Oxford; “Lie…1 an intentionally false statement”. So, andros- if Hovind beleivs his “theories”- they are NOT “lies”. They may be incorrect- they made be so wierd that you hafta stand on your head just to read them- but they are not lies. Davis posted a real good list & cites- which shows conclusively (IMHO) that Hovind is a crackpot. But that does not mean he is a liar. If Hovind told me anything about his brand of “creation science”- I would scarcely accept it. However, if he mentioned something “mundane”, outside of his peculiar belief structure- he could very well be honest & sincere. Or maybe not- he could also be a liar, a cheat and a conman. But showing he is a crackpot does not prove he is a liar. In general- the crackpots i have known, are sincere in their crackpot beliefs, and as personally honest as anyone else (if not more so).
However, since this Op has turned on this factoid David supplied us with, I am sure David can supply a cite for it so we can examine any other relevant facts which may be associated. There are 3 possibilties: Hovind is a Liar, Gould is a Liar, or there was some sort of mix-up & confusion which has lead both to think what they did. Given Murphy’s Law- I suspect the last possibility- but I am not ruling out the other two. If this did not come square in the middle of Davids “blind spot”- I would simply say that I beleive David. Note, however- that I am not saying that David could be lying- I am sure he is sincere in his belief.
I came across your discussion by chance as I was researching the functionality of Forum software for a new web site. It occurred to me as I was reading through the stuff in this section that there were a few ideas that could be explored further.
How would the creationists feel about accepting all religious creation theories as being as “true” as the variation of the Christian/Jewish one that they hold to be true.
How about using a theories ability to predict as yet unverified facts as a method for assessing the truth of the theory. Does the bible predict something that we could check that has not yet been checked and vice a versa for evolution.
Would it be more useful to take one small element of the argument and having agreed some mutually acceptable grounds to then argue that point? This could allow both sides to eliminate the “we are only heads in jars” problem and then to argue the issue of say why stars more than 6000 light years away would have light that is reaching the earth if they only came into existence 6000 years ago.
[hijack]
This is totally off-topic but as EnglishWebPerson has disabled his email address…
Have you looked at Half Empty yet, it’s here -> http://www.half-empty.org/servlet/LoadPage
I think the glasscode engine used there is great. It’s also open source.
[/hijack]
He may have wanted to undermine Hovind’s claim that he (Gould) was afraid to debate him (Hovind). This while he backed out for unrelated reasons.
As mentioned earlier, I do find the premature declaration that Gould would back out fishy. And if, as David B and andros are saying, Hovind was a relative unknown at the time, I agree that Gould’s claim to have never heard of him is not necessarily suspect.
Thank you, DavidB. Technical term “Directed Evolution” is now filed in memory banks (I hope).
The evolutionists DO have lots of facts on their side. Hovind, however, simply chooses to ignore these facts.
The short answer to this question is that the kind of proof that Hovind wants is the kind that would take millions of years to obtain, and the human lifespan just ain’t up to it. What he wants, what would really convince him, would be to take a bird-hipped dinosaur and change it into a bird. As science stands now, we say this has indeed been done–but it took, what, 70 million years to do it?
The most accessible and easiest to comprehend proof of evolution is the petri dish experiment, where you take bacteria and expose them to different antibiotics, and watch the population change. Some of them die, but some of them don’t. The ones that don’t die are surviving because they have changed their very being, i.e. they have “evolved”, into what’s actually a completely different kind of bacteria. I’m sure the microbiologists have better technical terms for this, but that’s what it amounts to.
But this is not a “proof” that Hovind wants to hear. As Polycarp pointed out, Hovind’s starting point is the Bible. He says, “I believe the Bible is 100% true, and if the Bible says everything was created 6000 years ago, then that must be how it happened.” Then he goes around looking for facts to fit his belief, his “theory”.
This isn’t how “science” works. “Science”, as the entire rest of the world uses the term, means “first the facts, THEN the theory”. And if your theory turns out not to fit the facts, it’s the theory that has to change. You don’t simply muscle the facts into place in your theory, discarding the ones that don’t fit. Sherlock Holmes (yes?) says, “It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts”. There are tons of facts having to do with paleontology, geology, biology, and other branches of science that Hovind, in order to keep his belief in Scriptural Inerrancy 100% intact, must simply ignore. So he does.
I believe that the Bible is 100% true, too. But I don’t believe it says that the world was created 6000 years ago. God frequently speaks to us in parables–I believe that Genesis 1 is a parable.
And I’ll second what Pyrrho12 said:
Hovind wants evolutionists (scientists) to prove that God didn’t create anything. However, you can’t use science to prove “God didn’t create anything”, because you can’t use science to prove whether or not God exists in the first place. The existence of God is a “faith thing”, not a “science fact thing”, provable or disprovable. Questions having to do with God belong in theology, which although it ends with “-ology”, is not generally considered a science.
And I’ll add my name to the list of people thanking Hardcore for his Hovind quotes. LOL, dude!
And now, finally, it’s time for a [minor hijack]
Daniel~, I’d like to hear you explain this a tiny bit:
Um, you’re saying that the races of man are NOT biologically equal? I’m, like, “huh?” In what way are they not equal?
On DDG’s closing point, I suggest people read some of the interaction between tomndeb, colounsberry (where’d he go??) and the unlamented peace of a few weeks ago. I’d also note that the “psychic unity of humankind” is not one of the points of disagreement between Gould and the evolutionary psychologists (did anyone read my link?).
Then who are the savage races he is referring to? And if I misrepresented the mechanism by which Darwin predicts the extermination of the savage races forgive me if I suggested that an evolutionary process is what Darwin had in mind.
hardcore and atarian I am not moralizing here. This is simply a statement of fact. That Darwin was a racist, and I merely brought this forth to counter the suggestion that he wasn’t. If you are not convinced, then obviously we have differing opinions as to the definition of racism. I’m sure most people would agree with me however on this particular point.
grienspace, have you even read Descent of Man? Try to read at least the chapter you quoted, then get back to me. It is my opinion that you have taken this quote out of context and twisted its meaning. The “savage races” refers to less technologically advanced “tribes”. Nowhere does he equate savages with blacks. In fact, if you will read any of the quotes I posted, you can see that he denounced slavery and those who promoted it.
Did Darwin consider Europeans to be intellectually superior to non-Europeans? Probably, as he was a product of his place and time, though he never explicitly stated this position. Was he a racist? Perhaps by today’s more enlightened standards, but this hardly seems to be a fair assessment of the man, particularly given his strongly stated position on slavery.
And I would be careful with the assumption that a majority agrees with your view. More likely, many creationists side with you, but I wouldn’t take that as a ringing endorsement.
DitWD, you are of course correct, and I stand corrected. It isn’t a lie if the speaker truly believes what he is saying.
Since we cannot know what is in a person’s heart and mind, obviously, we must perforce determine falsity first and intent only inasmuch as can be shown. I suppose it’s possible that Hovind, at the time of the statement, truly did not know the plot of Jurassic Park–though I find that unlikely. If so, he did not lie.
Now, I personally believe that Mr. Hovind will deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate to any extent he feels necessary to support his cause–in short, I think he’s a liar. But I cannot say unequivocally that he is one without evidence of internal contradiction or proof of his intent to deceive.
(By the same reasoning, of course, Bill Clinton and OJ Simpson are not liars barring such evidence in the future.)
So, my apologies, Daniel. In the future, whenever I call Hovind a liar, please accept it as read that it’s my personal opinion based on a belief that he could not have truly believed in the veracity of his numerous untrue statements.
Are not the negroid races taller & faster that the oriental races? No one denies there are differences between the races, to some extent- physically. However, Gould & co state that there not only is not, but I think that they believe there CAN NOT be any differences between the races intellecually. A scientific study showing that one race is inferior (slightly) than another is attacked immediately as “racist”. Do you think that Labradors are smarter that Toy Poodles? It is certainly POSSIBLE than one race is slightly smarter, on the average, than another. However, and this is critical- even if there is a small AVERAGE difference in the races- individual differences are far more important & radical than any minor racial differences. Note- this hijack is over. DDG asked a question about a belief that I think Gould has- which bears slightly on the OP. Any further questions, statements, etc will be ignored. However, i would be willing to defend this in another thread. End of Hijack.
andros- thanks for your statement. Yu are entitled to your belief- which may well be correct. So far this thread, IMHO has shown Hovind is certainly a crackpot. His personal integrity, altho in doubt- has not been shown, so far- to be lacking.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with grienspace on this one. His quote said:
Everyone who is arguing with grienspace is focusing on the argument that Darwin is making here. In fact, the underlying racist beliefs can be inferred from the last sentence. In comparing the large gap between the Caucasian and the baboon with the small gap between the Negro and the gorilla, Darwin is implying that the Negro is closer to the apes than the Caucasian - a decidedly racist belief by today’s standards. It is not incompatible with the quotes decrying slavery - it is perfectly possible to believe that slavery is a vile institution without believing that the soi-disant races are equal.
Gee, a Victorian Englishman had opinions about the relative worth of races which are now considered to be “racist”. Who wold have thought such a thing could be possible?
If we were to eliminate all scientific (or political) theories whose formulators had ideas we now see as misguided or repugnant, we wouldn’t have much left to work with. A man’s opinions are not relevant to the accuracy of his theories.
Having read quite a bit of Darwin I believe he was less “racist” than most of his comtemporaries, and probably more in line with modern thinking than, say, Lincoln on these issues.
Why is it that when ever someone thinks they agree with me they have to say, "I can’t believe I’m saying this, but…
Hardcoreis correct in assuming that I haven’t read the whole chapter. That quote was provided to me several months ago with regard to another issue, and had been slightly abridged, although with no significance to this discussion. I suggest that anyone interested in this check out hardcore’s link for the full chapter.
**HOLD IT ! ENugent,that is not what Darwin is saying at all! He is merely suggesting that major differences in
species today is a result of extinctions. He is predicting that instead of the ** major difference lowest man to highest ape that exists now, the major difference will stretch after the lower Negros, Australians, Native Americans and the higher apes above baboons are extinct. I think the inference is that survival of the fittest among species/orders/families closely related wins the common resources. The implication is that many other orders and species previously existed, the missing links if you will.
When a creationist brings up Darwin’s racism, he is attempting to place a moral value on a scientific fact.Its not a lie, just completely irrelevant. To attempt to justify Darwin’s racism when Jimmy the Greek still languishes in oblivion is a non starter.
ENugent, you’re missing the point. Darwin did not have access to the scientific information available today. Mendel did not begin his work until 1857, and Watson and Crick were nearly a century away. Vile as it may seem by today’s standards, to speculate that certain races might be more closely related to our evolutionary ancestors was not inconceivable in the mid 19th century, due to a lack of data. Branding Darwin a racist based on that solitary inference in one sentence is playing loose with the truth, IMO, and ignores the fact that he did NOT advocate treating any race differently from another. By that standard, practically every 19th century scientist could have been labeled racist.
Zarathustra, you may very well be right concerning Sanger. I did not research her prior to posting, and only included the claim because it seemed too outlandish to be true. Unlike Hovind, I am willing to modify my view on this point in the face of evidence. Regardless, Hovind is still an idiot. I could replace the Sanger claim with many others that are verifiably false, but my hand started cramping so I quit. Let me know if you require further evidence of his lunacy.
Daniel, your comments on race above are misleading. Certainly there are differences between the races of mankind; that’s what constitutes the justification for drawing racial lines in biology. But you’re generalizing from single units selected from among the races in invalid ways. Certainly a randomly selected Masai or Tutsi can outrun a random Inuit, for example, but I would give an Apache odds over a Mtu on equal random selection (have I got the right tribal name here? What used to be called “Rwandan pygmy” in the bad old days?). There are relatively fair pure-blood members of the “Asian” race (a lousy name, but Down’s Syndrome has caused the universal rejection of Mongoloid – a useful term as abstracting a central type for the people of East Asia, native to the Americas, and the neighboring areas) who are substantially fairer in complection than a Tamil or Oriyan. And, of course, this doesn’t begin to address the Khoi-San or the Australoid groups, to say nothing of Pacific Islanders, who appear in general to be a melange of characteristics from most other races.
Dr. Fidelius, were you not aware that we are at the pinnacle of civilization, and that the past was totally benighted by not sharing our views? I read this in a mid-19th century history, so it must be true. :rolleyes:
**HOLD IT ! ENugent,that is not what Darwin is saying at all! He is merely suggesting that major differences in
species today is a result of extinctions. He is predicting that instead of the ** major difference lowest man to highest ape that exists now, the major difference will stretch after the lower Negros, Australians, Native Americans and the higher apes above baboons are extinct. I think the inference is that survival of the fittest among species/orders/families closely related wins the common resources. The implication is that many other orders and species previously existed, the missing links if you will.
[quote]
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re saying now. I didn’t say anything about the point Darwin was making, only about the implicit implication that the “lowest” men are the Negros and Australians (presumably he means the aborigines here). Are you saying that Darwin’s quote didn’t imply that these races represented the “lowest” forms of man? Isn’t that what your own quote just said?
Agreed.
Huh? I didn’t attempt to justify it; I simply attempted to explain why a modern reader could conclude from that passage that Darwin was a racist. And I have to admit that I don’t know anything about Jimmy the Greek, so maybe I’m just "whoosh"ing here.
I took that to mean the negro is closer to the ape, than the negro is to the caucasian. Sorry, I misunderstood you. I can’t believe I did that .
ENugent,My remark was specifically directed to those who feel uncomfortable by representing a position first postulated by a racist. I should have been more specific as to who I was addressing that remark to.
Jimmy the Greek was once the most famous bookmaker known throughout the world in the 60s before he even became a celebrity sports commentator in the late seventies if I remember correctly. Sometime in the 80’s he made an ill-advised remark wrt to the superior athletic talents of African Americans and a once loved and respected personality was dropped from the network and I haven’t heard from him since. He even made an impassioned plea for forgiveness from the American public but the response wasn’t very positive.
It might be a fact that Darwin was racist by todays standards. However I did not accuse you of moralising, I merely disputed that the quote you provided proved your assertion.
This is the full quote from the link provided later on by hardcore, (incidentally, the full version actually makes much more sense, was your version given to you as is or did you do the pruning?):
It’s clear from this that Darwin believes “the savage races” are some kind of “link” between apes and humans. Given the evidence available to him at that time, I can understand that. If that makes him a racist by today’s standards, fair enough. But you should qualify that label, as you are judging him out of the context of his own time. By the standards of his society, he was certainly at the opposite end of the spectrum from most of his fellow “racists”.
