RE: Kent Hovind speaks in Dover

I debated Hovind about 5 years ago and he made the same claim about
defeating Ken Miller in a debate, especially concerning Haeckel
drawings. I asked Ken about it and he explained that Hovind called up
via telephone on a radio talk show in Kansas City where Miller was to be
interviewed about his book, and made some claims about Miller's use of
Haeckel. Miller explained that Hovind was wrong and got no evidence in
response. Interesting how Hovind is so quick to accuse others of "lies".

Jim Hofmann
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation
/web/

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Ted Davis
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:10 AM
To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Kent Hovind speaks in Dover

This past Friday evening and Saturday morning/afternoon, Kent Hovind
spoke
at Dover High School. The facility was rented by Repent America, a
right-wing organization with a specific agenda that is evident from
their
website http://www.repentamerica.com/index.htm.

Several years ago I heard Hovind's son Eric speak at a nearby church,
and I
invited him to speak to students in two of my classes as well--they were
readily able to debunk him without my help. I have also seen some of
Kent
Hovind's videos and own one of his "books," but I had not previously
heard
him speak live.

Overall my impressions are captured in the three points here.

(1) My overwhelming impression is that I just heard Harry Rimmer, the
leading antievolution evangelist of the 1920s through 1940s. "Doctor"
Rimmer's typical stunt was to come into a town or major city at the
invitation of a local church or other organization (even a secular
college
on some occasions, believe it nor not), challenge every "evolutionist"
in
town to a debate, and then use the outcome of that challenge to draw a
crowd. He "won" the challenge either way. Most commonly, no one
accepted
the challenge, and Rimmer then advertised this fact to promote himself
as a
champion for fundamentalism whom no one would dare to debate. (Rimmer
was a
former boxer who literally thought of such debates as rhetorical
contests
akin to boxing matches. In letters home, he would use boxing terms to
describe them.) This is what happened here in Dover: "Doctor" Hovind's
challenge was declined all around (I know the process whereby opponents
were
sought and I can affirm that a range of scientists and theologians
declined
the challenge), and Hovind's sponsors made hay with this.

In cases in which opponents were found, Rimmer inevitably claimed
victory.
As his son Brandon admitted long after his father's death, however,
""Dad
never won the argument; he always won the audience." Hovind claims
victory
over Ken Miller (a formidable debater, as many on this list know) and
Massimo Piglucci, among others, and he sells DVDs of the latter debate.
Miller, he claims, will not debate him again (I don't know the alleged
reason). I haven't see that DVD (Piglucci) myself. My sense is that
Hovind
would do what Rimmer did: cite fact after fact against evolution, use
quotation after quotation to establish his point with a highly friendly
audience. Indeed the audience is a key here. In order to "win" a
debate
against Rimmer or Hovind you need to prevent them from packing the house
with their followers--their followers have by definition already found
their
arguments convincing, and when they hear more of the same in a debate
they
know who "won." If I were ever to accept such a debate, I'd concede
"defeat" right from the start and then proceed to educate the audience
about
how science actually works, appealing to such things as forensic science
(its application to legal cases whose legitmacy the audience already
accepts) to make the case for interpreting the unseen past in ways
identical
to those we use to interpret unseen crimes. I would not "win," but I'd
win.

(2) Hovind is slick, as everyone knows, but also a lot better in person
than on tape. This is no surprise, of course. With his use of humor to
poke fun at evolution and city people, he reminds me of Rimmer very
strongly. You need humor to win the audience. A significant portion of
his
presentation is simply humor or cheap shots at modern science. Some of
his
presentation, however, is very serious stuff that is accurate as far as
I
can tell. For example, he accurately talks about Hitler's views on
Christianity (very negative), Jews and blacks (need I say more), and
evolution (it favored his program, in his opinion). He also brings in a
lot
of the stuff from Wells' "Icons of Evolution" and credits the source for
some of it. I know we've talked about Well's book before, but I still
have
the impression that the full truth is not being told on some of those
issues. There are I suspect skeletons in the scientific closet that
Wells
is pointing to, whether or not the actual facts support all of his
interpretations to the extent that he pushes them. (In the politics of
science, as I like to say, the politics drives the science--and this
works
both ways.)

(3) I heard a very significant new angle in Dover. Hovind kept telling
the
audience to stop talking about ID, to stop talking about creation (you
read
this correctly, he did say "creation" not even "creationism"). Instead,
to
start yelling about the "lies" in the science textbooks. A public
school
teacher is paid to tell the truth about science, and not paid to lie to
your
children. You have every right as a citizen, Hovind is telling people,
to
insist that the lies not be told. He offered "for free," he kept
saying, to
go through the Miller/Levine text used in Dover and show people exactly
where the "lies" are. Are students willing to tear out those parts of
the
text where the lies are found? etc. This is very similar to what Bryan
was
doing in the 1920s, and politically this will be highly effective.
Hovind
also told people to write off public education in the short run. This
is a
message I've been hearing, and I understand why many people feel this
way.
It is partly why I endorse alternatives to public education as we know
it.
I don't expect many academics to agree with me, but I do think they will
ignore such sentiments at their own peril; this anti-public school
feeling
is not going to get weaker, and it's going to manifest itself in various
ways unless/until the basic concerns are perceived to be met by an
alternative definition of public education *at all levels*. I have no
easy
solution (I don't think one exists) and I fear for the future.

To follow up on this briefly, I wonder whether anyone knows where I can
find information about the debates he had with Ken Miller and Piglucci.
I
mean details.

Gotta go now, class coming up.

ted
 
Received on Mon Mar 20 11:07:17 2006