just one out of many:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/

[Zamzara]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip

I ask you for a reference of the show, or a link if possible so that I can see for myself if I think ALi G embarassed Hovind.

Ali G in the USAiii:
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page...=57&g=72&pa=sr

It also has the Buzz Aldrin interview.

[Kiless]

This may be of interest:

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.ph...ownload&cid=97

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zamzara
Ali G in the USAiii:
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page...=57&g=72&pa=sr
It also has the Buzz Aldrin interview.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kiless
This may be of interest:
http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.p...download&cid=97

Thank you both for the links, much appreciated.

[DavoMan]

Quote:

This does not, despite the fears of "intelligent design" advocates, amount to evidence against the existence of a Deity. Properly understood, as Darwin himself pointed out, it only deepens our respect for the power and subtlety of the Creator's remarkable ways

Whats this crap? I'm bothered by the whole 'you can beleive in jesus without beleiving creationism' bit put in the end of lectures by pro-evolution debaters.
It really seems like a gimmick to get christians to let go of thier 'if i beleive evolution, my entire faith is out the door' idea.

Is wise to take this stance? Is it even possible? If its not possible, then is it honest to take this stance & say this to people?

Also, with regards to the articles use of the eye: That creationist advocate said the reason our eye's nerve cells are infront of our photo-receptor cells is to stop nasty rays coming in. Whereas the octopus and other water-friends' eyes are under water & don't need the protection?

Is that a valid point?

[apoger]

Quote:

Whats this crap? I'm bothered by the whole 'you can beleive in jesus without beleiving creationism' bit put in the end of lectures by pro-evolution debaters.

It's correct. There is no conflict between biological evolution and creation stories.

Evolution describes how life changes over time.
Creation describes how life came into being.

It is completely plausible to hold the belief that a creator made the world and life, and that evolution is a description of how things proceeded from there (via the creators influence or otherwise).

If Creation advocates were honest, they would compare creation with abiogenisis, which is the scientific discipline that trys to explain how life came into being. Of course even if abiogenisis never produces a convincing theory, that still does not mean that by default "some creator did it".

Hope that helps clear things up.

[Chimpy]

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger
It is completely plausible to hold the belief that a creator made the world and life, and that evolution is a description of how things proceeded from there (via the creators influence or otherwise).

Theistic evolution accepts all the biological stuff with the proviso that god did it, it does not conflict in any way with science. ANYWAYS if anyone is having doubts and their faith shaken a good book is Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God

[DavoMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger
It's correct. There is no conflict between biological evolution and creation stories.
.......................................
Hope that helps clear things up.

Yeah and no. That first sentence you said..well how that is correct is beyond me. Hmm no it isn't. I think its wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. (3 wrongs). The rest of what you said is correct & clued me up a bit.

Okay one more time for the camera:

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger
There is no conflict between biological evolution and creation stories.

Then why the insane debates? Pro-evolution/science advocates disagree with creationists. Even I disagree with the creationists.

Creation story "and then god took adam's rib and made eve from it. no wait. i changed my mind. adam and eve were made at the same time. no wait i changed my mind again. go with the rib thing".
Does that conflict with evolution?

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavoMan
Then why the insane debates? Pro-evolution/science advocates disagree with creationists. Even I disagree with the creationists.

Creation story "and then god took adam's rib and made eve from it. no wait. i changed my mind. adam and eve were made at the same time. no wait i changed my mind again. go with the rib thing".
Does that conflict with evolution?

Creationists attribute god with creating all life. Evolutionists attribute life as a natural, gradual development.

Dogs were always dogs because that is how god decided to make them. Creationist arguement.

Dogs evolved from single cell life. Evolutionary view.

The "compromise" is that god started life off (like a push-start), once started, god stood back and let life develop on it's own.

The problem I have with this compromise, is that god is supposed to know all things, past, present, and future, according to any believer you'll encounter. Well if he knows all things, then he knew that man would eventually develop, the entire development was already planned out, then we have to ask, did life therefore really develop on it's own? There was already a preconcieved goal for life, create man to worship god.

[apoger]

Quote:

I think its wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. (3 wrongs).

Explain what part, or even three parts are wrong.

Quote:

Then why the insane debates?

Mostly becuase scientifically illiterate creationists offer them.

Quote:

Pro-evolution/science advocates disagree with creationists.

Due to their pro-science, not pro-evolution stance.

Quote:

Even I disagree with the creationists.

As do I, but not becuase the science of understanding how life changes has somehow begun to include theory about how life came into being.

Perhaps this analogy will help;

Dave has a car.
Dave believes his car was made by Ford.
This is the Ford Creation Theory.
Dave takes his car to the corner gas station where it gets worked on by Jose.
This is the Jose Maintenance Theory.
Jane thinks Dave is daft. She thinks his car was made by Honda.
This is the Honda Creation Theory.

Both Dave and Jane believe that Jose does maintain the car.
Does the Jose Maintenance Therory tell us anything about where the car was created? No it does not. It only describes what happened to the car once it was already created. The Jose Maintenance Theory is not validated or invalidated by either creation method. It stands alone.

It doesn't matter whether life was formed naturally from a chemical soup, or if God zapped it into being. The theory of biological evolution picks up once life starts changing. It has nothing to do with how life began.


Hope this helps make things less confusing.

[DavoMan]

I understood, and I understand.
However Kent Hovind would disagree with you, right? He decided that evolution didn't exist because it conflicted with his idea of each species evolving from equally as complex species. Dog from a dog etc. Holden from a Holden. That was my understanding.

But don't ya just love Hovind's example of Microsoft software to demonstrate 'intelegent design'? I'm sure a few Linux & Apple geeks had a laugh at that.

Also his idea of 'If ya understood how a computer worked, that doesnt mean you knew how the computer was made' made me look sideways.

The very reason we all have x86 PC's now is because Compaq reverse engineered the first IBM PC BIOS to make their 'IBM clone PC'.

Shermer, obviusly the smarter of the two men - uses an Apple.

[apoger]

Quote:

However Kent Hovind would disagree with you, right?

Yes he would.

However this is either due to;
A> Massive scientific illiteracy.

or, more likely

B> Massive hypocrisy, as he feels it's fine to lie when doing so in the service of his God.


Just because Hovind is willing to agrue, doesn't make it a valid argument. Indeed this is excatly why so many in the scientific community refuse to debate this topic, becuase it creates the impression that there is something to argue about.

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger
Yes he would.

However this is either due to;
A> Massive scientific illiteracy.

or, more likely

B> Massive hypocrisy, as he feels it's fine to lie when doing so in the service of his God.


Just because Hovind is willing to agrue, doesn't make it a valid argument. Indeed this is excatly why so many in the scientific community refuse to debate this topic, becuase it creates the impression that there is something to argue about.

I put to you though, that exposing Hovind and this type of hypocrisy would be beneficial to the evolutionist side, and science. I think that NOT debating him creates the impression that scientists are avoiding the issue because there may be creedance to Hovind's arguement, and scientists "know" it.

[DavoMan]

I think you two are both correct, and that is our delemma. What we need is a tactic which corrodes the creationists' support in both of those scenarios. I don't know what that tactic is, but I am open for suggestions.

[Zep]

You could try contacting directly the people who ask Hovind to lecture them, and politely invite them to a beginner's introduction to science presentation, WITHOUT Hovind ranting in the background. Allow any and all questions to be fielded, and answered truthfully. Show them how science REALLY works, show them that no certainty exists on the subject of abiogenisis, but that evolutionary development is far more supported by evidence than Hovind can possibly deny without lying. And that science does not preclude or deny their own faith.

In short, short-cut Hovind and his ilk right out of the arena, and pull his whole shoddy house-of-cards out from under him.