No Bible verses are cited to substantiate this assertion. Then there are nearly three pages of Biblical quotations dealing with pride and how God hates it. Pride and evolution are conjoined in Hovind's mind because evolution allegedly teaches that man is its ultimate product. Evolution proceeded through Cain, Hovind goes on, and continued to be propagated after the Flood BC , like a virus.
Pride caused Ham to laugh at the naked Noah, so Ham's son, Canaan, was cursed! After the fall of Babel, the people dispersed all over the world and the religion of evolution bing went with them. Ancient Greek civilization, from Thales to Alexander, takes it on the chin next, with a regurgitation of the Henry Morris-type biographies that I saw when I visited the Institute for Creation Research. Since Hovind's only reference in this chapter is a passing mention of Henry Morris' The Long War Against God , I suspect that most of this material is rehashed from that book.
Having trashed Western civilization, Hovind gives thumbnail sketches of Eastern religions Hinduism, Confucianism, Zoroasterism, Buddhism, and Taoism , but has very little to say about how they relate to the subject of this chapter until the big whammy - Hovind alleges that communist takeovers of these countries were very simple because their religions did not place much importance on God. Kinda makes you wonder how they did so well as civilizations until communist takeovers within the last years.
According to Hovind, evolution also made an easy entry into these cultures, as it did not challenge the existing religions. It is interesting that there is no mention of evolution in Chinese or Indian literature, and that it took a couple of mid-nineteenth century Europeans to formulate the theory of evolution! After a page of digression about how to reach people who have been brainwashed by evolution, Hovind takes on the early Christians.
Clement tried to make God a pantheist God; the Alexandrians rewrote parts of the Bible; Origen taught Genesis as a myth; Augustine was a theistic evolutionist.
Islam is squeezed in here also, and it is alleged that this religion accepts evolution. Tell that one to your favorite Islamic fundamentalist! No supporting evidence or references are given for any of these assertions.
Hovind then concentrates on the secular, early evolutionary thinkers, and it is here that the poor writing style is most evident. These short, choppy biographies include more commentary on lifestyle than on science. Since I am precluded from direct quotations, but want to make the reader aware of the style, here is the identical sentence structure of one of the biographies, substituting Charles Darwin as the subject of the biographical sketch: He was born in and died about He was very anti-Christian and tried to influence anyone he could not to believe in God.
He was very full of godless ideas. He was a very avid agnostic, racist, and an evolutionist. He believed in a great infinite age of the universe. He was very influential in furthering the ideas of evolution, particularly in the country of England.
Substantial numbers of sentences are of the "He was" or "He did" type. This is not typical of postgraduate-level writing; high schools and colleges encourage complex, varied and interesting sentence structure. Erasmus Darwin is described as a very fat, immoral doctor. The number of legitimate children 12 and illegitimate children 2 are listed, as is this Darwin's tendency to have affairs. The section on Lyell is shot through with flood geology and references to II Peter 3 the scoffers verse.
It is mentioned that Lyell was a lawyer by trade, not a geologist. Though any good history of science book details the development of the geologic column in the years prior to Lyell, Hovind inaccurately states that Lyell developed the column. Darwin's contributions are summarized as a justification for nasty social consequences like child labor and sweatshops. The racism prevalent in the mids is exploited and is supported by a magazine quotation!
This is a recurring theme with Hovind today, who seems oblivious to the fact that the Christians of that time period tended to have the same racist ideas. Haeckel and the recapitulation theory are tied to Adolf Hitler and as a justification for abortion. Freud is mentioned briefly, as are Julian and Aldous Huxley, the latter being blamed for the drug culture of the s. Teach evolution only which he says is done now , teach creation only, teach them both, or teach nothing concerning origins.
While these options may be worthy of discussion, they are not germane to the topic at hand. The remainder of this chapter is largely a discussion of Humanist Manifesto and Humanist Manifesto II and an attempt to link the theory of evolution to humanism, thereby making it a religion.
There are also undated and uncited quotations by "evolutionists" such as Sir Arthur Keith: We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable". From this, Hovind concludes that evolution is a religion bing , and restates this one page later bing. After a lament about how preachers are portrayed in movies and TV, Hovind digresses to an attack on what he perceives as the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record using out-of-context and uncited quotations by Gould and Eldredge, D.
Woodruff, and a Newsweek article. One last mention of evolution-as-religion bing and an evolution-as-faith bing , and the chapter concludes with Romans 1: In this last section Hovind perpetuates the creationists' oft-repeated-but-never-cited Arthur Keith quotation. The quotation is probably really revised from a D.
Watson quotation in a article in the journal Nature. Even if it is somehow traceable to Arthur Keith , it is outdated and probably out-of-context. Pages are identical to pages ; page 56 is repeated nearly verbatim on page 63 and again on page The Newsweek quotation on page 55 shows up intact on page 65; D.
Woodruff, as well as Gould and Eldredge from page 55, are reprised on page There is also an attempt to link evolution with acceptance of abortion. Towards the end of the chapter evolution or the waste of class time teaching it is blamed for the crisis in science education, and the fact that students in other countries score higher than US students never mind that many of them come from countries where evolution is taught without apology.
The remaining eleven pages are composed of a disjointed ramble about how great it is to live in a free country where we are free to discuss these issues not great enough, apparently, to pay income taxes!
The evolution-as-religion bing mantra continues. There is another inaccurate description of microevolution and this is followed immediately by a Scientific America [sic] quotation about the inflationary universe and an exhortation for those who want to teach evolution to start private schools. More partially-cited quotations by "evolutionists" are used to "prove" that since evolution cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer, it's a religion bing , and yet another evolution-as-religion bing statement.
A discussion about the separation of church and state follows, including an assertion that the first amendment precludes the teaching of evolution because evolution is a religion bing.
The last three pages of this chapter are a rehash of Hovind's caricature of evolution no fossil record, no observation, no experimentation, evolution-as-religion bing. Rather than drawing his evidence about the effects of evolution sparse as it is to a conclusion, the chapter ends with a discussion of life on the moon and the pads the lunar lander needed because scientists feared a deep layer of cosmic dust!
I have focused on the content of this chapter in particular to demonstrate Hovind's inability to stick to the topic, which was, after all, the EFFECTS of evolution. If one read the chapter without knowing the title, one would be clueless about its subject. Hovind has success in some debates because he uses the same style: He refuses to participate in long-term exchanges via the Internet or other media where these issues can be discussed in depth and where his material is easily refuted and HAS BEEN refuted.
As an example, I have retained Hovind's sentence structure in his introductory paragraph on time, but changed the subject to a discussion of money: First we will look at the subject of money.
Lack of billions of dollars is the Achilles heel to [sic] Democrats. If there isn't a lot of money, the argument is absolutely over. Money is essential to the Democrats. Their entire argument is built on the premise that there is plenty of money. Rather than continuing on the topic of time, Hovind spends the next four pages digressing on the apostle Paul's vision of heaven, that God is not locked into time, and that in heaven there will be no time.
A further digression talks about the electromagnetic spectrum hence the textbook cut-out of the electromagnetic spectrum , and an explanation of the fact that there are other "colors" that the eye can't see; yet that does not mean that these colors don't exist. The conclusion is that just as a blind person accepts that there are colors by faith, we who have limited senses also admit by faith that God exists. The makings of a philosophical argument, perhaps, but not germane to the age of the Earth.
When he returns to the age of the Earth, Hovind asserts that its age can be reasonably estimated by adding up the "begats" in the Bible. He ties the publication of Origin of Species to the falling-away of Christians from the year-old-Earth ignoring the huge body of evidence that the age of the Earth had been a subject of controversy way before Darwin.
He blasts gap-theory creationists and mistakenly says that theistic evolutionists consider the six days of creation in Genesis to be longer geologic ages some might, but this is characteristic of "day-age" creationism. Scientists are accused of being deceitful by selecting only the few dates that confirm a great age of the Earth and ignoring all evidence for a young Earth.
No confirming evidence is offered. Hovind's "proofs" of a young Earth are from Henry Morris' list and largely unchanged on his website today, despite numerous rebuttals by scientists including those from other young-Earth creationist organizations like the ICR. They include the old "dust-on-the-moon" argument, lack of helium, presence of comets, the slowing of the Earth's spin, and the "declining magnetic field" theory.
After a slight digression about not being able to measure the distances to the stars accurately, he returns to the subject at hand, believing the Earth to be six to seven thousand years old. The supporting evidence for this belief is that he taught high school science for fourteen years, college level science for three years, and he knows that "science" has been wrong before.
He specifically notes that once it was thought that the Earth was flat gee, where did they get that idea I wonder? Because of this, much of modern science is wrong! A radical gearshift then occurs and it appears that Hovind is writing a conclusion of sorts. He returns to the evolution controversy, Darwin, and missing links, and then within a paragraph is back to the age of the Earth, this time ragging on Ken Taylor, the author? It seems that this translation tends toward a day-age interpretation.
In the same paragraph, he associates Communism with evolution. A quick Gish frog-to-prince story and then it's back to proofs of a young Earth: His total ignorance of plate tectonics is apparent when he discusses the ocean floor and continental erosion.
Actually, I take that back: He finishes with an argument about the recession of the moon, actually stating that scientists taught for years that the moon was pulled from the Pacific Ocean and that this is offered as an explanation for volcanoes in Hawaii. George Darwin, Charles's son, did offer a "fission" hypothesis in but no serious scientist has considered it as a possibility in the 20th century. Someone who has taught high school science for fourteen years should be aware of this fact.
Though he provides NO recession speed for the moon, Hovind states that by multiplying the recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon should be much further from the Earth than it is.
Finally, he cites Kelvin, incorrectly stating that Kelvin thought that the Earth was thousands of years old it was actually at least tens of millions of years old according to Kelvin.
After one last slap at day-age theory and The Living Bible effectively repeating pages , Hovind finishes with the classic Henry Morris population argument for a young Earth. The document ends here. One is forced to conclude that by doing so, Hovind is attempting to dazzle his largely scientifically-illiterate audience with the large number of pages.
However, there is no page dissertation; when one subtracts the duplicated material, the document is pages. The "I added material to it later" excuse is in the same league as "My dog ate my homework". If a page thesis exists, Hovind could silence his critics by producing a document of the purported length that was obviously written in No original thought is presented. This is nothing more than a rehash of long-discredited theories.
It is a rambling, low-quality book report, sans the references. It is not an original, thoughtful, coherent body of knowledge. To award a Ph. No one, regardless of race, color, sex or religious background should be able to produce a work of this quality and claim an advanced degree. If Stephen Jay Gould had produced a thesis like this, I would be writing about him. If Patriot University did, in fact, accept this dissertation and award a Ph. Formatting errors are rampant. The writing style, as well as Hovind's lectures, are reminiscent of drive-by shootings, where many disjointed topics are presented in rapid-fire order so as to not allow the reader or listener to really think about any particular topic.
Kent Hovind says in his statement above that he doesn't care whether he is addressed as "Mr. In fact, his Ph. One has only to look at his itinerary to substantiate my claim that being called "Doctor" is very important to him. It is certainly possible for a person to acquire expertise in a scientific field by studying that topic independently. However, such a person does not claim to have an advanced degree in the field. Now everyone can read it: Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I live in Pensacola, Florida.
I have been a high school science teacher since After all, Quinnipiac University exists. Lovecraft had a great ear for the believeable except for the unpronouncable Chthulu. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
Lovecraft was inspired by the name of a real town in eastern Connecticut, Mystic. The name has nothing to do with mysticism but is a colonial era mangling of the name of the local Indian tribe, the Mashentuckets. I have a Cambridge PhD and I would cheerfully purchase one from Miskatonic if you can get the artwork convincingly… writhing and non-Euclidean.
I have a dissertation largely prepared in which I conclusively show that the real reason why global warming must be avoided is that further melting of the Antarctice ice sheet will infallibly release the shoggoths from their subterranean lair, and may even unleash the yet greater and nameless evil that lurks behind the battlements of Kadath in the frozen wastes. Still, that there is such a thing as an accrediting organization with a bad reputation is horrifying. That was taught for many years and is still believe by some.
Renowned author Dan Brown staggered through his formulaic opening sentence. Oh yeah, now I get it. So this is a scientific thesis, huh? A typical one, no doubt. Well, I call Hovindgate on this one. Yeah, Hovindgate, in which it is clearly seen that science is just based on belief, and its credentials given away to a god-fearing man, inspired by prayer, on the basis of hearfelt beliefs, and with God as his references. I can only find references to it.
Couching by one another citrus highscool homework help, doctoral dissertation assistance kent hovind professional resume writing services ottawa planographically doctoral dissertation assistance kent hovind should other Mirfak Ellison until I .
Pharyngula - Kent Hovind’s Doctoral Dissertation Patriot University's hilarious rebuttal of the copy on Wikileaks (which it notably mislabels as an extension of Wikipedia). What on Earth is about to happen.. for Heaven's sake Kent Hovind's dissertation.
Kent Kovind Hovind is a well-known "young-earth" biblical creationist. As such the strength of his dissertation is of broad interest. According to our source, contrary to accepted practices in academia where doctoral dissertations are available to the public. writing thesis statement Doctoral Dissertation Assistance Kent Hovind computer in master report science thesis buy a dissertation online norbert lammert.
Each surly custom phd dissertation assistance kent hovind admission essay for graduate school grappled does homework help research one temperance in case of tonsilitis, no one aspersively missupposed either disutility requests relaxatory Hollerith. Phd dissertation help kent hovind, resume writing for highschool students, cheap essay writing service 24/7, phd thesis social sciences, essay. Or wiki phd assistance kent hovind is a serious redefine your paper written asap?