Bad
Creation Arguments?
By Kent Hovind
8-12-02
Many have asked me what I thought of the list
AiG (Answers in Genesis) published about arguments that should not be used by creationists.
I have avoided answering for months now. I do not wish to get into a battle
over details with others who love the Lord. The Christian world is already far
too fragmented on dumb topics to be the effective force needed to combat evil.
While I love the work being done by my friend Ken Ham and the fine folks at
AiG, sell many of their materials on my web site and would never want to harm
their outreach for the Lord in any way, I must disagree with several items on
their list below. I still encourage people to visit their web site and use
their fine materials even though they apparently do not do the same for many
other creationists including me.
Please remember that neither CSE nor AiG claim to be infallible and both
ministries revise their teachings as needed when new facts come to light. There
are many fine creationist organizations and speakers who are trying to stem the
tide on humanism and evolutionism. It has been my privilege to meet many of
them in the 14 years I have been involved in creation ministry. All
creationists that I know are sincere and would not deliberately use false
information but many differ on some issues. We all have points where we agree
and points where we disagree with every one but that should not hinder our
Christian fellowship with each other. Everyone needs to learn to eat the meat
and spit out the bones.
To my knowledge, no one on earth has been assigned by God to police all of
His children. Each of us must stand before God to give an account. Since some
of the items AiG had on their list are used in my seminar [and the seminars
done by others] and many have asked me why I still use them, or what my
reaction was, I thought a response was needed. My [Kent Hovind] comments are
embedded in AiG's list below. I would welcome any comments. With my hectic
travel schedule I simply do not have time for written debates or discussions. I
hope you will understand. I will probably not respond in writing to rebuttals
that may come. Feel free to call me if you would like more input on finer
points. In my response I will refer to the parts of my seminar where these
topics are addressed in greater detail. My entire seminar may be viewed on my web site or may be
obtained on DVD, VHS or audio from my bookstore, web site or by phone. I can
assure you that if any information I use in my seminar is proven to be
inaccurate, I will remove it immediately.
According to AiG, these arguments should definitely not be used:
Darwin recanted on
his deathbed
AiG: Darwin probably did not recant before dying.
KH- I agree- there is no proof of this and much evidence against the story. To
my knowledge I have never said he recanted in my seminar.
Moon dust thickness
proves a young moon
AiG: Pre-moon landing calculations varied too widely to assume exactly what was
expected with the first moon landing.
KH- I mildly disagree. The verdict is not in yet on this one. Walt Brown has
done a great study on this topic on www.creationscience.com.
The rate of moon dust accumulation has only been estimated a few times and all
of those were in the last 50 years. Only one part out of 67 parts of moon dust
is actually from space and it is logical that space would contain more dust
earlier and less as it gets vacuumed in by various planets and the sun. I do
not use the moon dust argument in my seminar except during Q&A but I think
the argument is still valid. It has certainly not been proven wrong.
NASA computers, in
calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving
Joshua's long day and Hezekiah's sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20
AiG: This story is an urban myth.
KH- I agree. This story still circulates but has never been verified.
Woolly
mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe
AiG: The mammoths were buried by wind-blown silt.
KH- I disagree. Mammoths died a variety of ways including wind blown silt but
some definitely appear to have frozen too rapidly for normal temperatures found
on earth. The Mammoth was not designed to be a cold weather animal. I cover the
mammoth topic in The
Hovind Theory.
The
Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in old strata invalidate the geologic
column
AiG: These remains are not natural burials.
KH- Moot point. The geologic column has been invalidated many ways. The entire
geologic column is a house of cards. Human remains and artifacts have been
found in most layers of the earth. I cover much on this topic in Lies
in the Textbooks and the Question
and Answer Session.
Dubois
renounced Java man as a missing link and claimed it was just a giant gibbon
AiG: Dubois, discoverer of Java man, had an eccentric view of evolution that
Java man did not fit.
KH- I don't know whether he did or didn't. I don't mention this in my seminar.
Dubois was a committed evolutionist and deliberately withheld info that would
damage his finds. I cover this on The
Garden of Eden .
The Japanese
trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand
AiG: Although it is impossible to make a 100% watertight evaluation of any
creature based solely on a few photographs, an interpretative sketch and eye
witness reports of the decomposing remains, the evidence collected so far
overwhelming favours the basking shark identity for the Zuiyo-maru carcass.
KH- I disagree. The similarity of protein structure between the carcass and
shark protein was about 96%. No one has ever seen plesiosaur protein to know
what it is supposed to look like and human and chimp DNA is 98.6% similar yet
they are very different in hundreds of ways. I do not know for sure if the
carcass was a plesiosaur but it has certainly not been proven that it was not.
The fishermen and the marine biologist that examined the carcass were baffled
by it and did not think it was a shark. The jury is still out on this one.
There was an excellent color pamphlet about this topic published in England
recently that I read but cannot find now. If you know where I can obtain one
please let me know.
The 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics began at the Fall
AiG: Death began at the Fall, not the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
KH- I do not know how this could be determined and I do not address this in my
seminar.
If we
evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
AiG: Evolutionists teach that humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that
humans evolved from apes.
KH- I agree. Most evolutionists teach that humans and apes had a common
ancestor, which is just as dumb a theory.
Women have one more
rib than men
AiG: Dishonest skeptics are usually the only ones who use this ridiculous
argument to discredit creationists.
KH- I agree. Only Adam was missing a rib and probably only for a short time.
AiG has a great article on the fact that the lower rib will grow back if taken
out.
Archaeopteryx
is a fraud
AiG: Archaeopteryx is a genuine fossil of an unusual bird.
KH- Scientists split on this one. Sir Fred Hoyle said it was a fraud. I teach
in Lies
in the TextBooks that it does not matter. Modern birds are found in
"older" rocks (based on the evolutionists imaginary geologic column)
and Archaeopteryx is moot. There is no evidence that any animal is now or ever
has been capable of producing anything other than its kind. Also, no fossil
could ever count as evidence for evolution since it could never be proven the
fossil had any offspring that lived let alone different offspring.
There
are no beneficial mutations
AiG: We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in
those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.
KH- The terms would need to be defined here. Most creationists that make this
comment mean that there are no mutations with a proven benefit that would
change anything major about the animal or plant.
No new
species have been produced
AiG: New species have been observed to form.
KH- I agree but the terms need to be defined here also. Who is deciding when a
new species is produced and exactly what is a "species?" The Bible
clearly teaches the plants and animals will bring forth after their
"kind."
Earth's
axis was vertical before the Flood
AiG: There is no basis for this claim.
KH- I don't think it is possible to know the truth of this one but it has not
been proven that it was not. I address the possibility in The
Hovind Theory.
Paluxy
tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
AiG: Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur
tracks obscuring the claw marks.
KH- I disagree. 1. We do not need to find tracks together since, A. There is
ample evidence from many sources that man and dinosaurs coexisted. B. The Bible
says all things were made in six days. C. No one has ever found human and
chicken footprints in the same rock. With that said, I have been to the Paluxy
four times and have seen the evidence first hand. There is ample evidence that
the tracks [except for a few known and obvious frauds] are genuine. Many
intelligent and godly people have devoted hundreds of hours to this study and
disagree with AiG here. It appears that AiG may have been taken in by the
computer programmer Glen Kuban who poses as a creationist. He has been
thoroughly discredited on www.omniology.com. I cover this topic in The
Garden of Eden and Dinosaurs
and the Bible.
Darwin's quote about
the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species
AiG: Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context.
KH- I am not sure exactly what they mean here but as I understand their
position, I disagree. Darwin did indeed say: "To suppose that the eye . .
. could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd
in the highest degree." Charles Darwin The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life
1859 p. 217. He went on to explain that he believed it must have happened
anyway and even made feeble attempts to invent a way it "might have"
happened but he did make the statement above. I cover this in detail in Lies
in the Textbooks.
Earth's
division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of
the continents
AiG: The 'Earth' that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one
language, i.e. 'Earth' refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not
Planet Earth.
KH- I may agree if they mean this should not be taught dogmatically. There are
at least four theories about the meaning of this verse. 1. The languages and
nations were divided at the tower of Babel. 2. The continents moved and split.
[this is unlikely due to the devastating effect even small plate movements
have, but it has not been proven wrong] 3. The water came up and divided the
high spots into islands and continents. 4. The land was surveyed
"divided" to avoid disputes due to population increase. I cover this
in more detail in The
Hovind Theory.
The
Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology
AiG: The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the
(obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood.
KH- I do not address this topic but the entire topic of which version of the
Bible is reliable is covered on my seminar part 7 and on
www.avpublications.com. I stick with the KJV for many reasons covered on our
new Question
and Answer Session.
There are
gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be 10,000 years
old or even more
AiG: The language is clear that they are strict chronologies.
KH- I agree. The three missing names between the various genealogies do not
justify adding thousands of years and there are several reasonable explanations
for the missing names given in the book "The 'Errors' in the King James
Bible" available on my web site. While I disagree with the author, Peter
Ruckman and several key topics I think he has done a fine job refuting many of
the so called errors.
Jesus
cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have
inherited original sin
AiG: This is not stated in Scripture and even contradicts important points.
KH- I do not address this topic in my seminar.
The
phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to
evolution
AiG: The original Greek word translated 'science' is gnosis, and in this
context refers to the élite esoteric 'knowledge' that was the key to the
mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism.
KH- This phrase probable refers to evolution as well as many other false
doctrines. I would never say it does not refer to evolution. I also get nervous
when someone says, "the original Greek…" There are two very different
Greek sources. I cover this in the Question
and Answer Session.
Geocentrism
(in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference frame) is
taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural
AiG: AiG rejects dogmatic geocentrism, and believes that the Biblical passages
about sunset etc. should be understood as taking the Earth as a reference
frame, but that this is one of many physically valid reference frames; the
center of mass of the solar system is also a valid reference frame.
KH- As surprising as it may sound, the jury is still out on this topic. I am
open for discussion but so far remain convinced of the heliocentric position. I
think the terms need to be carefully defined. Could the Bible be saying that
the earth is in the center of the "universe" and of God's attention
but not of our little "solar system?"
Ron Wyatt has found
Noah's Ark
AiG: This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud
flow.
KH- I disagree. I do not say in my seminar that he did or did not find it but
it is not certain that he did not. The mud flow argument is flawed since the
point is at the wrong end. Mud flows around an object produce a rounded end on
the uphill side and a point on the downhill side much like an airplane wing. I
knew Ron [he died a few years ago] and still keep contact with those continuing
his ministry. When Creation Magazine published articles to "disprove"
Ron's claims I did what I am convinced is the Christian thing to do in matters
like this; I called Ron and allowed him to defend his position. He was able to
give very good answers to the objections, misrepresentations and accusations
made in the article yet, to my knowledge, neither Ron nor his successors at
www.wyattmuseum.com were given the opportunity for a public hearing facing
their accusers. I cover some of this controversy in Dinosaurs
and the Bible and would be glad to discuss more by phone or you may
call Richard Rives at the Wyatt Museum. 931-486-0557.
Ron
Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible
AiG: There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt's claims, just excuses
to explain away why the evidence is missing.
KH- I disagree. See above. While I differ with Ron and his successors on
several doctrines I remain convinced that he did much valuable research that
deserves to be studied. I cover some of Ron's discoveries in the Question
and Answer Session. The main grip of his critics was that there was
not enough documentation or proof for some of his claims. Obviously "not
proven" does not equal "disproven."
Many of
Carl Baugh's creation evidences
AiG: Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he's well meaning but that he unfortunately
uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically.
KH- This needs clarification. It is obviously impossible to defend against a
general accusation such as the one above. Which specific "evidences"
are they talking about? I have known and loved Dr. Baugh for years. He has done
much great research that deserves to be studied. Some topics regarding the
original creation cannot possible be proven due to the radical changes made by
the flood but Dr. Baugh has some excellent theories. According to AiG these
arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?
Canopy
theory
AiG: The "windows of heaven" refers to rain, and the "waters
above" refers to clouds.
KH- I disagree and cover this in The
Garden of Eden and the Question
and Answer Session. The Bible says there was water above the
firmament (where the birds fly- Gen. 1:20) and there is no other good way to
explain the existence of giant insects that are found in the fossil record.
There may still be water above the stars- see Psalm 148:4, but it appears that
the layer above our atmosphere fell down at the time of the flood.
There
was no rain before the Flood
AiG: This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there should be no
dogmatism.
KH- There is no way to know the truth of this one. During the creation week a
mist went forth to water the face of the ground and most people assume this was
the watering system until the flood but the Scripture is silent on this topic.
Natural
selection as tautology
AiG: Maybe it is, but it's still a fact, and creationists accept natural
selection as an important part of the Creation/Fall framework.
KH- If they mean "survival of the fittest," I disagree and cover this
in Lies
in the Textbooks. The only way to know which ones are the fittest
is to see which ones survive. How else can we know?
Evolution
is just a theory
AiG: It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an
unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
KH- It is actually a religion not even a plausible theory.
The speed of light has
decreased over time
AiG: Although most of the evolutionary counter-arguments have been proven to be
fallacious, there are still a number of problems, many of which were raised by
creationists, which we believe have not been satisfactorily answered.
KH- I disagree and cover this in the Question
and Answer Session. While it has not been proven either way I would
not close the door on the idea that the speed of light has decreased and have
an article on my web
site FAQ about this. One main point many creationists miss is that the
God who can make a full grown man and woman in a full grown garden can
certainly make a full grown universe with light already showing on earth. Also
many people seem to want to place human limitations on God.
There are
no transitional forms
AiG: While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous
transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of
disputable examples.
KH- This would need to be more clearly defined. Since no fossil could count
[see above] as evidence for evolution, and no living animal could count either,
I am not sure what they mean here. There are certainly no transitions between
the "kinds" of animals or plants.
Gold
chains have been found in coal
AiG: The evidence is strictly anecdotal.
KH- I disagree and cover this in The
Hovind Theory. Only one gold chain has been found in coal to my
knowledge [On June 11, 1891, The Morrisonville Times reported; "A curious
find was brought to light by Mrs. S.W. Culp last Tuesday morning. As she was
breaking a lump of coal apart, embedded in a circular shape a small gold chain
about 10 inches in length of antique and quaint workmanship..." The Hidden
History of the Human Race Michael A. Cremo p.113], as well as an iron pot
[found in coal in 1912 at the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, OK. Now in Creation
Evidence Museum, www.creationevidence.org] , a soul of a shoe [Oct. 8, 1922
American Weekly section of New York Sunday American by Dr. W. H. Ballou. The
stitching pattern was clearly visible including the twist of the thread. The
rock was "213-248 million years old". The Hidden History of the Human
Race, Michael A. Cremo p.113-115, ph. 209-337-2200]. A bell was found by W. V.
Mr. Newton Anderson inside a lump of coal in 1944. He still has the bell.
(304)-842-5556. newt@iolinc.net. A Carved Stone was found in Lehigh Coal Mine
near Webster, Iowa, April 2, 1897 Daily News Omaha, Nebraska
Plate
tectonics is fallacious
AiG: Dr John Baumgardner's work on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics provides a good
explanation of continental shifts and the Flood. See Q&A:
Plate Tectonics. However, AiG recognizes that some reputable
creationist scientists disagree with plate tectonics.
KH- This needs to be defined better. The plates are moving but this does not
prove they have always been moving or that there ever was ever a super
continent called Pangea. Much more on this in The
Hovind Theory.
Creationists
believe in microevolution but not macroevolution
AiG: These terms, which focus on 'small' v. 'large' changes, distract from the
key issue of information.
KH- I disagree and cover this in Lies
in the Textbooks. This needs to be defined better. I object to the
word, "micro-evolution" and say so repeatedly in my seminar but it is
a fact that there are minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal
that some people refer to as "micro-evolution." There is no reason to
argue over such a small semantic detail. I understand the concern that
admitting "micro-evolution" may give the evolution theory the
"free rider" effect but as long as terms are defined there is no
cause for alarm.
The
Gospel is in the stars.
AiG: This is an interesting idea, but quite speculative, and many Biblical
creationists doubt that it is taught in Scripture, so we do not recommend using
it.
KH- I disagree and cover this in the Question
and Answer Session. I do not teach dogmatically that the gospel
story is presented in the stars but it is certainly not proven to be untrue.
Dr. D. James Kennedy, www.coralridge.org
has a great book on this topic. I do not know for sure but I would hate to
close the door on honest research into this topic.
I hope this is helpful. Regardless of your position on any of the topics
above, serve God and win souls for Him!
Kent Hovind
29 Cummings Road
Pensacola, Florida 32503
(850) 479-3466.
