« For Sale By Owner | Main | Desktop Downloads »

Debunking Dr. Dino

My friend Clunky Robot posted yesterday (UPDATE: and today) about a Creation Science video I received. It was 2 hours long, but it is merely the first chapter of a 17-hour lecture series by "Dr. Dino", Dr. Kent E. Hovind, who runs his own ministry called "Creation Science Evangelism". After watching the video last night (You can watch it online as well), I decided to find out a little bit more about the good "Doctor". After just a few minutes of research, I found these websites which quickly show what a quack /whacko /con artist /criminal this guy is. He's also been featured on Da Ali G show. (Someone send me a link to a video clip of this PLEASE!)

None of this, however, changes the fact that I really want to visit his backyard amusement park, Dinosaur Adventure Land. After reading these reviews, it just sounds like too much fun to pass up. I guess a road trip to Pensacola will tide me over until the opening of the new Creation Science Museum in Kentucky.

UPDATE: Interestingly enough, even the people from Answers in Genesis think Kent Hovind is wrong, wrong, wrong.

| Comments (4)


In one of your links you attacked his credentials. Might I remind you that when the 'Origin of Species' was written and abstracted it was penned not by a degreed scientist or naturalist but a theologist. Yes I'm talking about your beloved Darwin. He was a radical religionist seeking to overturn a basic and accepted belief of the day. In that man was created, pure and simple.

Here is an example of Darwin's distorted logic:

Darwin: "The gradual diffusion of dominant forms, with the slow modification of their descendants, causes the forms of life, after long intervals of time, to appear as if they had changed simultaneously throughout the world." - p217 of 247 'Origin of species.pdf'

Paraphrased in common English:
The slow spread of strong creatures, with the slow change of their offspring, causes the creatures, after a long time, to appear to change all at once everywhere.

Observation: Darwin's sentence structure looked great until it was properly paraphrased. Then it was just ignorant drivel. There are no transitional creatures in the geologic records - ANYWHERE. Hasn't changed in almost 150 years either. No proof no facts just a loser of a theory. Dr. Hovind is right about this stuff being printed in text books. A science textbook should have nothing but the facts. Not some para-religeous theory with a few facts tied together with flawed logic.

To the point at hand. Dr. Hovind always said he was promoting the bible. Which doesn't take a Ph'D to understand or extended credentials. Evolutionist should check their own credentials before they attack others. Stick to the facts.

Scott H.

I am not sure I agree with your interpretation of Darwin, but you do make an interesting point, darwin's credentials vs. hovind's. I already knew that Darwin had a degree in Theology. He wanted to be a preacher at one point! However, from what I've read, he always had a keen interest in both science and nature as well. And while I didn't mention Darwin at all in my post, I can see why you would bring him up. He will be forever tied to this debate.

What Darwin's degree is in has very little to do, however, with the way Dr. Hovind misrepresents his own qualifications. Also, I don't think the quality of Dr. Hovind's degree is the only thing that makes him seem less than trustworthy, which is why I included the other links to more information about him. I personally believe in intelligent design, but I do not agree with many of Hovind's "young earth" theories. I do still hope to visit his dinosaur park one day, though, and despite his faults, I certainly think he MEANS well. But you know what they say about the road to hell...

What I want to know is what did Kent Hovind say about his credentials, and how do you know that he's a "quack", "whacko", "con-artist" and "criminal"? Why does the quality of his degree seem less that trustworthy? How do you know for a fact that he is?

Rergardless of his education level, Darwin was a true scientist. A scientist looks at evidence and comes up with a theory based on those facts. When new evidence presents itself, he will then re-evalute and possibly change his theory.

Dr. Dino, on the other hand, is certainly no scientist. His method is to search out facts that, when taken out of context, can be used as evidence to support a pre-approved theory. Any evidence that challenges this theory is ignored or ridiculed.

I'd also respectfully suggest that your belief that there are no transisional creatures in the geological record is flawed. There are hundreds of examples of intermediate and transitional fossils and more are being discovered all the time.

Googling "trasisitional fossils" turns up a lot of good information.

Evolution is a fact. The method by which it occurs, and to what extent, is the theory.

Post a comment

(If you haven't posted here before, I will have to approve your comment before it will appear. Thanks for waiting.)