Yesterday I got an email from a factotum of young-Earth biblical creationist and ex-con Kent Hovind, a man apparently desperate to debate evolutionists. (He spent eight years in the can for tax evasion, despite the fact that he complains in the video below that evolution erodes morality!) Here’s what I got:
Dr. Coyne,
I’m writing to ask if you’d like to Debate Dr. Kent Hovind? He is willing to travel to your University or you can come down to his Theme park where we’ll put you up in a Cabin and provide meals, even pick you up from the airport if need be. Or it can be done over zoom if that would be better for you. If your interested call PHONE # REDACTED for Dr Hovind or ext 4 for tech support to schedule you in.Check out the videoNAME OF FACTOTUM REDACTED
I’ve debated a creationist exactly once, and it went fine (it was before the meeting of the Alaska Bar Association!). But since then I decided not to debate them any more, as such engagements give their views a scientific credibility it doesn’t deserve. It’s like debating a flat-earther. At any rate, the video is below.
In this 51-minute comedy video, Hovind gives a running commentary on a filmed discussion about evolution I had with Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor for their “Freethought Matters” series at the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Hovind’s main point is that a). evolution is a religion, not science, and b). there’s no evidence for evolution. I find the video vastly amusing, because Hovind keeps saying the same thing over and over again, including invoking young-earth creationism—including the existence of Noah’s flood. And only Ceiling Cat knows how many times he asserts his claim that evolution is a religion. Well, it surely isn’t in the sense of religion involving the supernatural, but I suppose he means that, to those of his ilk, evolution (like Hovind’s Christianity) is based not on evidence, but pure faith. Yet he doesn’t explain why evolutionists are so keen to accept a scientific fact that’s buttressed by no evidence at all. Are we all in some sort of anti-religious cabal?
Hovind’s mind dump includes claims like these:
The fossil record doesn’t exist, there are “just fossils.” Hovind advances the long-refuted claim that evolutionary change as seen in the fossil record is bogus because the fossils are dated by the sedimentary layers they’re in, and the layers are dated by the fossils they contain; ergo the fossil evidence for evolution begs the question. Apparently Hovind hasn’t heard about radiometric dating! In contrast, he believes that the fossil record itself constitute evidence for the Great Flood. But, of course, the order that organisms appear in the fossil record isn’t consonant with their simultaneous extirpation by God’s Flood. (Why are fish some of the earliest vertebrates to be found? Shouldn’t they be up at the top, left as the waters recede? And why are fish way lower down than whales? And so on.)
The evidence for evolution from embryology somehow “justifies abortion”.
Evolution can’t be true because “nobody’s ever seen a cow produce a non-cow.” In other words, he thinks that evolutionists accept an instantaneous form of massive evolutionary change—a “macromutational” or “saltational” event. Nope, not true.
At points in Hovind’s tirade, he actually admits that evolution could have happened. For example, at about 15:38, he admits that all butterflies may have had a single common ancestor. Well, that’s an admission that all butterflies not only evolved from that ancestor, but that different species of butterflies evolved. So evolutionary change as well as speciation happened, but of course Hovind would say that all the descendants of that common ancestor are “still butterflies”. In other words, he admits there is evolution, but that it has limits: one “kind” can’t evolve into another “kind.” But no creationist has ever advanced a good reason what these limits are; there’s a whole sub-field of creationism (“baraminology“) that repeatedly tries and fails to discern the created “kinds.”
Hovind also admits that there is evolutionary change in bacteria as they become resistant to antibiotics, but dismisses that as not real evolution because it represents a loss of information; and of course a resistant bacterium is still a bacterium. But Hovind is full of it: some antibiotic resistance involves appearance of new “pumps” that get rid of the antibiotic before it harms the bacterium, the appearance of new enzymes, and the ‘horizontal’ acquisition of genes for resistance from other bacteria or viruses. To claim that the evolution of bacterial resistance involves the inactivation of some enzyme or feature is to espouse ignorance.
Finally, he notes that by teaching evolution, I’ve destroyed the faith of “who knows how many students.” I doubt it, but if learning scientific truths dispels faith, that’s not the fault of science. Nor is dispelling faith my aim in teaching evolution.
I know that this post is giving Hovind the attention he so desperately craves, but it’s salutary for us to occasionally see the kind of willful ignorance that pervades the young-creationist movement.
But what’s truly scary is not Hovind, who’s amusing, but something I mention in my FFRF discussion: 40% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form in the last 10,000 years, and another 33% think that humans evolved, but God guided the process. That makes 73% of Americans—nearly three out of four—accepting some form of divine intervention in the development of life. Sadly, only 22% of Americans believe that “humans evolved but God had no part in the process.”
The results of the 2019 Gallup poll are shown below the video. Note that the question asked was only about humans, and some exceptionalists may think that while all other creatures evolved in a naturalistic way, humans were the one species created by God. Even granting that, it’s clear that the genus Homo is way, way older than 10,000 years!
Yeah – debate.
Debate is valuable.
… but this is …
Readers here know me (maybe): Subversion comes to mind. Hegelian Dialectic.
Usually, we think of dialecticians on the Left.
What about this? Is this also dialectic? Is creationism a dialectically synthetic reaction? I don’t know – but what the hell? This is suggestive:
“Evolution can’t be true because “nobody’s ever seen a cow produce a non-cow.” ”
A contradiction consisting of a contradiction – is a non-cow, or anticow expected?
I am reading Peter Singer’s very short introduction to Hegel and Marx, FWIW. Dialectics originate with Aristotle, and I think it is valuable. ‘Round about Hegel, dialectics got different.
… I imagine the creationist sees themselves as polymathic, autodidactic, which I can’t say are bad things (guilty! – with my ignorant foray into dialectic).
So debate, maybe yes – if the philosophic strategy for subversion at work can be shown with clarity, in contrast to empiricism – and a hearty call for “Enlightenment Now!” (S. Pinker).
We All Live On Campus Now (A. Sullivan)
Edit deadline passed :
Sam Harris “debated” William Lane Craig a long time ago, and I thought “wow, this should be a great contest with tons of awesome philosophy.”
Harris essentially got up and said – and forgive the liberal paraphrase – the debate itself is outrageous – Craig twists vile ideas into knots with language and asserts Harris is the ignoramus because he can’t untie the knots.
I came away from it able to recognize something I see as a trap now – and, possibly, a dialectical trap – cf. Craig’s language abuse and manipulation of thought.
So there could be value in showing the manipulation.
WLC is an excellent debater, and by that I mean he never met a fact he couldn’t twist or ignore and he has zero qualms about using any and all carny-like tactics ever devised. It’s a bad idea for just about anybody to debate him.
The best performance I’ve seen was by Sean Carroll, which really surprised me. Pleasantly, of course. Not because I thought Sean wasn’t capable of showing WLC’s claims to be silly but because I wouldn’t have guessed that someone of Sean’s apparently pleasant and non-confrontational demeanor could so effectively counter WLC’s tactics. But I thought he did a better job of it than any of the others I’ve seen debate him.
That’s what I’m getting at – because “debate” is, clearly, not going away – but I’d say Carroll and Harris made new, valuable showings. But once should be enough.
IOW debate the debate – show the ruse as contrasted with … perhaps, discourse the audience expects.
Or, PCC(E) could write a new book on that and speak on the book!
I have seen a few of WLC’s debates and they usually end up with him “winning”. The reason for this is that he is playing a different game from his opponents who seem to assume they will be involved in an exchange of ideas rather than a competition.
WLC is always meticulously prepared whereas his opponents usually are not. He’ll have five or six points that he makes in his opening statement and when his opponent fails to refute all of them, he’ll point this out claim victory. The opponent always fails to refute at least one or two points because they are not as well prepared as WLC and it takes longer to refute a point than to make it.
Sam Harris impressed me in his debate with WLC because he refused to play the game. I think this is the only way for somebody who is not a practised debater to beat Craig.
WLC : “I challenge so-and-so to basketball.”
So-and-so : “Challenge accepted.”
WLC : “OK – here’s the basketball – let’s go.”
So-and-so : “This is a carnival basketball apparatus with slightly deflated basketballs and silly prizes that drop out the slot.”
WLC : “Look everyone : so-and-so had every chance to prepare but can’t score as many points as me.”
“I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it.” (Edith Sitwell)
Jerry, I applaud your decision not to debate Hovind or indeed any of the other creationists or Discoveroids. Hovind and his ilk have been taken down by counter-apologists on YouTube—such as Paulogia, Professor Dave, Rationality Rules, et al.— so many times it’s not funny anymore.
I’m reminded of a saying attributed to Shaw: “I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
Dr. Coyne, respectfully, how is writing a (very good) book refuting creationism different from debating a creationist in terms of giving them scientific credibility? I don’t think you’re giving them credibility either way, just laying out the facts for an ignorant audience with some honest members.
(For transparency, I used to post here as “William Occam.” I wasn’t banned, I just like this name better.)
My book wasn’t meant to attack creationism as much as to let people know why scienctists accept evolution. Also, they are very different things: advancing debate via reasoned argument in print versus a rhetorical exercise. It’s my view that sharing a platform with someone like Hovind is not an effective way of instructing people about the reasons scientists accept evolution. In my view, writing books is. To me, it’s a waste of time to debate creationists as well for various reasons that should seem obvious.
When your book WEIT first came out I didn’t buy it because I thought, well I already accept evolution and I had a bunch of books on evolution. But after finding this website I bought your book and I am glad I did. No surprise, I learned more interesting facets of evolution. Your book isn’t about creationism it’s about evolution. It would be a waste of time and effort to debate that particular human.
Just wanted to add that DocBill comment is hilarious.
Staying in a cabin at a creationist theme park deep in the piney woods of Alabama hosted by a delusional religious fanatic ex-con is the script of a horror movie that ends, “… and he was never seen again.”
That’s pretty funny, Doc Bill!
I can’t stop laughing over this response.
Right there with ya!
But doesn’t one of the victims always survive in those movies to tell the tale? If I have to watch one, I amuse myself by trying to identify the inevitable survivor. Perhaps our host would be the wily survivor.
Perhaps all that’s left is a grainy video, found years later when everyone in the camp has taken the Kool-Aid.
A geologist friend of mine said that his department had invited the director of the Creation Museum to give a talk. The director had not responded 🙂
I met a young-earther who was studying to become a teacher. He was required to take a science course. He took geology. He told me that he listened to the lectures even though he knew that they was all false 🙂
Perhaps he could come to a better understanding of evolution if he would study his own brain and thought processes to see how they became fossilized while he still lives.
Glad you declined the offer to debate. Hovind and the others will go away on their own over time, as they have been. Better to devote your intellect to other matters.
Academia today includes a new kind of creationist: Progressivists, who believe that only non-human species emerged through the process of evolution. In their doctrine, the human species was created entirely and de novo by “society” with all its “social constructs” and isms. Thus, the human species could be re-shaped by society under a ruling vanguard Party, through the operation of Little Octobrists, Young Pioneers, and Komsomols for youth; or in a more recent style by “Woke Kindergartens”, liberation pedagogy, “trainings”, and bulletins of the DEI Office. The brilliant successes of the first program can be inspected in Eurasia.
+1
Oh, a very good comment.
I will have to remember that the next time a “woke” activist or their ally rants about “Western” science, wants to decolonize it, or calls for acceptance of indigenous “knowledge” systems.
I’m with you, PCC(E). And Dawkins. It is really no help to entertain these people.
I don’t think it moves the needle at all.
An aside – I still find it utterly amazing how seemingly so many people deny evolution. I criticize others for not “getting” what Islam is all about but I have a blind spot myself denying that, what was it (from one of your talks) s/t like 40% believe in angels, etc.
D.A.
NYC
It occurs to me that the seeming majority belief in superstitions of one kind or another may not be entirely the fault of religion. Maybe there is a large audience for bullshit qua bullshit—who get some kind of thrill from listening to (and maybe acting as if they believe) evidence-free baloney. Remember, there is a syndicated radio program (Coast to Coast) which blathers on and on about angels, ghosts, aliens, UFOs, communication with the dead, bigfoot, telepathy, etc. etc. Striking that only a little of the program’s hogwash relates to religion at all.
Don’t do it, Jerry!
You are right to decline. Creationists don’t want a debate, they just think it will give their bizarre worldview credibility, and they would be whooping with pleasure if you agreed.
Here’s an idea: why don’t you put me forward? If he really wants someone to debate with, I’ll be happy to oblige. I am used to arguing with creationists; I do it all the time in Facebook groups. I wonder what he would say? Think the fact that I am a nobody would put him off?
Seriously though, Jerry, I’ve been listening to his video and I think I could demolish him in a debate. If you wanted to pass on my email address to him, please do. It could be billed as the “Nobody vs Nobody debate”.
Believe me, you can’t beat him in a debate. He won’t debate you unless he controls the conditions and then they will be so biased against you, that you don’t have a hope. Kent Hovind is a deeply dishonest person.
Thanks, but I wouldn’t agree unless I could get my points across fairly. I’ve got another idea though… Stay tuned.
I think that when creationists refer to ducks turning into crocodiles and the like, what they’re really saying is why are there no very close predecessors of crocodiles? I know there are lots of other reptiles that are, presumably, closely related to crocodiles, but there’s nothing that’s just short. Same for every other species. It’s something I’ve often pondered myself (though to be clear I have absolutely no doubts as to the reality of evolution), and wonder if it’s just a matter of perception.
There certainly were very close predecessors of crocodiles, and their close relatives like alligators and caimans. The problem is that the fossil record is incredibly patchy. However, the gaps are filling all the time, and we do have fossil evidence of crocodile-like creatures from 250 million years ago. None of this will make any difference to creationists, of course, they already “know” evolution didn’t happen. I often point them to evidence when I’m debating with them, but they almost never look at it. They don’t want to know what’s true: facts make them nervous.
What Peter said. The fossil record shows that the lineage that today ends with sprawling, short-legged crocodilians was once an impressive tree that ranged from species that were more aquatic than they are today, to rather agile-looking and even bipedal terrestrial species. One can segue from there to dinosaurs that looked to have occupied similar ecologies. And from dinosaurs, its not far until you get to ducks.
That’s definitely not the impression I get. In every case I’ve come across someone making that sort of “argument” the root of the problem was that they did not understand how evolution works. They truly believed that the way it is supposed to work is that an organism of species A gives birth to an organism of a new species, B. That sort of misconception is very, very common. It’s common even among people that accept evolution but don’t really no much about it.
And why it doesn’t work like that is kind of subtle. I like the “line of ancestors” analogy to help explain it. As in, imagine a line starting with a child, then their parent, then their grandparent, and so on stretching unbroken for hundreds of thousands of generations into the past, hundreds of millions of years. If you compare the organism at the front (present) of that line with the organism at the back (past) of that line you’ll be comparing a human with something resembling a small rodent. If you go back far enough it could be something like pond scum.
But, that is a distant, low resolution perspective. If you zoom in to any segment of that line the two organisms next to each other will be the same species. How that can be is difficult for lots of people to grasp.
@Darrell – You have reminded me the analogy that Richard Dawkins has made regarding parent/children and speciation . It’s a long quote, and I hope it does not transgress any posting roolz.
Thanks for posting that quote. I’m sure I’ve heard or read RD using the “line of ancestors” analogy before, could be who I got it from though many have used it, but I’d never come across that specific one before. Very nice.
Debating Ham would be akin to debating a flat earther or someone who doesn’t accept the existence of atoms.
Flat Earthers tend to be creationists. Both idiocies spring from the Bible with its SnoGlobe cosmology of a flat Earth beneath “crystal shells” to hold the lights in the sky and to separate the waters above from the waters below. That cosmology does have a tiny kernel of truth. There is a lot of evidence that the Cosmos contains vast quantities of water in various forms. 🙂 But you’re right, of course, debating Creationists whether or not they are also Flat Earthers gives them undeserved credibility as just having “another way of knowing” and having a different but equal body of knowledge to what science has shown us.
Debates with creationists tend to result in mainly defending evidence for evolution against repeated falsehoods and hasty generalizations. All manner of fallacies, quickly spun out in seconds, are thrown at you, and the evolutionist must counter them with detailed evidence-based explanations. That is why a debate with them does not work.
Meanwhile, there is the more important work in getting broader acceptance of evolution. The most effective way to do that that I know is not so much in teaching evolution, but in bettering the economic lives of people, and giving more of them a college education. Those things undermine the power of religion, and by reducing religiosity one gets wider acceptance of science in general.
“That is why a debate with them does not work.”
Such failure can happen when the epistemology is completely different. Such failure is associated with abuse of language.
I’d suggest exoteric terms such as evidence, or selection can be used with esoteric meanings, only known to the cult. Definition of terms, then, would be imperative to show the trick being played.
Hovind missed out on a lot while in prison, but the most important thing was a failure to notice that his “niche” was taken over by competitors. Answers-in-Genesis is now the leading Young Earth “evangelical” organization, eclipsing several nativep born competitors and now dominating the anti-evolution ecosystem, with some overlap (but definitely not agreement) with “Intelligent Design” creationism.
Hovind seems not to have noticed the sea change, and both his tactics and his arguments hearken back to the earlier days of “creation science” with claims that evolution is a religion and that there is circularity in the arguments that support evolution.
To see how little he has changed his stripes in the last 25 years, check out these two reports:
https://ncse.ngo/dr-dino-does-delphia
https://ncse.ngo/unmasking-false-prophet-creationism
Perhaps you are right, as I had a bit of a time-warp moment on reading this post: took me straight back to the good old days of new atheism.
Dr. Coyne, I’d like to post several questions to begin a challenge to your justifications for declining Hovind’s debate challenge:
If accepting a debate challenge gives ‘credibility’ to the opponent, then wouldn’t it be more reasonable for freethinkers to NEVER debate a religious person on any religious matter? Is accepting Jesus’ resurrection any more credible than accepting creationism? I’m not seeing a lot of difference between ancient anonymous unreliable hearsay miracle testimony and ancient anonymous unreliable hearsay aetiology about causation.
If a creationist accepts a debate challenge from an evolutionist, is the creationist giving ‘credibility’ to the evolutionary viewpoint?
If a prosecutor puts a criminal suspect on trial with expectation that the suspect will take the stand…is the prosecutor merely giving ‘credibility’ to the suspect’s expected alibi? If not, couldn’t it be argued that as long as a creationist/evolutionist debate includes significant periods of direct cross-examination, truth will be served? I’ve always hated the debate format that restricts the speakers to just “lecture” type rebuttals. Live cross-examination is precisely where lies go to die. Creationists either die, or get dinged for evasion.
And if accepting a debate challenge from a creationist gives ‘credibility’ to the creationist, then mustn’t you conclude that all freethinkers who participated in a live debate with a creationist were doing a disservice to the cause of critical thinking? Does creationism become more viable when the advocate is Jonathan McLatchie instead of Hovind?
If creationism is little more than a tissue of fallacies, rhetoric and misunderstandings, this would provide endless opportunity to teach critical thinking skills in a live setting. One major reason I de-converted from creationism to atheism was by watching live creationist debates.
I’m sorry, Dr. Coyne, but we apparently differ on how much hope there is that the creationist or undecided audience members will be benefited by the teaching of critical thinking skills. I can buy that maybe your personality doesn’t mesh well with live debate, but you argue as if your personal proclivities about live debate are the only reasonable option available to other freethinkers. One could just as easily opine that you are helping creationists snort even louder at evolution when you decline a debate challenge.
If you really know what you are doing in a live debate, you can severely reduce the odds that a live debate with a religious person about a biblical issue will cement the audience’s religious views even deeper in their mind.
I don’t really want to argue this; I find it much easier to change minds by writing instead of “counterspeech”. Have you ever been to a creationist debate against an evolutionist? Look up the “Gish Gallop”.
I’m sorry, but yes, we do differ but I reject your claim that I am not saying that refusal to engage in live debate is the “only reasonable option”. I gave my opinion about giving scientic credibility to the nonsense of creationists like Hovind, and it’s a lot of work. And I have to say but your last two paragraphs are aggressive and somewhat uncivil. No, I doubt that I am helping the cause of creationism by refusing to debate. In fact, you’re telling me that I SHOULD debate instead of write in defense of evolution when writing is more to my taste. So please lay off telling me what I should do.
Someone like Jerry shouldn’t waste his time debating a creationist, particularly a cretin like Kent. By “someone like Jerry”, I mean a professional biologist of considerable reputation who has also written a book that outlines the evidence for evolution, which the creationist can just read.
But a student of biology, perhaps a graduate student, might be more appropriate. When I was an undergrad in a speech class, I was challenged by another student (actually 3 evangelical Christians) to debate evolution in front of the class. I prepared like my life depended on it, including reading creationist books. I did pretty well in the debate, and I learned more about evolution in the 2 weeks that I prepared for that debate than I had in my previous 20 years of life.
So…debating a creationist might be an excellent way to learn biology…
You don’t seem to understand that the meaning of words depends upon context. The context here is scientific credibility.
Are creationists credible when it comes to the science of evolution? Are they worthy of our trust because they are honorable and admirable, renowned and respected experts in the field?
To put the answers in terms of the movie “Avengers: Endgame,” Jerry is Captain America, whose courage and purity of heart give him the ability to wield the Hammer of Thor. Kent Hovind and his fellow creationists can’t be trusted not to hit their own thumbs when pounding a nail with a hammer bought from “Dollar General.”
Heck if they offered to pay for all room service, I’d abuse the living daylights out of it!
In dealing with the fossil record, the study of sedimentary rock layers is known as stratigraphy. Radiometric dating can only apply to layers <60K years (carbon dating), and the dating of volcanic layers and intrusions.
The irony in this, is that all of the people that started and developed what we now call the Earth Sciences were creationists, every single one of them. An example is Nicolas Steno (17th Century), who is considered to be the father of geology and stratigraphy, was a Lutheran and wound up being a Catholic bishop. He was canonized in 1988.
I always enjoy bringing up the history of geology to creationists and watch them fumble around trying to discredit them.
There are many methods of radiometric dating that extend way beyond the 60k years you mention, 60k might be about right for carbon 14 dating: but I thought it was nearer 30k years for this, although there have been recent advances in techniques and sensitivity has increased so you might not be far off.
Other examples, are potassium/argon, uranium/lead and fission track dating methods each has its own date range and can extend back to hundreds of millions if not billions of years. Not all rocks can be dated. I’m not an expert, but I don’t think sedimentary rocks usually can be dated – it is usually only igneous (volcanic) rocks that can be tested, as the heat from the volcanism when they are formed sets the radioactive “clock” to zero. Sedimentary rocks are made up of tiny bits of fragmented rock and each “bit” will have had its own geological history.
You are correct. I was referring Dr. Coyne’s response on radiometric dating and fossil beds. Under certain circumstances, they can get back to about 60k. And yes, there are many other forms of dating, but none of them are relevant to sedimentary rocks. You could use them to date zircon crystals, etc., in those rocks, but they’d give you the age of the original source igneous material rather than the deposition age of the sedimentary rocks. It is also a problem with metamorphic rock, where the “clock” can be reset, giving you an age of the reheating event of the rock rather than the age of the original bed. This is where stratigraphy comes in to help determine age of the strata.
Thanks, that’s useful. I may also have been a bit misleading in my post. I should have mentioned that radiocarbon dating is usually used to date the remains of living things rather than rocks. We all have some carbon 14 in our bodies, but this isotope is radioactive, and when we die it starts to decay. The half-life is about 5730 years (which means half of the C14 will have decayed by then, then after another 5730 years half of what’s left will have decayed and so on.) which means that after about 50 or 60k years there isn’t enough C14 left to measure. It is quite a precise way of measuring dates, and it is used a lot by archaeologists, but not much use if you wanted to date a dinosaur, for example.
There are other methods as well such as spin-resonance, which is a lot harder to explain. It is amazing what science can do now. It’s a very complex field
Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated directly, except sometimes by carbon-14, but about a dozen radionuclides enable dating up to milliards of years. Using these, datable igneous intrusions can set a minimum age for sedimentary deposits. Included pebbles of igneous origin can set a maximum. Interspersing datable volcanic ash layers, as I have seen in the sedimentary basin at Olorgesailie, can bracket the sedimentary layers. Stratigraphy and fossils are then valuable for interpolation.
Yes, I knew about being able to date layers, using interspersing volcanic ash layers. This method has been used to date hominin fossils near the African Great Rift. Didn’t know about dating sedimentary rocks by radiocarbon analysis though. Thanks.
Olorgesailie is in one arm of the Great Rift Valley.
I should have said that very young sedimentary layers can sometimes be dated using carbon 14. Varves in existing lakes are one example. By the time that they have hardened into rock virtually all of the organic carbon 14 has gone.
Your target’s reaction is your real action
Seems to apply here – hadn’t thought of that before.
The image my mind conjures up of a Hovind theme park intrigues and amuses me.
This won’t be news to Dr. Coyne but might be to some others. A favourite tactic of anti-evolution Christian fundamentalists is to deliberately explain evolution _wrongly_ so that what they say very obviously does not make sense. This way, religious listeners, who tend to implicitly believe whatever proselytizers say, happily conclude that the ToE is untenable. It rarely occurs to them that they might have been lied to. One rather hilarious example is Kent Hovind’s claim that “if evolution were true, then we would expect to occasionally see a rock spontaneously turn into a dog.”
Another fav tactic is to claim that while small differences between or within species (aka ‘micro-evolution’) can be adequately explained by a ToE (of sorts), major differences (aka ‘macro-evolution’) cannot be explained by the same theory. This strikes many people, including non-biologist secular people, as plausibly true. But the explanation for major differences is simple enough: many smaller differences that have accumulated over VERY long stretches of time, i.e. more than just a few hundred thousand years. Evolution has had at least 3 BILLION years (but could be closer to 3.5 or 4 billion) since abiogenesis to make all the species we see today, as well as all the extinct ones seen in the fossil record – and all the others for which we’ve discovered no evidence at all and can only assume that they must have existed in order to explain the evidence we _have_ found.
As for the Discovery Institute’s [Dr.] Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity”, using the examples of the flagellum and the human (or any) eye, those phenomena have been adequately explained by evo-bio. In particular, Richard Dawkins has made more than one video explaining how the eye could have evolved, and they’re convincing as h*ll.
In respect of the eye evolution thing, Charles Darwin dealt with it perfectly well in On the Origin of Species. Unfortunately, his set up for the discussion led to one of the most notorious quote mines in the history of the fight against creationism.
This is the real reason not to debate creationists. Creationists are deeply dishonest with everyone (and especially themselves). I don’t fully buy the “giving credibility to creationists” argument because, on a level playing field, Jerry would utterly destroy Kent Hovind. However, you’ll never see Kent agree to a level playing field. He’s not completely stupid – he knows he will lose. Kent doesn’t care about the truth, he only cares about mocking actual scientists for the entertainment of his followers.