Stupid Creationist Arguments 11: Hovinds 6 Types of Evolutions
December 27th, 2009
Kent Hovind is a tax dodging creationist lier. If you’ve never heard of him, just do a Google or (better) a Youtube search for him. One of many of Kent Hovind’s bullshit arguments is the 6 types of evolution.
I tried to find a video Hovind using the argument but couldn’t find one (I didn’t look that hard) but I found one of his son using the argument with [sarcasm]pretty, pretty animation[/sarcasm].
Well lets get to it.
1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time space an matter.
Right off the bat: bullshit. The theory of evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmic one.
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of all the elements we have today.
Um… No. Fusion reactions in the cores of stars fuse smaller elements like hydrogen into larger elements.
You notice (if you watched the video) that the animation shows molecules? Is he confusing molecules with elements? Is it the animator thats confused? Do they just not care because there going for an audience that doesn’t know the difference?
3. Stellar Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
Umm… Nnooo. Stellar evolution is how a star ages though its life time and it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
4. Organic Evolution: The origin of life from non-life.
Again: nnooo. Thats abiogenesis. By the way: in chemistry organic means “a compound containing carbon.”
5. Macro Evolution: The origin of the major kinds of animals and plants.
At last! Biology!
What the hell is a kind? Is it a species? Genus? Family? Order? I’ll assume it means “species” for the moment.
And nnnoooooo. Macro evolution is evolution between species; basically its speciation.
6. Micro Evolution: subtle variation within the kinds.
At last! he got something right! Assuming “kind” means species and ignore “subtle”.
micro evolution is the only one that has been observed and tested.
Damn! Speciation has been observed multiple times, in the lab and in nature.
While “cosmic evolution” and “stellar evolution” are real terms used by scientists, he gets them wrong and they have nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. The term “organic evolution” and “chemical evolution” were made up by Hovind. 1-4 he useas the fallacy of equivocation. He gets macro evolution wrong, he only gets micro evolution right if kind means species and both micro and macro evolution are out dated terms no longer use by scientists.
© 2009 all rights reserved
Links and sources
- Wikipedia – Kent Hovind
- Cosmic Evolution
- Stellar Evolution
- Talk Origens-Abiogenises
- Evolution Part 3: Micro and Macro
Categories: Astronomy, Belief, Biology, Chemistry, Cosmology, Evolution, I.D./Creationism, Media, Physics, Pseudoscience, Religion, Science, Stupid Creationist Arguments
[...] Comments Stupid Creationist Arguments 11: Hovinds 6 Types of Evolutions – Lone Wolfs Den on Stupid Creationist Arguments 12: Nature Tends Towards DisorderStupid Creationist Arguments 12: [...]
[...] Stupid Creationist Arguments 11: Hovinds 6 Types of Evolutions – Lone Wolfs Den December 30th, 2009 on 7:36 pm [...]
I have a suggestion for you…
You stated above that you looked for information, but couldn’t find it….but then you go on to argue against the information that you haven’t even heard!
To support Dr. Hovind: This is typical of MOST of the people arguing against him. You are simply babbling about something you know nothing about!
If you actually listened to Dr. Hovind’s argument, you would find that he is dead correct in his science!
The other thing you seem to be forgetting is that the theory of evolution is just that….A THEORY! How about taking the time to listen first…and then if you still think your argument has a leg to stand upon, feel free. Until then, you should just stay quiet. You’re simply displaying your own stupidity!
Jim Scranton, PhD in Molecular Sciences
Nnooo. I said I looked for a video of Hovind using the arguments and couldn’t find one. I could easly find a rebuttal video using Hovnd’s video but this post is a rebuttal.
Dead wrong. First of all: the theory of evolution is a biological theory that explains observed instances of evolution (changes in populations over time) with mutations and natural selection. It has nothing to do with the big bang, nucleosynthesis, planetary formation and abiogenesis. Second: In science theories are not guesses or conjecture, they are heavily tested explanations for observed phenomena. This is the basic bare bones of the theory of evolution and you can’t even get that right. This information is not hidden, it is readily available to any one who actually looks it up
When it comes to Hovend’s “science”, he fails epically.