God vs Evo - Last Installment

Many of us that have looked at religious or anti-religious blog comments will have seen this inanity: "If there were no god nothing would stop me from killing and raping" or some similar idiocy. I have news for people that believe this crap. Morality is innate. This has been well-demonstrated scientifically. If you want to review the literature on the subject, I highly recommend reading Marc Hauser's Moral Minds.

It not only totally confounds me, but insults me to no end this idiotic, stupid and dispicable belief that people chose to believe Evo to be the path that life took must be immoral. Why is this belief prevalent? Kent Hovind espoused this crap and look where he is. Don't bend over for the soap, Kent. Believers think this to be the case because they believe that atheists must be denying god even though for some reason we know god exists. Evo is part of our denial. This silly and prejudiced belief is born of arrogance. How can anybody not believe god exists when I 'know' he does? This so-called 'inner knowledge' is synonumous with belief, and is therefore not knowledge at all. Knowledge requires evidence, for which there is (again) none. The internet show The Things That Matter Most did a whole show entitled Evidence for God Within Our Souls and Desires without ever first providing evidence for the very existence of the thing they are using to provide evidence for God!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Creationists deny the Science behind Evo at every turn! I've shown clearly that creationism is born of ignorance. In the 21st century, this is inexcusable. The new form of ignorance is so-called 'intelligent design', an idea completely devoid of substance. There is no Science here, folks. Who designed life? How was life designed? How was the design implemented? Without answers to these questions, you are essentially left with goddidit. Empty and vacuous.

Don shows he is no different, and I was absolutely insensed by his quoting Julian Huxley. Don has, to his credit, apologized (I'm not sure he knows exactly what for, though), but this is irrelevant. He believes this travesty, and so has raised my ire... We begin yet again with the last part in this series.

"The world's leading evolutionist, the late Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) and brother of Aldous Huxley, once said on the Merv Griffin show that scientists would have not been so ready to accept Darwin's theory of evolution except for the fact that the idea of God was not compatible with their sex mores." Now Don has really pissed me off. What he implied is that those that accept Evolution are really just looking for an excuse to remove God from their lives and deny God's existence, even though they know somewhere in their minds that God exists.

Let me tell you something, Don,. I don't just deny God's existence, I have absolutely no thought as to God's existence until some theist tries to convince me otherwise. In essence, anyone that believes as 'Sir' Julian Huxley, that atheists use Evo as an excuse to be 'wicked', is projecting their prejudice and bigotry onto their inability to understand atheism. Kent Hovind said as much in a debate with Prof. Pagliucci that I blogged about some time ago. I find it ironic (and not without some self-satisfaction, I'm embarrassed to admit. Well, no, but I have to say that…) that I am where I am, and he is where he is now. I have actually had someone ask me on my blog, what I did that I don't feel that I can be forgiven for? My reply is 'Nothing. What did you do that you feel YOU need to be forgiven for?' Religiosity of a society has been shown to have a direct link to crime, spousal and child abuse. Yet, I would not stoop to call religious people wife-beating, child molesting criminals. I would not even say that religion is a cause for these undesirable activities. That would be an improper conclusion. 'Sir' Julian Huxley can (figuratively) go to hell.

I'm not looking to be saved, nor am I looking to for myself. I know who and what I am. I like my life. You say that Christians are supposed to 'witness' (what were they witness to?) and not coerce, but the two look very much the same. America seems well on its way to making that dream a reality. I have seen the faces of evil, and they look a lot like Jim Baker, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart and the late Jerry Falwell, amongst a host of others. People that have created corporations selling fear of what will happen in an afterlife they have no idea even exists. Hope does not beget reality.

I must admit, your engineer friend did change my mind about one thing: Sam Harris is right. I now realize that the PC attitude I had towards religion is only an invitation to be trampled by Believers. To quote Christopher Hitchens, 'Religion becomes philosphy as astrology becomes astronomy.' It is my fervent hope that this happens.

Your friend asked how I will handle death. As Mark Twain is attributed as saying, "I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." Amen. Atheism makes one realize that the one life we have is precious and by extension we understand that everyone's life is precious. I'm not so sure religion promotes this, particularly those with the promise of an afterlife, as I have seen ample evidence to the contrary. I'll keep my atheism, thank you.

I just don't see a point in any further response. But I will keep listening to your show [The Things That Matter Most]. I am very pleased that you do not limit yourself to Believers as many would do, and many of your guests (believers or not) have been quite interesting. I'm looking forward to the interview with Vic Stenger.

Randy Tyson

Dr. Dino gets 10 years for defrauding the American people

That young Earth creationist quack, the self-styled 'Dr. Dino', was sentenced yesterday to 10 years imprisonment. In addition, he is to pay restitution in the amount of $640,000, the prosecution's court costs ($7,078) and serve 3 years parole after release. When viewed against other similar crimes, such as Martha Stewart's insider trading gaffe, the sentence itself seems to be in line with the severity of the crime.

While not as spectacular as the actions of those fallen angels of the 80s, Swaggart, Roberts and Bakker, Kent Hovind is not without his own special charm: "If it's just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach," Hovind said.

He just doesn't get it. He was quite willing to reap the benefits that the state provides through taxation that he arbitrarily declared himself exempt from. In other words, he lived off everybody else like a parasite. Did anything change? Nope. He's still quite content to let everyone else pay for his indiscretions. Sentencing is not just about restitution; it's also about punishment for inappropriate actions relative to social norms.

The above quote suggests that he does not believe that he committed a crime. However, the actions of the Hovinds strongly suggest otherwise. His wife Jo was herself convicted of using various schemes to avoid triggering transactions requiring reporting to the IRS. She would visit the bank sometimes twice in a day to make withdrawals just shy of the $10,000 limit on transaction reporting. On the day of the IRS raid Kent withdrew $70,000. He must have realized that the jig was up and that he wasn't fooling anybody anymore. The raid resulted in finding $42,000 stashed in various locations of the house and several weapons! Are these the actions of someone that does not believe they are breaking the law? If he really believed he was following a higher calling, would the Hovinds go out of their way to avoid detection by the mere mortals of the IRS like sneaking thieves? A jury of 12 of his peers (I hope they were actually his betters. A jury of his peers might have come back with a verdict of kumquat.) didn't think so and raced to produce a verdict in a mere two and a half hours. That's barely time to read out the charges and vote on each one. In what I thought was an unusual step, Kent was held without bail till the sentencing as the judge was convinced he was a flight risk.

Michael Smith at the Pensacola New Journal writes: "The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that churches are not exempt from paying employment taxes, she (U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers) explained, and what happened was a result of Kent Hovind 'refusing to accept what the law is.'" It wouldn't actually matter if churches were totally exempt, since Hovind's claim of a ministry is arbitrary and he has never applied for special status to the IRS. The Creation Science Ministry is not even a non-profit organization and is therefor fully taxable just like any other business.

Religion allows believers to turn their backs on their fellow humans because they think they answer to a higher power. This makes possible the suspension of normal limitations on actions causing pain and suffering in others, or (in the case of Hovind) circumventing ethical boundaries. If he truly believed that he was doing God's work, what need did he have for money at all? Wouldn't God provide?

His son, Eric, is certainly in denial. "My father is not a man who is in love with money. He's in love with God," son Eric Hovind said. "He is a man who loves this country and loves others." Okay, but explain the $42,000 lying around the house. Talk about putting equity into your home. Then explain the guns.

How is this man considered by anyone to be moral? This man is scum! I've already dealt with his abysmal form of Creation Science in a previous blog. But not only is his 'Science' a joke, he is very dodgy about where his so-called PhD comes from and in what field it relates to. Since he is well aware that his 'Hovind Theory' has been thoroughly debunked but continues to spout his drivel I think it's safe to say that he is a liar. Now he has been publicly shown to be a cheat. But will his followers see him as such? History suggests not...

And even after all of this the sheep will still follow. Some will even believe that he is being persecuted for his beliefs, but I think it's quite clear that his actions were criminal. This man is not only financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well. When will his followers stop being mindless sheep, put that antiquated book down and start thinking for themselves like human beings?

No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Or God.

I received a comment on one of two (but not the last) blogs that I've written about Kent Hovind, PhDuh. I feel compelled to respond to it in more than just a return comment because I think this person is representative of a fundamentalist view of atheism and is deserving of a proper response. I mean no disrespect by any of this, but some things must be addressed because we atheists seem to be the most misunderstood group on the planet. This person is exactly the type that I wish to read my blog and hopefully get something from it.

Kent Hovind opened the door to criticism of the beliefs he espouses simply by making them public. His intent is not only to make you believe evolution is a myth, even though the overwhelming evidence makes it a fact, but to win you over to religion. Just another reason to examine his ideology. My initial intent with the blog on him was to critically examine his views in the debate that I dissected, but it soon turned out that I could no longer take his inanity. His recent legal problems, while not related to his personal beliefs per se, do in fact go towards who he is. I have a rule: I respect others' right to beliefs, but I do not have to respect the beliefs others hold when such beliefs are demonstrably wrong and harmful. It is the courage of people such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins that have moved me to come forward and make my voice heard. I save my vitriol for those that deserve it: the Bill O'Reillys, Ann Coulters and Kent Hovinds of this world.

Am1specialkitty wrote:

Maybe this man doesn't have a degree. But his speech is not his own. History is documented for that time period. Only the misguided try to discard it. Why are you so scared of the truth. What have you done that you feel you can't be forgiven for. Why must you have so much hate for christians that you feel the need to attack them.

My sympathy is with you. For if you are right and I am wrong you lose nothing, but if I am right and there is a God, you lose everything. And for that I pray for you, that one day you find faith. Faith isn't something that can be documented. Faith is something that's not touchable. Faith is simply belief in what you know inside to be true and no longer deny.

Maybe this man doesn't have a degree. He does, but it is not from an accredited university. This makes his PhD null and void, so I guess I don't disagree with this. But he is certainly insecure about it.

But his speech is not his own. Yes, indeed much of it is. The creation story may not be his own, but trying to shoehorn dinosaurs into this mythology is very much his own idea. And not a good one. It shows the desperation and the lengths people will go to to try to preserve their beliefs, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented to them.

History is documented for that period. Only the misguided try to discard it. Indeed it is. The Romans were almost obsessive in their record keeping. Curious that there is no mention of a miracle-working carpenter in any contemporary literature. If you are thinking of the gospels as your documentation, forget it. It is well-documented that none of the gospels was written during Jesus' life, nor are their authorship known. How could the gospels be at all accurate after 40 years of word-of-mouth?

Why are you so scared of the truth? I am a man of Science and am thus interested in nothing but the truth. I do not blindly accept anything, however. I've found that common sense often enough turns out to be common nonsense. If you take everything at face value you get what you deserve in the end. So-called creation science is a good example. Proponents assume the Genesis story as truth without question, and then try to find evidence in support of it. See anything wrong here? If you blindly believe in the creation mythology, what need do you have for evidence? It seems to me that it is creationists that are afraid of the truth. The tendency to ignore all other evidence in favor of tidbits supporting the creation legend is not scientific in the least. Especially when those tidbits are generally twisted by omitting important adjunct information. One of Hovind's beliefs is that dragon legends are evidence for dinosaurs living amongst H. sapiens. He also believes (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that T. rex was a herbivore (this allows T. rex to be on the ark without making a meal of Noah). It seems to me, however, that dragons had a fondness for princess meat. So, he picks and chooses the parts he likes, ignoring all else. This is just sad. He has no interest in looking for the truth at all. I'm sure he believes the creation story, but if he truly believes it to be true, then what does he fear from starting ab initio without assuming any end point? If Genesis is true, all evidence (not just the ones he picks) will point to it as being truth no matter your starting point.

What have you done that you feel you can't be forgiven for. Nothing. I actually have a clear conscience. Why do Xians always feel that atheists deny the existence of god out of guilt and fear of punishment for some terrible act? Why this assumed immorality of atheists? This is actually downright insulting, even in ignorance. You know nothing about me, yet you assume I must be some sort of axe murderer. Sorry to disappoint you, but I will put my sense of ethics and morality, and indeed my whole life, up for comparison with any Xian's.

This is so similar to a point that Hovind attempted to put forward that I have to discuss this further. Why do Xians (not all, certainly, but often enough to exasperate me) think that atheists are denying the existence of something that to them is so obvious, there must be some nefarious reason? They say, "Look around you! How could this all have just come into being?" But instead of trying to answer that very question, some supernatural being is generated to explain it. It is the very fact that some people weren't satisfied with the accepted answers obtained through sheer laziness and apathy, and began to search for real answers that many like me have come to realize that there was never a need to have created a deity in the first place. This planet's inhabitants would be much happier without religion to create intergroup violence.

Why must you have so much hate for christians that you feel the need to attack them. I have absolutely no hate for Xians. None. I can see that some would think that Xians are my target. It is baseless belief that I fight against. I find it interesting that religious people are allowed to proselytize and convert others to their beliefs, but when an atheist does it he/she is condemned. People of all sorts of faiths put aside their differences and attack free thinkers like Richard Dawkins. Why are religion and religious beliefs held unaccountable? What makes them sacrosanct? We have this social taboo that religion is not to be touched. That changes now. When inappropriate beliefs affect myself and others I will challenge them with vigor. So why do I not think that religion is harmless? Watch CNN. America has become a theocracy in all but name. This endangers everyone's freedoms. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what is happening south of the Great White North.

My sympathy is with you. For if you are right and I am wrong you lose nothing, but if I am right and there is a God, you lose everything. Ah, Pascal's Wager. You realize that this is perhaps the most discredited argument of the religious apologist? Aside from the fact that you have only a small chance of having selected the right god if god indeed exists, you do indeed have much to lose if you are wrong. You have wasted the whole of the one life you had to live on a lie. If I'm wrong I can hold my head high when I meet god and say to him, in the words of Betrand Russell, "Not enough evidence!"

And for that I pray for you, that one day you find faith. I know you mean well, but having someone pray for me is insulting. I would prefer that you do something constructive with your time. Prayer has indeed been shown to have no effect at all, aside from possible psychological factors. It is much better to have said that you would hold me in your thoughts, or something along that line. I can respect that. I think about friends and family all the time, and I hold hopes for their happiness and well-being in my mind. That's just caring. I think you meant that, but you were being totally (probably unintentionally) insensitive to the beliefs I hold, and hold because of evidence.

Faith isn't something that can be documented. Faith is something that's not touchable. Faith is simply belief in what you know inside to be true and no longer deny. Faith is asking a friend for a favor and believing they will carry it out because they have always been there for you before. Faith is believing that Science will continue to find answers to the questions rightly important to our species, such as where did we come from, is there anybody else out there, how did the universe come into being? I have more faith than you can know. Believing in something devoid of any supporting evidence and all evidence pointing to the contrary is not faith, however. It is BLIND FAITH. Blind faith is not something to be admired or congratulated. Blind faith is like a someone falling from a cliff desperately grasping at the lone blade of grasp to avoid their doom. It is blind faith that has lead to witch hunts, burning of heretics and suicide bombers.

I do have one question: why do you believe what you believe? Everyone should answer this question for themselves. I would really like an answer. And not one like "Because it's in the bible." That answers nothing and creates more questions. I mean, really dig deep down to understand why it is we believe what we believe. The answers are far more difficult to express than you might think. If your faith can survive that, I'll have a lot more respect for it.

More Kent Hovind - the stupid is strong in this one....

(See this for the prequel.) I was just reading Kent Hovind's blog (http://www.cseblogs.com/) and I have to say that this man is certifiably insane. Here are some samples....

"I finally got a pillow after only eight days and requests! I am about ready for a new pair of socks next!" Oh, the humanity!

"Being here gives me a much better appreciation for many Bible characters who suffered for doing right." Suffered doing right? There have many people who have suffered doing right, and not all of them theists. But you, Hovind, are rightly in prison for what you did. You defrauded the people of America. How dare you compare yourself to those that sacrificed for their beliefs? He continues to compare himself to other biblical sufferers, this time to Paul: "When I compare my time in jail to the Apostle Paul's time, I am forced to realize that I have so much for which to be thankful." Yeah, not having a pillow for a few nights will do that. This man is either a snake oil salesman or a delusional schizophrenic. The gall of this guy!

He asks (rhetorically) "Why Did God Allow This?" Paraphrase: "Oh, why hast thou foresaken me, Lord?" He has all kinds of possibilities (19 in total), as if he knows what god's plans for him are. I'll give a better answer: god wasn't happy with the immoral behavior and is going to let you rot. Almost makes one think that gods don't exist.... One of his best 'reasons'? "To make me more like Jesus, the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." So now he's like Jesus? Medication may be necessary.

Another: "To allow God to see how fellow Christians react. He is gathering evidence for their day of reckoning. The same is true for me." How should Xians react? They should shun him as the charlatan he is. But what I think he's implying is that god won't like it much if you turn away from him. The contempt I hold for this 'man' is beyond measure.

Right after he tells us, "I have not been beaten. I have hot and cold water. I have three meals a day. I have clean clothes two times each week. I have climate controlled and sanitary conditions. I have a sink and toilet." etc., He then claims to have it rough in yet another of the reasons god allowed his imprisonment: "To give me a better appreciation for our veterans who slept in swamps and other squalid conditions for my freedom." What a sack o' shit this man is.

He has an interesting take on the penal system: "To let me see why God's law, which is perfect, converting the soul, authorizes: beatings, four times restitution, and execution for crimes, but never imprisonment.... This system costs everyone in many ways, and does little good and much harm." No revolving door here. He'd rather see them dead or suffer barbaric sentences. Whatever happened to 'thou shalt not kill'?

So what was the real purpose behind this? "Many of you have called or written to ask if you can write letters on our behalf. We have learned that you can do this. Letters can be sent to CSE, who will give them all to the attorneys." Shuh-wing! What? You thought this was altruistic exercise or an apology? HA! This is nothing more than a way to entice people to write letters, from people who don't even know him, to speak on his behalf! As if any of these people will have any standing in the court's eyes whatsoever.

The plain truth of the matter is that Hovind willfully and knowingly comitted a serious crime. He feels that he doesn't have to pay his taxes- the Leona Helmsley of religion.

If nothing else (and I mean nothing else), this putz is a good source of material for my blogs.

Kent Hovind: Winner of the first ever 'Bag O' Hammers' Award

I've grown up believing that you should not speak ill of anyone, but then, I don't lie, either. The subject of this blog is Kent Hovind, or 'Dr. Dino'; a man that, without ever having met, I completely loathe. No, it goes beyond that, and I will now tell you why.

A while ago, I downloaded a debate that was made available at www.infidelguy.com between Mr. Kent Hovind and Dr. Massimo Pigliucci which originally aired in 2001. Dr. Pigliucci most ably defended evolution with a great deal more patience than I would have had. I have little patience for stupidity (which is why I never found 'Friends' funny at all) and have to fight the urge to stop my hand from smacking topside of the head anyone suffering from this all too common affliction. Mr. Hovind would receive a great deal less gentle attention in my presence.

It is apparent that Mr. Hovind bristles at being called 'Mr.' and feels that his 'degree' from an unaccredited university demands that the title 'Dr.' be used when addressing him: "... I have a doctor's degree also, though it's not from an accredited university but I don't think that matters..."

What the....? You're darn tootin' it matters. Under this concept anyone getting a mail order PhD would then have to be given the title of 'Dr.' I will not make a mockery of my profession by addressing him as such. A look at his so-called PhD thesis has shown its many shortcomings, and it is doubtful it would have passed muster in the eyes of a real examination committee (Read: it's joke degree, dufus).

His beliefs are straightforward enough: "...the bible is literally true, it's scientifically accurate, the Earth is not billions of years old..." The bible is scientifically accurate? Only if you have severe cataracts and selective hearing loss. I won't go into it here, but there is a long list of biblical science blunders.

He makes no bones about how he feels about ToE: "The Evolution Theory that is taught in our schools is the dumbest idea in the history of humanity and is bolstered up by lies that have been proven wrong over many years." He points to the apparent gill slits observable in human embryoes as incorrectly being evidence of our piscean past still in textbooks. He's right. But errors like this have long since been abandoned, though textbooks sometimes contain (and propogate) these errors, and there is certainly a need for editing in the interests of accuracy. But how this relates to the validity of ToE, the central tenets of which have remained essentially unaltered and validated over the last 150 years, is beyond me. I'm all for correcting mistakes or modifying theories in light of new data. It's a strength of Science that it can accomodate new ideas, not a weakness. Religious dogma, on the other hand....

Is it really a dumb idea, or is it more likely that he just isn't capable of understanding it? More likely the latter. I find this to be a very common thread in fundamentalists. They seem to think that they are smarter than the thousands of truly bright researchers in evolutionary biology. It totally smacks of idiotic arrogance, the same kind of arrogance they accuse scientists of. Sorry to you fundies out there for my 'arrogance', but I'm partial to physical evidence rather than the mythology.

But it is his claim that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a religion that is so bizarre and at best overreaching: "The evolutionists Believe [sic]... that the universe came into existence without a designer; they Believe that life got started without a designer or a creator (or whatever you want to call god); they Believe that life forms change into different types of life forms over time. None of it's been observed. Dogs produce dogs. Now if you want to Believe that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago, which is precisely what evolution teaches if you boil away all the fluff and the feathers, then you are welcome to Believe that. But you are taking that totally on faith. You have never seen, and nobody has ever seen life come from nonliving material; you have never seen any planet or star or universe create itself from nothing; you have never seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. You take all these things on faith, you Believe them. So, yes, it's very much a religion...."

There are so many things wrong with the above quote that it's hard to decide where to begin, or which is most aggregious, so I will go sequentially through the main points:

1. Saying that the universe came into being without a designer, while I believe this to be true, has nothing to do with evolution.
2. A dog came from a rock? He's creating (excuse the pun) the usual strawman caricature of ToE. ToE actually says nothing about the origins of life, first of all. Second, those that hypothesize about life origins do not believe rocks were involved, though dissolved minerals obviously were, but it is well understood that the conditions on this planet at that time were such that organic molecules necessary for life would easily have been formed from available materials. This has been verified through experiment and the subsequent discussion was also enlightening. By creating the conditions approximating a young Earth, Mr. Hovind attempts to place the experimenter in the role of designer, which is patently ridiculous: "Well, then you are totally blind. You said it was doctor so-and-so that did it. Here you have an intelligent person putting chemicals together to make something happen." The experimenter is simply there to recreate the environment that was thought to exist through natural means, not to actively affect the outcome of the experiment. Sheesh!
3. Mr. Hovind demonstrates a serious problem with the need for direct observation of evolution (remember this point, as I will come back to it), ignoring the mountains of indirect evidence and verification in solid support of ToE. My wife gave me an excellent analogy: if you look at a clock at two different times, did the clock hands move smoothly during the interem, or did they jump the second time you looked? Obviously, the former. We know this because of previous experience, but as David Hume (one of histories greatest thinkers) pointed out, knowledge like this is not absolute. So, do we then deny that the hands moved at all? Of course not, but that is exactly what Mr. Hovind is asking you to do.
4. The 'dogs producing dogs' thing is more of the strawman again. ToE is about (as Dr. Pigliucci stressed) gene population and propogation. It has never predicted that two of one animal species (those undergoing sexual reproduction) will produce a new species as offspring in such a direct fashion. Either he does not understand even the basics of genetics and ToE, or he is a liar. Makes no difference to me, as I have only contempt for this bloated sack of protoplasm.

Here's another strange quote from this debate relating ToE to be religion: "The supernatural power you follow... is Time and Blind Random Chance." Time is an ingredient in ToE, a necessary element wherein natural selection can act on mutations, not a god I follow. It's like saying that because it is a necessary ingredient in the making of cakes sugar is the god a baker follows. We do not use Time as a panacea for handling the problem of adaptation and speciation, unlike creationist invoking 'goddidit'. Religious dogma, now THAT'S what I call a panacea. And random chance? Mutations in the genetic code happen (not completely true, but close enough) in a random fashion, it is true, but natural selection forces are anything but random. This is a typically fundamental (pun intended) misconception of ToE.

This quote is my favorite, and why Mr. Hovind gets the 'Bag O' Hammers Award'. In speaking of Tyrannosaurus rex and how they were kept from eating everything on the ark (Yup, you read it right. He actually Believes, lacking any evidence other than the existence of dragon legends, that Noah took them all for a boat ride on a rainy day, and that human predation caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.): "...you're assuming, number one, that for one that they were carnivorous; you're assuming, number two, that they were adult; you're assuming, number three, that they were ferocious, and dangerous, all of which are totally unproven assumptions, and I think the bible would teach quite the opposite of that. ....You'll find an enormous number of evolutionary scientists, even, that hold that the T. rex was at best a scavenger, or a herbivore because of the cracks in the enamel always being stained with chlorophyll..."

Oh, my. I nearly wet myself laughing. There are no lengths to which some people will not go in order to shoehorn inconvenient facts to fit their beliefs. Challenged to give the name of one scientist that believes T. rex was a herbivore, I think at this point Hovind (I'm dropping the 'Mr.' now. He doesn't deserve even that much respect anymore...) realized he'd just made a complete idiot of himself because even though he is (presumably) familiar with the names and work of peers in his field he was suspiciously unable to name a single one. My feeling is that he could not point out a dinosaur in a museum.

Read the last sentence of the above quote carefully. Remember Hovind's disdain for even strong indirect evidence, no matter it's amount? He has never seen a live specimen, let alone one eating a plant, yet on indirect evidence (which I dispute) makes the claim that T. rex was a herbivore! What happened here? Simple. He has made a statement with only indirect evidence (if in fact the chlorophyll thing is true, which I doubt since chlorophyll is a delicate molecule and would not survive any significant length of time) which fits into his young Earth creationist view. So it's okay for evidence supporting creationism, but not ToE. I have always found creationists to be very 'selective', shall we say, in how they obtain and/or use scientific data. Cherry picking in this way nullifies any right to the word 'science' in 'creation science'. Why try to scientifically prove the creation myth at all? Hovind has already assumed the Genesis myth to be true, so what is gained by trying to find evidence for it? The answer is less than honorable. He needs us to believe it, too, to propogate the mind virus known as religion. Not just any brand, though, but his. I'm beginning to think that there is more than a little truth in Richard Dawkins' meme concept.

In explaining T. rex's rather (to quote form The Holy Grail) nasty, big, pointy teeth, he points out that "there are many animals, like the fruit bat, which have ferocious-looking, very sharp teeth, and they are herbivores..." This is true. But the teeth of fruit bats are evolved for use in puncturing fruit, while those of T. rex and other similar carnivores are for shearing. Any expert on comparative morphology presented with a tooth never seen before would immediately and accurately place its owner within its gastronomic group on the basis of "form follows function". Interesting that Hovind doesn't understand such an elementary zoological concept. He's an expert in what, now, exactly? No idea...

One caller into the webcast, someone that drills for oil for a living, challenged the flood story saying that he has never seen any evidence for a flood. Obviously not knowing that geologists study core samples all the way down when drilling, Hovind replied that "...you are drilling through the evidence of the flood..." to get to the oil. He just gets stupider and stupider.

It's not hard to see why he would like to believe that ToE is a religious concept. Hovind is smart enough (I hesitate to use the word 'smart' to describe Hovind) to realize that creationism will never be allowed in public schools, so he attempts the next best thing: have ToE labeled a religion and removed from schools too! His strategy has but one flaw: the vast amount of scientific evidence in support of ToE, evidence he tries so very hard (and utterly fails) to deny as being evidence.

In his concluding remarks, Hovind gets to what really bothers him (and many hard core Believers) about evolution: morality. In his world, "it is pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain that there must have been a designer..." (he got that right more than he could ever know...) and that denial of god's existence when god obviously does exist must mean that "there is something in their lifestyle, be it pornography or whatever .... there is something that they think the creator might not like, but they like to do it, so rather than face the facts, the obvious, that there must have been a designer, they deny the designer's existence to justify their wicked lifestyle... Some people just don't like the idea of a creator telling them what to do."

He just doesn't get it. It's not some kind of atheist plot. Putting aside the fact that there are many Xians that recognize the power of ToE in explaining adaptation and speciation, I would put it to you that as a group atheists are more moral than believers and it has been shown to be so.The National Academy of Sciences, the most esteemed scientific body in the US, is comprised of 93% atheists/agnostics, yet I know of no member of that august body in prison, while the debauchery of this group predicted by this opinion would be a legend to make the Hellfire Club seem like the Boy Scouts.

For the life of me I cannot understand this unsubstantiated accusation that atheists, because they do not receive their morals from a belief in god, are immoral. My suggestion is if you want to understand the origin of morals, do not look to the bible. One look at some of the vile stories it contains, like Judges 19, is enough for me to know that it is a terrible source of morality. Take a look at Marc Hauser's Moral Minds, Michael Shermer's The Science of Good & Evil or Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, or indeed any book by these authors.

And what does morality have to do with ToE anyway? Not a damn thing, aside from explaining the origins of morality in hominids (including man, of course). As an atheist, I not only deny god's existence, but do not see any need to bring god up at all (except when fundies do...). This is why I lack a belief in a deity! This is why I am an atheist! The discovery of ToE ranks as one of the most outstanding achievements of our species and Hovind belittles it as some nefarious motive to spread immorality. I do not need ToE as an excuse to disbelieve!

Now he gets biblical. Hovind goes on to say that "the very creator that some of you folks [he means atheist listeners, I suppose] don't believe in, loves you and is trying desperately to get your attention and he wants to be able to forgive your sins. But if you persist in rejecting his offer, he will have to do the obvious, which is be a just judge and give you your just desserts." First of all, as Bertrand Russell would have said, he's not trying hard enough to get my attention, or at all, actually. "Not enough evidence," is what Russell said. Religious people see the presence of god everywhere, much the same as a psychopathic stalker will read messages into what tie their quarry is wearing on a particular day. But these are baseless, ambiguous and equivocal interpretations. Humans like patterns. We see patterns where there are none because we have a need to, just like we dislike not knowing answers to questions. Especially important ones, like "how did we get here?"

Since he brought it up, let's look at Hovind's god. Is it just to send someone to hell for their 'sins', to be forever in torment? Hardly. I have no problems standing before god, should I be incorrect, and tell him this in person (or, rather, in soul). A loving, omnipotent god would forgive our sins without condition. Anything else and god is neither loving nor just. This is self-evident, but strangely always overlooked. Doesn't seem like a god worth worshipping to me. (And please don't read into this that I believe that there is any such thing as 'sin' or 'soul'. These concepts exist only within religious dogma that I reject totally.)

So, what is the sum total of Hovind's evidence in support of his young Earth creationist view? Quotes from an antiquated book, in which any contents related to science are anything but inerrant and disingenuous attacks on ToE, all the while ignoring the massive amount of hard evidence from multiple sources which point to a universe that we would expect without a god. Why do fundies place any stock in the false dichotomy argument (your argument is wrong, therefor mine is right be default)? He presented absolutely no evidence, nothing at all, in support of his young Earth creationist view.

Almost as an afterthought to this utter stupidity are his more current (and only his latest) legal issues (seen here). The man Believed he was invulnerable to the IRS because he is a pious religious man, while actively attempting to defraud them. It couldn't have been much of a defense at his trial. The jury deliberated for only two and a half hours, which would have barely been enough time to read all the charges and vote on each before returning to the courtroom to render the verdict. To add insult to injury, the prosecution had Hovind declared a flight risk, so his butt is still incarcerated awaiting final word on a sentence of potentially 288 years! Anybody with half a brain (even yours, Hovind) should have realized that you don't piss off the IRS. I guess he forgot to read his bible: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Congratulations on being the first (but by no means the last!) recipient of the Bag O' Hammers Award, and remember, Kent: don't bend over for the soap.