Creation Science Evangelism

Print this page

How would you answer critics who have written bad things about you?

Answer:

Amid the hundreds of letters and e-mails we receive each week here at CSE, we occasionally receive one from an atheist, skeptic, critic, scoffer, or even an idiot or two. Several have posted web sites about me. I keep so busy with my hectic travel schedule that I normally do not take time to respond to them in writing more than once. There are so many people who want to hear the truths about creation that it is a waste of time to get distracted answering the scoffers. They will ask hundreds of questions or make hundreds of accusations. I am convinced that most of them don't really want an answer anyway, they want to tie up all my time and prevent the gospel from getting out. If I took the time to answer them all they would only ask a hundred more. We do offer a great book called Creation Scientists Answer their Critics by Dr. Duane Gish that answers many commonly asked questions. I have also produced an audio tape with answers to some of the scoffers' questions and objections. The tape is $3 and can be returned for a full refund. We will add to the tape as time permits. I have a standing offer to face any number of evolutionists at a time in front of their own university, and Dr. Walt Brown has a standing offer to engage qualified scientists in an email debate.

I will be the first to say that I have learned much from my critics and have changed things in my seminars over the years because of their legitimate gripes, corrections and suggestions. "Iron sharpeneth iron." (Prov. 27:17) These critics can be a man's best friend, if they don't distract you from the main job. God knows that I want to be accurate and would never purposely tell a lie to promote my point. I may not always be right, but if I am saying it in my seminar then I don't know it to be false. I work hard and research a lot to try to be right. I am certainly willing to be corrected by friend or foe. Even if it is proven that I am teaching something that is not correct, don't be fooled into thinking that one incorrect statement means everything else I say is wrong. Any third grader should know that.

Evolutionists often try to divert attention from the legitimate points I bring up about their religion. They know their "theory" won’t stand close scrutiny so they try to focus people’s attention on something else. They will point out a five-second mistake in my 15-hour seminar and assume the entire thing is false. The problems the creationists cannot explain or the unintentional errors in their books or speeches are very minor compared to the mountainous problems the evolutionist is overlooking or ignoring in his own religion. I ask quite a few questions in my seminar notebook and bring up points in my seminar that they seem to conveniently avoid. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why they do this.

I confess that I have very little patience with the scoffers after a few exchanges. Maybe it is the Elijah personality in me that wants to mock them as in I Kings 18:27. I am working on trying to be more Christ-like in my dealings with them. I always offer to talk with any skeptic by phone or to debate them publicly but not in a long drawn out e-mail exchange. They nearly always refuse. Many remain anonymous for some strange reason. I see no reason for this cowardice except maybe Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion." They do not need to fear me. I will not hurt them. I feel sorry for those whom the Devil has deceived into believing his lies. I will gladly discuss any topic or question with anyone, friend or foe. If I am wrong, I will admit it and change whatever I need to change to make it right. I don’t claim to be perfect, and never have, but I serve a God who is and love His Bible, which is perfect.

It is both humorous and sad to see the evolutionists strain so hard at the gnats in the creation theory and then turn around and swallow the camel of evolution. I have read carefully the criticisms of each of these scoffers. Rest assured that my offer to publicly debate any evolutionist (even two or three at a time against just me if that will help) is always open. I do the debates not so much to convert the evolutionist (though I would like to) but because it helps so many in the audience. Most people who have attended or watched my seminar or who have common sense will be able to see through the silly questions the skeptics ask or the ridiculous non-answers they give to my questions. However, if you read the so-called "How Good are those Young Earth Arguments" by Matson or "300 Creationist Lies" by the cowardly anonymous "Budikka," or any other of my critics on the web, and something they say raises a question in your mind, please give me a call. I can defend my position or I will be glad to change. It is a great American tradition that the accused gets to face his accuser. Anonymous critics get little or none of my attention. I travel a lot but we have a very capable staff working at CSE who will answer your questions or leave a message for me with several good times to call you back.

I went through Dave Matson’s book and circled every time he used the words "might have," "could have," "scientists believe," etc. His great faith in evolution shows through clearly as his religion, not science. It surprised me how many non-answers they give to the points I raised in my seminar. For example, when answering the problem about the short period comets, Matson said they are being replenished from the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt! No one has ever seen this happen, of course, but he believes it to be so. That is an answer based not on science but faith, and he should admit it. The entire answer is filled with typical evolutionist hallucinations. He is always using words like "computer simulations," and "theoretical calculations," "would likely," "statistical calculations," "some astronomers estimate," etc. His intention is to show it "could have" happened. Well, I "could have been" President of General Motors, but I’m not! He needs to read, Raymond Littleton, "The Non-existence of the Oort Cometary Shell," Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31 pp. 385-401. There is no Oort cloud.

He concludes his non-answer to the comet question by trying to put the burden on the creationist! He says, "The creationist must prove that there are no reasonable sources for replenishing comets" (p.13). And I say, "No, Dave, if you expect all taxpayers to fund your religion in the public school system, parks, museums, etc., the burden of proof is on you! You may spend your money any way you want. You are welcome to believe anything you want and you may teach your children anything you want them to believe; but before you spend my money to teach my children and grandchildren something I don't want them to believe, the burden of proof is on you!" Shifting the burden of proof is a common tactic to keep an enemy busy. If I said watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin, I have shifted the burden on proof on you. Prove me wrong! That is what most scoffers try to do with their criticisms of creationists. Don't be fooled!

After reading through one scoffer’s article called "300 lies of creation scientists" it was hard not to laugh. They sure are getting desperate these days. I told him I don’t deal with anonymous cowards, but, if he would give me his real name and number, I would be glad to show him when his logic is wrong. He has refused and now is upset because I won’t correspond with him any more. I don’t waste a lot of time on scoffers because there are so many sincere people who want and need the truth that it is unfair to divert much energy to those who do not want to hear. During the war for states’ rights, President Lincoln was getting lots of critical letters. One of his aids asked him if he intended to answer them. Lincoln replied that if he answered all his critics that would absorb all his time and he had a war to win. Nehemiah did the same thing when his enemies wanted him to stop the work and come down to talk about the wall he was building. His answer was classic. Nehemiah 6:3-4 "And I sent messengers unto them (his critics), saying, I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you? Yet they sent unto me four times after this sort; and I answered them after the same manner." Nearly every day a skeptic or scoffer will try to engage me in a letter writing battle via e-mail or standard mail over the creation subject. I have a standing offer of $250,000 for proof for evolution and I stand ready to debate any 2 or 3 evolutionists at a time in a public setting, but I won’t waste the time to slowly hunt and peck out endless answers when they don’t really want one. That would be casting my pearls before swine. See Matthew 7:6. If they are so sure they are right, they should be delighted with the opportunity to debate me publicly. I will even draw the crowd for them!

Atheists seem to have nothing else to do. They know they can’t get a crowd together for an atheist’s meeting, so they ride on the coattails of the creationists. For example, I recently was invited by the free-thought club on the Ohio State University campus to debate the editor of the American Atheist Magazine. They told me they normally had about 30 people come to their meetings (in a university of 58,000) but they had nearly 90 come when this man spoke the month before. They were proud to tell me about this great attendance! The night of the debate there were hundreds there (several people said there were over 700) to hear the debate. I speak to crowds of over 1000 many weeks out of the year. The atheists of course have a ‘smarter than thou’ attitude about it all. They say their crowds are small because there are not very many smart people (meaning themselves of course) in the world. What an ego!

If these critics would devote even 5% of their error-detecting attention to the evolution theory like they do to the creation theory, they would see the lies, wild exaggerations and distortions used to support the silly idea that we all came from a rock over the last 4.6 billion years! Converted evolutionists make great creationists. Christians and creationists need to work to be accurate, of course, at the same time we need to realize the evolutionists are not the enemy, Satan is the enemy. It may be hard at times, but we need to love the sinner while we hate the sin. God is not willing that any should perish but that all come to the knowledge of the truth.

Several web sites and debate opponents have accused me of all sorts of things that are not true. For example: one professor I debated recently said I had posted on my web site that dinosaur fossils were found in the act of eating a human. He laughed saying I had been taken in by an April fool's joke. The truth is; someone emailed me about the site. That night during my seminar I mentioned that I had just heard of this new find but had not had time to look at it yet nor to confirm the accuracy of the story. At no time was it on my web site and when I researched the subject the next day and found it to not be true I never mentioned it again. However, there are still several web sites about me that accuse me of believing and teaching that.

This same professor accused me of preaching that the new world order was coming on May 5, 2000 and that the earth's population would be reduced to ˝ billion by then. The truth is; I showed a book by a new age author called "5-5-2000" and said "Many in the "New Age" movement say their "spirit guides" have told them they must reduce the population of the world to ˝ billion by May 5, 2000 when we enter the "Age of Aquarius" so man can evolve in the spiritual area. May 5, 1818 was Karl Marx's birthday. Some people in the new age movement would like to have the earth's population reduced to ˝ billion by this date so we can enter what they call "The Age of Aquarius". I never predicted anything would happen.

I won’t take the time or energy to answer the scoffers but if you come across any points that particularly bother you, give me a call and I will be glad to help you see the flaws in their logic. I travel a lot, but I try to be in the office most Thursdays and Fridays from 8-4:30 CST. Don’t hesitate to call me at (850) 479-3466.



The Hovind-Till Debate

Dr. Karen Bartelt

This article came out after I debated Ferrell Till (debate #7 on my web site).  It is reprinted below with comments added in bold by Dr. Hovind

On September 11, 1993, Kent Hovind, a "creation-scientist" evangelist from Pensacola, Florida, and TSR editor Farrell Till met in public debate at the Faith Baptist Church in Pekin, Illinois. Although the topic of the debate was "The Genesis story of the flood is scientifically accurate in all details," Hovind distributed to the audience a handout that was a generalized attack on evolution. The paper warned the audience to watch for "desperate measures" and "illogical ideas" that the evolutionist side could be expected to use during the debate. Among other things, the paper listed ad hominem arguments, ridicule and scorn, citation of majority opinion, and various appeals to scholarship.

The debate was supposed to be comprised of a 30-minute opening statement each, 20 minutes of rebuttal each, and a question-and-answer period (questions sent in by the audience), but Hovind's opening statement was nothing but his well-travelled (and poor quality, I might add) [How can a person who spends taxpayer dollars for her teaching supplies at the small college where she teaches be upset about my non-taxpayer funded visuals?  BTW watch my debate #9 where I debate her live and see my visuals vs. hers now] slide show. He opened by stating that all evolutionists believe anyone who is a Bible-believing Christian is ignorant. Some other highlights: an 11-foot skeleton has been found in a coal mine in West Virginia, proof positive that preflood humans were bigger (so where is this skeleton now, Kent?);[I could ask where lots of things are for the evolution theory she believes in and forces on her students- in my video tape #2 I show several of the giant skeletal remains that have been found] the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere in the world; Noah's ark contained only babies and only single "kinds." And a relatively new twist: the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth happened during the flood. A giant "ice meteor" that, because of its low temperature was magnetic, banged into the north pole and dropped mammoths in their tracks, the vapor canopy collapsed, and the earth was flooded to a depth of 12,000 feet.[I said there is enough water in the oceans now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep everywhere if the surface were smoothed out. Which is true by the way—the oceans currently average 12,000 feet deep.]  As Dave Barry says, "I am not making this up." The presentation was rapid fire, leaving no time for the audience to digest a topic before the next slide was flashed. [Most of the audience was able to keep up just fine Karen.  This is a backhanded way of saying the audience was dumb.  Feel free to watch my tapes and hit pause when you need time to digest something I say.] Indeed, for someone who does the show 700 times a year, the presentation was unpolished, [she means unanswerable from her evolution perspective] and the slides were of poor quality. [Again? She needs to see the presentation now!]

Farrell Till defined science as being outside the realm of the supernatural. [this is precisely why evolution is not part of science-the origin of matter, laws, energy, and life are just a few things the evolutionist takes on faith] He spoke of the polystrate Specimen Ridge trees [I have been to this ridge in Yellowstone. The entire forest had to be deposited rapidly in the flood of Noah.  ICR has done much work on this subject and has lots of great info. Call 619-448-0900 or see their web site www.icr.org for more.] and attacked the seaworthiness of the ark. The audience was asked to consider how probable it was for a lone man or small group to build a huge ark sans modern tools. [Typical straw man here. Noah was not a “lone man” he had his wife, three sons and their wives to help. Also, why could not Noah hire help? How does Till know what type of tools or technology they had? The people were living over 900 years and could talk to their great, great, great, great grandfather for advice! You could learn a lot in 900 years. Till here shows his proud attitude that modern man is smart and all those before are dumb or superstitious.] All wooden ships have a maximum length far below the purported length of the ark, [These are ships designed to sail not just to float like the ark. Noah had no place to go. The masts on sailing ships (which Noah did not have) provide leverage against the hull.  Also there is evidence that the Chinese built huge wooden boats that sailed just fine. ]  and the audience was encouraged to search the references Till provided concerning shipbuilding. Till asked if such a ship did manage to stay afloat, how did the cargo survive the rough seas described by other creationists? [How does Till know what the flood was like? The world is big you know. There can be (and are) storms in one part of the world while other parts are quite calm.]Finally, if, as Hovind asserted, only a few "kinds" were present on the ark, then Hovind must also admit that all forms of bovids, from bison to cattle to deer, evolved rapidly after the flood—[Another straw man- he may believe all bovids are the same kind but this may not be the way God classifies animals.] something no evolutionist would ever state. [They believes they came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago!  Slowly of course-or quickly if you are from Harvard!]

Hovind's rebuttal was to put God in the same bracket as electrons and gravity--natural forces/particles that cannot be seen either! He stated, without proof, that humans "back then" were not only bigger and longer-lived but had higher IQ's. Thus they could build the pyramids, a feat we humans of today could never accomplish. (Something just occurred to me here: the pyramids had to be postflood; they date roughly from the time of Moses... another boo boo.) [I’m glad things do occur to her-I said the great pyramid not the other pyramids. Modern man could not build the great pyramid today.  BTW the great pyramid does not have to be post flood.  It could be a structure that went through the flood.] He stated that the Specimen Ridge trees have no roots (flatly false by my geology books). [The root systems are short indicating they were ripped out of the ground and re-deposited there.  The same thing happened at Mt. St. Helens in 1980.] God brought the animals to Noah and took care of all the little incidentals (like tons of manure).

Hovind encouraged the audience to be polite to Till, because, after all, "He is not the enemy; he just works for him." Hovind admitted he couldn't prove most of his assertions but that Till could not prove his either. Refer to the topic of the debate!!!!

Till pressed the issue that since there were seven pairs of each type of clean animal on the ark, [the Bible does not say seven pairs but seven of each clean animal.] that meant 14 giraffes slopping about the ark on stormy seas, like it or not. [Another straw man. He is assuming stormy seas and adult animals.  There are many common sense reasons to bring babies of most or all kinds of animals.  Just be sure to get a pink one and a blue one! Plus there are storms in parts of the world now that do not affect the entire planet.] How did they survive? He pointed out that the largest pyramids are in the Americas, not Egypt. He closed by pointing out that Hovind's assumptions--a vapor canopy, a level antediluvian earth, smarter people--were not supported by evidence.

About half a dozen questions followed. I wrote two of the ones that were chosen by the moderator/minister. Briefly....
Concerning a question on missing links, Hovind stated that Lucy was a chimp and was assembled from bones found at sites miles apart. He said, "I wish I could have seen the train that hit that chimp." Of course, it is well known that Lucy was recovered over about 50 square meters of ground. [She was a chimp and the famous knee that was shown in the National Geographic was found 1 ˝ miles from the Lucy skeleton yet it was labeled as being the knee from Lucy. Donald Johanson carefully words his speeches to leave the impression it is from the same find but he never says this outright.]

I asked what the anteaters ate the day the ark landed. Hovind said that they were vegetarians, preflood and immediately post flood, and that special diets were not necessary then or now.  [She is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel here. She believes the anteaters came from a rock! Over billions of years of course!  It is also worth considering weather plants and insects are considered “alive” in the biblical sense.  The two requirements seem to be breath of life and blood.  It may be that they are just a complex self replicating food source.  More on this on video #7]" Pandas don't just eat bamboo today; they love meat. [They love it but can live without it just fine.  It may be the Panda is in the shallow end of an originally more robust gene pool and many fear it is headed toward extinction.  There may not have been modern type Pandas on the ark.] Ask any zoo keeper." Perhaps that is why pandas are doing so well in the wild right now! Till replied that you can't have generalist animals on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, argue that the pronuba moth and yucca plant were obviously created for each other. [Just how did symbiosis evolve Ferril?]  

Till pointed out that it was a creationist anachronism that the ark would have been sealed with pitch, because this is obviously a coal (postflood) by-product. Hovind stated the word pitch could have meant any oil--corn oil, for instance.  I will have to pass this new use for corn oil on to the Illinois Department of Agriculture.  Let's grease up those boat bottoms.  Till stood by the translation of the Hebrew word; it had to be a petroleum product.  [ICR.ORG has more on this question. Varnishes and scores of other products are made from pine tree sap. Before the days of oil wells the Webster’s 1828 dictionary listed pitch as, “The resin of pine, or turpentine, inspissated; used in caulking ships and paying the sides and bottom. Who is Till to say Noah did not know how to produce pitch with materials readily available. Also, this question is still minor compared to the evolution fairy tale that we all came from a rock.]
Hovind was taken aback by my question (derived from the Soroka and Nelson article) on the amount of heat that would have been released by 40 days and 40 nights of rain. He talked about craters as evidence for an "ice meteor" and said that this was all on faith. As I see it, 40 days/nights of rain still releases beaucoup de joules. He simply failed to address it, [Not true. I said that an ice meteor is a likely candidate for the cause of the flood. See my video tape #6 for lots more on this. She is assuming the water for the flood all came from rain and had to cover the current Everest.  Both of these are straw men.  Most of the water came from inside the earth (Gen. 7) and the mountains did not arise till the last part of the flood.  See Ps. 104. The heat is not a problem.] but Till, who had the article in hand, expanded the problem and made the reference available to the audience.

Was anyone swayed? Unlikely. The bulk of the audience was clearly unable to understand how science differs from the supernatural. [This is her way of saying she is smart and anyone who does not agree with her is dumb! I have found in my 70+ debates that when the evolution side loses they blame it on the audience for not being smart enough to understand science. Also, she clearly does not understand that evolution is supernatural and not based on science.] They became defensive and irritated whenever Till said, "... but it's just not science." They were for the most part quiet, although a few choruses of "Amens" resounded when they felt Hovind had made a point. The moderator/minister is to be complimented. He was polite to both parties and clearly kept a lid on what could have been a volatile situation. [It would never have become volatile because of me. I stay calm and actually love debates on this topic. It’s easy to win because God is right and they are wrong.]

(Dr. Bartelt is an assistant professor of chemistry at Eureka College. Her address is 22740 Grosenbach, Washington, IL 61571.)


Creation Science Hour: Biblically proven to increase your spiritual health! Weekdays: 5pm - 6pm central, on www.truthradio.com DuYaWana Help?
Many people wonder how they can help our ministry reach more souls for Christ. Without our begging or pleading...[Read more]
Upcoming Events:
Please check Dr. Hovind's Official Website www.drdino.com for upcoming events, as they change often!!
JSP Page
Having trouble finding something on our website? Enter a search term into the field above to quickly find related information on our website!