“Dr. Hovinds Creation Seminars” banner

Creation index

Dr. dino
Seminar 4    Lies in the Textbooks, part b
Dr. dino
(this seminar was given in 2005)

[Introduction to Dr. Hovind],  [Dr. Hovind's justice cycle],  [Is Dr. Hovind being edited?],  [Dr. Hovind vs Wikipedia]
[Video presentation of seminars 1-7],  [Introduction to seminar transcripts],  [Seminar 1: “The Age of the Earth”],  [Seminar 2: “The Garden of Eden”],  [Seminar 3: “Dinosaurs and the Bible”],  [Seminar 4: “Lies in the Textbooks?”],  [Seminar 5: “The Dangers of Evolution”],  [Seminar 6: “The Hovind Theory”],  [Seminar 7: “Question and Answers”]

“Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.”
    Proverbs 19:27  

Seminar 4: Lies in the Textbooks  
(part b)

Go to “Lies in the Textbooks” index page

Back to Main Index Evidence is still lacking that supports the theory of evolution

There's no known evidence to support the evolution theory. Except things that have been proven wrong a long time ago. If real evidence exists for this evolution theory, I would like to see it. We've been offering a quarter of a million dollars for real scientific evidence for evolution. We've had that offer for over 10 years. There isn't any, ok. I'll give you an example. Suppose I had a theory that the moon is made of green cheese. Now that's a dumb theory, I know, but hey, it's ok to have a dumb theory. There are no laws against dumb theories. But then suppose I started teaching my students: “Hey kids, did you know NASA proved my theory in 1973 when they went there on a secret mission and drilled a hole and found the moon is made of green cheese?” Well now, hold on a minute. It's ok to have a dumb theory. It's not ok to lie about my evidence for my theory, ok. It is worse for me to get paid by tax dollars while I lie about my theory. So I don't mind if they wanna have a theory that we came from a rock. That doesn't bother me. It does bother me that they wanna lie to the students about their evidence. And it really bothers me that I have to pay their salary while they lie to support their theory.

So here's some of the evidence they use for evolution theory. They say: “We have evidence from fossils.” I say: “Guys, you've got to be kidding.” No fossil counts as evidence for evolution. None. If you find bones in the dirt, all you know is it died. You don't know it had any kids. No fossil could count as evidence for evolution. None. They say: “We have evidence from structure, from molecular biology, from development.” Well, let's talk about a few of these. Evolution is dead. The theory is defunct. There is no evidence to support it. But some of the followers are pretty dedicated, and they're having a hard time letting it go. They'll even lie to you to make you think everything's fine. They say: “Wow, look at that evolution theory. It's perfectly fine. There's no challenge to evolution. Look, it never looked better. Pulse and heart rate look good.” No, I'm sorry, he's a goner, ok. Don't be the last one off the boat. It is sinking.

Go back A religion of death

Evolution is based on 2 faulty assumptions.

  1. They say mutations make something new. That's never been observed.
  2. Natural selection makes us survive and take over the population.

Evolution is actually a religion of death. In order for evolution to work, one animal evolves a little better than the rest. What must happen to the rest of them to make this thing work? They've got to die or else the new improved gene is swamped back into the gene code. The question is so simple and profound. “Did man bring death into the world?,” (Rom. 5:12) like the Bible says, or “Did death bring man into the world?,” like evolution says. Somebody is wrong.

Go to index

Good observations, poor conclusions

Back to Main Index Are the mutations the reason for having variation?

Textbook says, there are “mutations,” and they “are the original source of variation in populations.” I agree. Mutations happen, no question. But “mutations do not produce any evolution.” Mutations are scrambling up existing genetic code, they're not making anything new.

  • Here's a five-legged bull that's a mutant. There's no new information added. He already had the information on how to make a leg. It just made one in the wrong place, that's all. It's not new information. It is scrambled information.
  • Here's a short-legged sheep. Again, no new information. And by the way, that's not beneficial. He's the first one the wolf is gonna catch. Right? Oh boy, no, here comes the wolf; burururururu..., uh-huh..., Herman didn't make it, umm.
  • There's a two-headed lamb. That's a mutant. It's not beneficial.
  • Two-headed turtle, that's a mutant. It's not a ninja, but it's a mutant. He's gonna freeze his first winter because nobody makes a double-necked turtle-necked sweater. He's just not gonna make it.

Now scrambling up the letters of the word ‘christmas’ will get you all sorts of different words. But it will never get you xerox, zebra or queen. The letters aren't available.


Go back Show us a beneficial mutation...

This textbook shows the kids a four-winged fly, which by the way cannot fly. And it says, boys and girls, “Normal fruit flies have two wings. This mutant has four. This rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful.” Then it says: “Beneficial mutations are the raw material for natural selection.” Well, now, hold on a minute. Why don't they show us an example of a beneficial mutation? Why did they tell us about the good ones and not show us a picture of a good one? You know why they didn't show a picture of a good mutation? Because nobody's ever seen one. There's never been one beneficial mutation. I said that in a debate one time, and this atheist said: “Hovind, you're lying.” He said: “I can name a beneficial mutation right now.” He said: “People in Africa that get sickle-cell anemia are less likely to get malaria.” I said: “That's brilliant, sir. That's like saying if you cut off your legs, you can't get athletes’ foot. Um-hmm.” Ah, they're both negative, ok.

Back to Main Index Is ‘natural selection’ the cause for evolution?

Then they say evolution and natural selection go together. This one says: “Natural selection causes evolution.” That's a lie. Natural selection selects. It doesn't create anything. Natural selection is not a creative force, ok. “Natural selection may be a stabilizing force, but it's not a creative force.” Anybody with half a brain could figure that out. “Natural selection cannot create any properties. It can only select.” This textbook says: “Evolution by natural selection had occurred in just one year.” Oh, they're lying. It says: “Natural selection can lead to evolution.” That's a lie. Natural selection selects. It doesn't create a thing. If you worked in a factory to make cars...; how far is the Saturn plant from here? Pretty close, isn't it? How many of you, anybody here work in the Saturn plant? Ok. Suppose you worked in quality control. Your job was to check the car when they got done building it, you know, kick the tires, slam the doors, and drive it around to see if it runs. If you caught every single mistake; they don't, by the way, but if you did, ok; how long would it take that quality control process to change the car to an airplane? You say: “Hovind, quality control can't change it to something else.” Oh, I know. Only design engineers can change it. And God's natural selection is a quality control that will never change it to a different animal. It'll just make sure you get a good animal, that's all.

Go back ‘Survival of the fittest’ doesn't account for ‘arrival of the fittest’

They keep talking about ‘survival of the fittest’. Well, I agree, but that doesn't explain ‘arrival of the fittest’. And even survival of the fittest is pretty shaky. It's what's called a tautology, a sentence that means nothing. I'll show you. If you say: “Professor, why did it survive?” He'll say: “Oh, because it's the fittest. You know, survival of the fittest.” - “ How do you know it's the fittest?” - “Uh, because it survived. How else can you tell?” - “Oh, I see...” Look, if a whale goes through a school of fish and eats 80% of them, it's not survival of the fittest. It's actually survival of the luckiest. That's what's really going on out there. But some of these scientists have the ability to make amazing observations and still come to the wrong conclusion.


Back to Main Index Experimentation and observations

Go back Torturing frogs

One day, a bunch of scientists were gonna see how far a frog could jump.

  • They put the big old frog down there and said: “Jump, frog, jump!” That frog jumped 80 inches.
  • They brought the frog back, cut off one leg, and said: “Jump, frog, jump!” He only jumped 70.
  • They brought him back, cut off another leg, and said: “Jump, frog, jump!” He went 60.
  • They brought him back, cut off another leg, and said: “Jump, frog, jump!” He jumped 50 inches.
  • They brought the frog back, cut off his last leg, and said: “Jump, frog, jump!” You know, they expected he might go maybe, you know, 40 based on the data. Actual jump was zero. The frog didn't move. They yelled louder: “Jump, frog!” The frog never moved. The scientists were baffled.

They tried the experiment again. New frog. Got the same results every time. So the brilliant scientists put their data together and said:

  1. “You know what, folks? The frog jumped less as the legs were removed.” Hey, that's a good observation. They got it right on the head.
  2. Then, they said: “So we must conclude that a frog with no legs goes deaf.” Bad conclusion.

Go back Torturing fruit flies

It's possible to have a good observation and still come to the wrong conclusion, you know. That's what they did with the fruit flies. They put them flies in the laboratory, they nuked them, microwaved them, x-rayed them. They did all kinds of mean things to those flies, and they got some weird looking baby flies. They got flies with curled wings. They fly around, bzzzzzz-zzzzzz-zzzzzz, couldn't go anywhere. They got flies with no wings at all. Hmm. What do you call that, a crawl or a walk? It can't fly. They raised all these mutated flies in the laboratory and said: “You know what, folks? Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies.” Well, duhh! So they said:

  1. “All mutations produced flies that are inferior to the original fly.” Good observation.
  2. They said: “So we must conclude that flies have evolved as far as they can go.” Oh, bad conclusion.
You know, maybe you could conclude that God made them right to begin with and all you're doing is messing them up in your laboratory. Uhm... They were doing fine until you guys got a hold of them. Yeah.

Then they say: “Evolution is as fit as ever. The fruit flies in the North have wings 4% larger than flies in the South.” Well, that proves something to somebody somewhere, I'm sure. But it's still a fly, ok.

Go back The peppered moth

Then they tell the kids: “The peppered moth is proof for evolution.” They counted the moths in the trees and found there were 95% light-colored and 5% black. Then they burned coal in the factories, and the trees turned black. And they counted the moths again, and it was only 5% light and 95% black. The problem is the entire story is a lie. They glued dead moths to the tree to take that picture for your kid's textbook. It's right here. Where is this book used at, Brother? It's not used anymore. Peppered moth. It's still in the new books though. Evidence for evolution. Those are dead moths glued on a tree because after 40 years of watching, they found a grand total of 2 moths on the trees. Two are there..., let's see, what's 95% of 2? Wow, ...have to do some figuring on that one. They still keep it in the textbooks though as evidence for evolution. What's the Tulsa Zoo doing having a peppered moth display? I mean, this is a zoo for heaven's sake! Why do they push evolution in a zoo? Get the book Icons of Evolution, if you want a whole lot more on the history of this peppered moth idea.

Go back Trick questions; Now think ‘critically’, kids! (1)

But they tell the kids: “We're gonna learn to think critically. Boys and girls, do you think humans are still evolving?” What kind of question is that? That's one of those questions like: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Wow, let me think. If I say yes, I'm admitting I did. If I say no, I'm still doing it. Did you know it's possible for the question to already have a built-in assumption? Look at that question. “Do you think humans are still evolving?” What's the built-in assumption? That humans evolved. How's a Christian kid supposed to answer that for homework for Monday, hmmm? I would say: “Teacher, this question is poorly written. It assumes evolution has happened when it has not.” It's like asking the question, you know: “Why are elephants orange?” Boy, now there's a tough one. Why are they orange anyway? Uh, they're not orange, um-hmm. This is not learning to think critically. This is a Soviet style indoctrination type brainwashing question. And when the kid gets done taking this class, he's gonna think he knows how to think. But he doesn't. He knows how to be told what to believe. And he never understands how it happened to him. That's not thinking critically.

Back to Main Index Homologous structure argument

Then they tell the kids: “We've got evidence for evolution from homologous structures.” Wow, what's that mean? Yes, boys and girls, did you know you have two bones in your wrist. And they're called the radius and the ulna? Pretty cool. And did you know, the alligator has two bones in his forelimb, and look at this, they're called radius and ulna? See that? That proves we are related. That's what they're gonna tell them. “Homologous structures provide evidence that these animals evolved from a common ancestor.” It's found in just about every textbook. You've got them in these other ones up here, I'm sure, don't you, Steve? Homologous structure as evidence for evolution. “They descended from a common ancestor,” textbook says. “Think critically.” The bones are the same, boys and girls. See, that proves we're related. “Evolved from a forelimb of a common ancestor.”

Back to Main Index Comparative anatomy argument

This textbook says: “Comparative anatomy provides further evidence of evolution. ... The commonality suggests that these and other vertebrate animals are all related. They probably evolved from a common ancestor.” This is a lie. They probably have a common Designer, um-hmmm. You know that different bones in different animals come from different genes on the chromosomes? They're not homologous to begin with, ok. And even if they were, that still wouldn't prove common ancestor. It proves a common Designer. The same Designer made them all. Did you know the lug nuts from a Pontiac will fit on a Chevy? You go out in the parking lot and try it. They will. That proves that both evolved from a Honda 14 million years ago! No.

  1. It's true many animals have a similar forelimb structure. That's a good observation. I agree.
  2. They say: “They must have had a common ancestor.” Oh, bad conclusion.
  3. Then they'll say: “This helps prove we all came from a rock.” Well, now you really have got a bad conclusion there.

Back to Main Index Evidence from development; Embryology; Ernst Haeckel's ‘biogenetic law’ (1)

Then they tell the kids: “We have evidence from development.” Now this one makes me angry. So I'm gonna try to stay calm while we talk about it. This is probably one of the most dangerous lies in the textbooks. Let's just calm down now. [drinking water...] Ok, I'm ready. This textbook says: “The similarity between early stages of development of many different animals helped convince Darwin that all forms of life shared common ancestors.” “Darwin considered this the strongest class of facts in favor of his theory.” This was the best evidence Darwin knew of for his theory. The guy who made up this dumb idea is named Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel called this idea, we are about to share with you, the ‘biogenetic law’. Which means as animals develop inside the mother, they go through the stages of evolution. All you've got to do is memorize the word farm, F-A-R-M. Fish; Amphibian; Reptile; Mammal. That's the way they say it happened. The phrase they had for it back then was, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’. Wow. What's all that mean? Well, ontogeny is, the growth of the baby. It goes through stages, ok. Recapitulates means, it reenacts or does over again. Phylogeny is, the evolutionary sequence. This Irish textbook says: “The presence of fish-like structures in embryos of different species shows these animals have evolved from fish and share the basic pattern of fish development. ... It's as if the embryo retains a ‘memory’ of its origins and starts to copy them during its development.” That's the ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’. Now, “the idea that ‘Sickmind’ Freud relied on,was the idea that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, that is, the development of the individual recapitulates the evolution of the entire species.” This is stupid and dangerous.

They tell the kids the embryo or the baby growing in the mother has gills like a fish. Gills? That's a lie. Those are not gill slits. Those little folds of skin you see on the embryo grow into bones in the ear and glands in the throat. They never have anything to do with breathing! My uncle had 5 or 6 chins. And he couldn't breathe through any of them but the top one, right. Those are not gill slits.

Go back Fabricating evidence

Ernst Haeckel said the turning point in his thinking was when he read Darwin's book in 1860. See, Darwin's book was printed in English in 1859. The next year, it was printed in German, 1860. Haeckel was a German embryology professor. He read the book and said: “Wow, what a great theory. If only we had some evidence.” Well, 9 years later, they still had no evidence, so Haeckel decided to help out. He was going to make some evidence. Haeckel took a drawing of a dog and a human embryo. He was an embryology professor, you know, and he lied. He faked the drawings. He changed them and made them look exactly alike to try to prove that they're related. He just..., it is a bald-faced lie, ok. Haeckel made giant posters of his fake drawings and traveled all over Germany and converted the people to believing in evolution. And this led to the next obvious question: “Hey, if evolution is true, I wonder which race of humans have evolved the farthest?” And guess who the Germans thought it was. Oh, yeah, we'll talk more about that later. Now, on top are Haeckel's fake drawings, underneath are the actual photographs of these animals. He lied.

Go back Convicted of fraud, but the argument is still found in present textbooks

His own university held a trial and convicted him of fraud. He said at the trial: “I should feel utterly condemned... were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.” “This biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” It's not true, but it can't be taken out of the textbooks for some reason. It's been proven wrong since 1875, and they still keep it in the books. It's still used in this book, Evolutionary Analysis, college textbook, 1998 edition. Used at University West Florida, the exact same chart from Ernst Haeckel. Now, it's only been proven wrong since 1875, ok. I know it takes a while to get textbooks up-to-date, but that's long enough. I think 130 years, they ought to be able to get it out by now, don't you think?, ok.

More about the gill slits in this book here, Icons of Evolution. Darwin's theory, his book came out 1859. He predicted they would find evidence. 1869, Haeckel faked the drawings. 1875, it was proven wrong. But it's still in textbooks used all over the planet. 2004 textbook, still has it. 2005 textbook, and I pronounced it wrong, it's Chickashey [written Chickasha], Oklahoma. I got corrected during the break; it is still teaching the baby has gill pouches. Notice for example, gill pouches, ok. Gill slits on the embryo. They're teaching this in textbooks all over the world. It's only been proven wrong since 1875. Get it out of the book! Tear the page out. I mean, it's not..., it's a no-brainer. Tear out the page. It's not true.

Here's a junior high textbook telling them an embryo has gill slits. This one says: “Similarly, humans and fish embryos resemble each other because humans and fish share a common ancestor.” “These similarities provide evidence that these three animals evolved from a common ancestor.” “...tiny gill slits.” “Gill slits on the human embryo,” “gills of fish,” “tiny gill pouches,” used in college textbooks. Here's a 2004 textbook saying: “Evidence of evolution is seen in development of embryos.” You can't get a high score on SAT or ACT tests unless you lie and say the baby has gill pouches. It's found on every single test we could find. If you don't believe in evolution, you won't score high to get into college. Or at least give the evolution answer.
[listing of present day textbooks (scannings) forwarding entries of “gill slits as evidence for evolution” as found on seminar slides, see here]

Back to Main Index The reason for keeping the argument?; Nót human at 7 months! (2)

Go back A justification for abortion?

Why would they keep this in the textbooks 130 years after it has been proven wrong? There's only one answer I can come up with. I'll tell you in a minute. This one shows a 5- to 6-week embryo, and it says: “By 7 months, the fetus looks from the outside like a tiny normal baby, but it's not.” It's not a baby at 7 months? Hello...? That's a lie, it's a human at conception. “34% of babies born at 5½ months will survive!” One lady had surgery on her baby before it was born; cut the mother open, cut the uterus open; and the baby is holding the doctor's finger at 5 months along. Let's see: “The angel of the Lord said, Behold, thou art with fetus?...” No, I believe he said: “'re with child,” (Gen. 16:11) didn't he? Yeah, it's a child before it's born, um-hmm. “Scott Peterson is accused of murdering his wife and ...unborn child.” Now Paula Zahn, you hypocrite. Don't you think it's ok to have an abortion and yet you call it an unborn child? “Scott Peterson is found guilty of murdering his wife and ...son.” That's because in California you have to have a double homicide to get the death penalty. So they wanted it to be a son or a child. But the rest of the time, if you want to have an abortion, it's ok. Now it's not a child, it's just a fetus. Well, let's get consistent here folks, ok? Which is it? Alright!

More about embryology on this one, but why do they keep this in the textbooks? It's very simple. That's the only way to justify abortion. They want you to think it's not human yet. Somebody wants to reduce the population of this planet. And abortion has already done; 20% of the entire world's population has been killed by abortion. One billion people. Let's see, Hitler killed 6 million, Stalin about 100 million, abortions 1,000 million. That's gonna work. We'll cover more on that on video 5. Ana Rosa had her arm chopped off in a botched abortion. She was born anyway. They thought they killed her. Everybody says: “Oh, that's terrible.” What if they would have cut her head off instead? We never would have heard about Ana Rosa.

Go back Abortion and ‘free choice’; Abortion áfter birth?

Now, I live in Pensacola. You might have heard of my town. We've had 2 doctors that were doing abortions shot and killed. Several clinics have been blown up or burned down. I did not shoot any doctors, and I did not blow up any clinics, ok? And I don't think Jesus would do it that way. He grew up under Roman control. He didn't go around blowing up tanks and burning down bridges, ok. But when the first doctor got shot, I was preaching in Fort Lauderdale. The next day, I flew home, and right in front of me on the airplane were 2 ladies. I'm sorry, 2 women from NOW, the National Organization for ‘Wild’ Women. And they were flying up to Pensacola, gonna have a big rally and march around town, you know? As we got off the airplane; and I noticed on their shirt, it had in huge block letters: ‘CHOICE ABOVE ALL’. So, being my mild-mannered self, I said: “Excuse me, ma'am. What does this mean, ‘choice above all’?” She said: “A woman ought to have the right to choose.” I said: “Choose what?” She said: “Choose to have an abortion. It's her body.” I said: “Well, yes, ma'am. If she wants to abort her body, I suppose that's fine. But it looks to me like she wants to abort somebody else's body.” Um-hmm. When you consider half of them are male. Think about it; it's not her body. Um-hmm.

I said: “By the way, ma'am, I'm kind of curious about this. I have three kids. I delivered one of my kids at home. I used to raise hamsters. I taught biology and anatomy. I'm kind of familiar with this process.” I said: “Why does the woman's right to choice stop at birth? Why don't we let the mother choose to kill them after it's born? It would be a lot safer and simpler. Hey, why don't we extend abortion rights up until the kid is 2 years old?” I know a lot of mothers with a 2-year-old that have thought about it a time or two. I won't ask you to raise your hand, but I know you're out there. I got it, let's extend abortion rights up until the kid is 18. Phew, I bet they'd behave a lot better. “Son, one more time, and I'm going to abort you.” “Hey teacher, where's Johnny today?” - “Oh, he didn't do his homework yesterday, so his mommy aborted him.” Hey, grades would skyrocket, wouldn't they? By the way, Peter Singer is pushing for abortion áfter the baby is born. He's trying to get legislation passed so you can kill the baby up to 28 days after it's born and still call it an abortion.

Go back ‘Pro’-choice and ‘anti’-abortion

Have you ever noticed the news media calls them ‘pro-choice’ and they call guys like me ‘anti-abortion’? I'm not..., they do that ‘anti-abortion’ because it's a negative sounding term. ‘Pro-choice’ is such a positive sounding term. How about let's call me ‘pro-life’ and call them ‘pro-death’, and we both get a positive-sounding term?, um-hmm. That's why I refuse to take the paper. I just can't stand their liberal slant on everything. We get a call once in a while: “Hey, you want to take the Pensacola News Journal?” I say: “No, ma'am, we don't have a parakeet.” Click [putting down the phone]. That's what I tell ’em. See, the media, well, ignores the wishes of the majority, and they're gonna push their liberal agenda. We'll cover more on that on part 5.

Go back The right for defense (a note on the Columbine shooting)

Remember when the kids got shot in Colorado? Right away, they jumped on the gun control issue. You know, if kids keep getting shot in our schools, maybe it's time to consider some other issues like:

  1. Should we have public schools? Or maybe;
  2. Should we teach ’em evolution? [where there is no God or moral absolutes]

That's what did the Columbine shooting. Those kids were real strong believers in evolution. They made a videotape before the shooting. One of the boys said: “He doesn't deserve the jaw evolution gave him. Look for his jaw. It won't be on his body.” They were strong believers in evolution. They did the shooting on Hitler's birthday, on purpose. They shot Isaiah Shoels just because he was black. Eric's T-shirt said ‘NATURAL SELECTION’. And then Rosie O’Donnell said: “See, we need more gun control.” (sigh) Rosie, Rosie, Rosie. “Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O’Donnell being fat.” It's not the spoon's fault; it's not the gun's fault, ok.

  1. Maybe certain criminals ought to be publicly executed? Maybe it's time to think that one through one more time.
  2. Maybe all law-abiding citizens should be required to carry guns to protect themselves? Um-hmm.

Suppose every teacher in the public school was required to be armed. Just suppose. How far down the hallway would those kids have gotten? Somebody sent me this button: “PROUDLY UNARMED.” Would you wear this? What does this say to a criminal? “ROB ME!!” Isn't that exactly what it says? Of course. The founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment so we could keep and bear arms. And it wasn't so we could go duck-hunting. The purpose of the Second Amendment was so we could defend ourselves if the government goes bad. Last ditch defense against an evil government is an armed citizenry.

Did you ever notice a lot of animals that eat grass have horns? Did you know, you don't need horns to eat grass? The purpose of the horns is to explain to the lion: “Stay off my back. I just wanna eat the grass. Leave me alone.” And I think everybody ought to be armed, not so we can hurt anybody. But just so we can explain to people: “Leave me alone. Don't take my stuff. Don't break into my house. Don't steal my car. Don't come hurt my family, ok. Thank you.” I probably waited too long. I didn't start my kids shooting until they were about 3. I probably should have started at about 2, you know?, ok.

Go back Giving the unborn a sporting chance

Here's the logic they use to justify abortion:

  1. They're gonna say: “Well, it's not human.” Oh, brother. You're either dumb or you're lying. It's human at conception, ok.
  2. They're gonna say: “Well, it's not viable. It can't live on its own.” You're not viable yourself stark naked on the North Pole, you know? It can't live on its own? I know kids that are 25 that still come borrow money from dad! “Hey dad, can I borrow some money?” - Poogh... [making shooting gesture with finger] “You ought to be able to live on your own by now, son.”
  3. They're gonna say: “The child may be unwanted.” There's kids that are already born that are unwanted. My parents moved 4 times when I was growing up, but I found them every time. By the way, there's probably 5 people in this room that have had an abortion. Now, you listen carefully. God loves you. He can forgive you. It's not the unpardonable sin. God can use you in a powerful way. But don't you go through life justifying it. Don't say: “It was ok.” No, it wasn't ok. It was murder. So confess it, forsake it, get right with God, and go serve God with your life, ok. Half the Bible was written by murderers, ok. You're in good company. They're gonna say: “Well, the child may be unwanted.” Ush, a lot of people are unwanted. Year after year, the number of people waiting to adopt is about equal to the number of abortions. The babies are not unwanted, ok.
  4. They're gonna say: “Well, the child may be a financial burden.” Show me a kid that's not. Anybody got a kid that's not a financial burden?
  5. They're gonna say: “It may be from rape or incest.” Well, then you kill the rapist, not the baby. Execute the rapist and adopt out the baby. It's not that complicated.

Hey, did you know, it's illegal to shoot deer at night with spotlights in just about every state. Is it illegal in Tennessee to shoot deer at night with spotlights? You've got to give them a sporting chance, right? Let's give the baby a sporting chance. Pass a law in Tennessee that says, if a lady goes to have an abortion, the nurse will have a jar of marbles. And we're gonna have a lottery, ok. One marble for baby, one for mother, and one for father. And one for doctor. And one for governor. Yeah, and let's put several in there for the past president. And let's really have a choice, um-hmm.

If he's not alive, why is he growing? If he's not a human being, what kind of being is he anyway, huh? She says: “Honk, if you're pro-choice.” It's easy for her to be pro-choice. She's already been born. I don't know if you ever thought about this, but did you know everybody that ever voted for abortion has already been born? Think that one through.

  1. They say: “Well, abortion is legal.” That doesn't make it right.

In 1936, the German Supreme Court declared Jews in Germany, are not persons. That opened the way to allow Hitler to kill the Jews. Six million, at least, Jews were killed! I have read lots of books about Hitler. I've been to Germany a couple of limes. Hitler said: “I have the right to exterminate an inferior race that breed like the vermin.” Hitler thought the Jews were an inferior species. He said: “The Germans are the superior race that deserve to rule the world.” Hitler was killing the Jews to make more living space for the Germans. He “sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” Hitler said: “If you want these criminals, I'll send them to you on luxury ships.” You know, in 1938, the Jews could have been saved. But America refused to take ’em. Every country but Sweden refused to take the Jews.

Hitler's book and “his mind was captivated by evolutionary thinking probably since he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf. Hitler thought it was “the duty of the strong to trample the weak.” In his book, Hitler said: “Nature does not desire the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race.” Who's the higher race, Adolf? He kept talking about the mingling of Aryan blood all through his book. He talked about Aryan races, lower peoples. Well, I found Hitler's hit list. Hitler thought the blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegians were close to pure Aryan. Did you get all that? The blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian. “Hvordan står det til i dag [How are you doing today]. Ya, sure, you bet ya. Hey there fella.” Um-hmm. [Dr. Hovind himself has Norwegian ancestry, blond hair and blue eyes] He thought the Germans are mostly Aryan. The Mediterraneans are slightly Arian. The Slavics are half-Arian, half-ape. Orientals are slightly ape. Black Africans are mostly ape. And Jews are close to pure ape. Hitler killed the Jews to speed up the evolution process. Let's eliminate the inferiors. Anybody know where the Olympics were held in 1936? Berlin. Anybody know who won the most gold medals? Jesse Owens, the black American athlete. Hitler was so angry, he said: “It's not fair to make my men race against this animal.”

Hitler said: “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that ever existed.” Well, that's because he thought “biological evolution” would weed out the religion and “be a weapon against religion,” because the Bible teaches “all nations are of one blood.” (Acts 17:26) And if you think you are superior to somebody because of the color of your skin: #1. You're wrong; #2. You're stupid, ok; #3. You're not right with God, ok. We cover more on the races; and there's no such thing as races, it's just skin colors; on video #7. I stood in the courtroom in Nuremberg where they held the trial years ago. Those guys on trial said: “We did nothing illegal. We were just obeying orders.” Yeah, and they were found guilty anyway, weren't they? See, there's a higher law than Germany's law. It's called God's law. Now, the Supreme Court in America in 1973 said: “The word ‘person’ does not include the unborn.” That's the decision that opened the way now for 45 million babies to be killed in America. 1,000 million, that is a billion worldwide. On September 11, 2001, 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists. We spent billions of dollars trying to hunt them down and kill them, right? You know what else happened September 11, 2001? 4,500 Americans were killed by abortionists; 50% more, and nobody said a word. The next day, it happened again. We've had a September 11 tragedy every day ever since. Have we gone nuts?

Go back Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger started a group called ‘Planned Parenthood’ to eliminate the “inferior species.” She wanted to wipe out “the blacks, the Jews, and the Orientals.” She thought they were “human weeds.” We could spend all day on Margaret Sanger. But just like Hitler said, the Jews are “a parasite in the body of nations,” Margaret Sanger said, the unborn child is “a parasite in the woman's body.” No, it's a child, ok. It's a baby. We could spend all day on Margaret Sanger. We're not take time for that now. This is a Planned Parenthood document from 1952. They said: “Your questions answered about birth control.” “What is birth control?” “Is it an abortion?” They said: “Oh, definitely not. An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” Well, you bunch of hypocrites at Planned Parenthood! Now, they're the biggest funder of abortions in the country. “These six things doth the Lord hate: ...hands that shed innocent blood.” (Prov. 6:16-17) God hates this. “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deut. 27:25)

Back to Main Index Are there vestigial organs?

Go back The appendix

The textbooks are gonna tell you kids that you have an appendix that is vestigial. You don't need it anymore. That's a lie. You need your appendix. The appendix is actually a part of your immune system. Here's an article on the web from University of Chicago: “Ask a Scientist.” Nancy writes in and says: “What is the function of the appendix in a human before it is taken out through surgery?” This lady writes back and says: “The appendix has no known function.” It..., she's way behind the times on that one. She goes on to say: “It is believed that the appendix will gradually disappear in human beings as our diet do not includes cellulose no more.” “...our diet do not includes cellulose no more,” University of Chicago. Wow, good place to get an education. Not in English apparently. In the first place, this is not true, ok. The appendix is part of your immune system. You need your appendix. “The appendix activates killer B cells like your thyroid activates killer T cells.” It's true you can live without your appendix. That's true. You could live without both your legs, and both your arms, and both your eyes. And both your ears also. That doesn't prove you don't need them. If you take your appendix out, you got a much bigger chance of getting all sorts of diseases.

Go back Whale pelvis

This textbook says: “The whale has a vestigial pelvis.” “Many organisms retain traces of their evolutionary history. For example, the whale retains pelvic and leg bones as useless vestiges.” The National Center for Science Education teaches: “Bossie the cow evolved to Blowhole the whale.” The cow evolved to the whale. And the evidence is the pelvis. “Whales have a vestigial pelvis and leg bone that serve no purpose.” “They have hind-limb bones that have no function.” “Just imagine whales walking around. It's true.” Well, here's the bones they're talking about, right there. Just imagine the whale walking around. I have tried and tried to imagine, and I just can't do it. Almost every type of whale has these bones right there in the abdomen. They are not attached to the spine. That's correct. Textbook says: “The whale's pelvis is located far from the vertebrae and has no apparent function.” “The whale's pelvis is evidence of its evolution from four-legged land-dwelling mammals.” This is a lie. Those little bones are anchor points that special muscles attach to that allow the whales to reproduce. Whales are kind of big, you know, and without those special muscles and those special bones, they can't get more baby whales. So either these guys are ignorant about their whale anatomy or they're lying to your kids trying to spread their theory. But it's not true that those are vestigial, ok.

  1. There are no vestigial organs.
  2. And if there were, think about it. That would be the opposite of evolution. That's losing, not gaining. How's that gonna help? You lose everything, until you have it all?

We could spend two days on whale evolution. Every one of them, Ambulocelus and Pakicetus have all been proven baloney. They can't be intermediate species, ok. The authors were certain the feet were enormous even though nothing was found. Basilosaurus could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales. “Pakicetus was made from one small piece of jaw, a small piece of skull, and a few teeth.” You find a little bit of jaw, a little bit of skull, a couple of teeth, and you know that it's half-whale, half-something on land? Ah, that's kind of a stretch, don't you think? We'll cover more on that later, but there's all kinds of stuff on our website about this.

Go back The hind legs of the python snake

I've got in my museum, a 15½ foot (5 meters) python snake skin. If you look at the south end of that snakeskin, it's got a couple claws attached to a little 2-inch bone going up inside the snake's body. We've got it in our museum, ok. Textbook says, see, boys and girls, this is a vestigial structure. The boa and the python have these little tiny claws. “Do whales or snakes have back legs? You can see that they don't. Yet, both animals have vestigial hip bones and leg bones where legs may once have existed.” This is a lie. This textbook says: “They have reduced hind legs; rudimentary hind legs of a python snake.” You got to be kidding. Those little claws are used in mating, ok. The snake doesn't have any arms, and he can't talk and say: “Uh, scoot over, honey,” ok. This has nothing whatsoever to do with walking on land. It has to do with getting baby snakes. So once again, somebody is real dumb about their snake anatomy or they're lying to your kid trying to spread their theory.

Go back The human tailbone; Critical thinking: 2 (nót 3) choices! (2)

This textbook shows the coccyx, the human tailbone, in a Discover magazine. And it says: “That's all that's left of the tail that most mammals still use.” “Humans have a tailbone that is of no apparent use.” I was in a debate in Huntsville, Alabama, against the president of the North Alabama Atheist Association. He got up in front of God and everybody and said: “Folks, I've got proof for evolution. Humans have a tailbone they no longer need.” I said: “Mr. Patterson, I taught biology and anatomy. I happen to know there are 9 little muscles that attach to the tailbone without which you cannot perform some valuable functions.” I won't tell you what they all are, but trust me, you need those muscles. I said: “Now, if you think the tailbone is vestigial, I, Kent Hovind, will pay to have yours removed. Bend over.”

“Critical thinking,” this book says, 2005 edition. “At the end of your backbone is a coccyx, a few small bones that are fused together.

  1. Could the human coccyx be a vestigial structure?;
  2. Or is it the start of a newly evolving structure?”

That's thinking critically? They give the kids two answers, two options, both of which are wrong. There's a third option, you know.

  1. Maybe it's fine just like it is.

Notice they don't give that as an option, do they? Maybe it was designed to support your colon and support your lower back for posture when you sit. And five or six other things you can read about in Gray's Anatomy book, ok. They say: “Aren't babies born with tails once in a while?” No. “But that baby's got a tail right there.” No, he doesn't. It's not a tail. It's just fatty tissue; there is no bone, no muscle, no cartilage. It's not even lined up with the spine. It has to do with the way the baby develops inside the mother. There's fat around the nervous system to protect it until the bone grows around it. Generally, the fat is reabsorbed into the system as the baby grows and develops bone. But in extremely rare occasions, the fat is excluded outside the body like a big wart. So what you do, you cut it off, sew it up, put a diaper on the kid, and send him home. It's just like a wart, that's all it is. Cut it off. It's not a tail.

This one says: “The coccyx is a small bone at the end of the human vertebral column. It has no present function and is thought to be the remainder of bones that once occupied the long tail of a tree-living ancestor.” They told me when I was a kid: “Man used to have a tail but he lost it because he didn't need it.” I thought: “Didn't need it?” Have you ever thought how handy a tail would be? Have you ever come to the door with two sacks of groceries? Now wouldn't that be nice to be able to grab that door and walk right in there? You could drive down the highway and hold that can of Coke and tune the radio knob all at the same time. Lost it because we didn't need it! That's a lie! Everything used as evidence for evolution has been proven wrong. If real evidence exists, I'd like to see it. We'll pay a ¼ million dollars for real proof for evolution. But don't lie to me. I think you ought to demand that your school board cut out pages with lies on them. Don't put up with that stuff.

Go back Defacing textbooks?

I was speaking at the University of West Florida, and this biology teacher said: “Hovind, I don't think we should deface textbooks.” I said: “What do you mean?” He said: “Well, tonight, you said we should cut out the pages with this stuff on it. We shouldn't deface the textbook.” I said: “Well, sir, suppose you were teaching math and you found a book that said, 2 + 2 = 5. What would you tell your students to do?” He said: “I would tell them to mark out the wrong answer and write in the right answer.” - “Ohhh, you would deface a textbook?” I said: “Now, sir, you teach biology, don't you?” He said: “Yes, I do.” I said: “Well, suppose you found one of your textbooks that taught the embryo has gill slits, or the snake has a vestigial pelvis, or, you know, all of the other stuff I covered tonight. Are you gonna tell your kids to tear that page out?” He said: “Oh, no, no.” I said: “Would you tell them to mark it out and then write something in the column that it's not correct?” He said: “No, no, no.” I said: “Would you at least put a warning sticker in the front cover that said: ‘Hey kids, the information on page 85 is wrong?’ Would you at least warn them?” He said: “Oh no, no.” I said: “You would correct a math book, but you won't correct a biology book!” I said: “You, sir, are a hypocrite, and the folks in this county need to help you get a different job picking peaches or changing tires. But you've got no business taking our tax dollars to lie to these kids coming to your class. We're paying for this school. Why don't you be respectful and resign or quit lying to the kids?” He said: “Hovind, you don't have much tact.” Oh, I made full contact with that guy, that's for sure, ok. “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation.” They just don't want to believe this. They don't want to believe in creation. And they're willing to believe a lie rather than believe the truth, just so they can support their wicked life style.

Go to index

Too complex to have evolved?

Back to Main Index From no-eye to eye... how did that happen?

Psalm 94 (v. 9) says: “He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” God formed the eye. Eyeballs are incredibly complicated. Charles Darwin said: “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I fear to confess, absurd.” But then he goes on for 3 or 4 pages and says how he thinks it happened anyway. Your eyeball is amazing. At the back of your eye, there are 137 million light sensitive cells in 1 square inch. Called your retina, all of them wired straight to the brain. How would you like to hook up 137 million electrical connections in 1 square inch? My Heavenly Father did. He's pretty smart, isn't He?

Go back The eye, a poor design?

Now, I debated one atheist one time, and he said: “Hovind, the eye is an example for evolution because it's poorly designed.” I said: “What on earth are you talking about?” He said: “Well, the light comes into your eye and then it goes through blood vessels in front of the retina.” He said: “That's wired backwards.” He said: “The octopus has a much better eye because their blood vessels are behind the retina.” I said: “Sir, let me just explain something to you, ok?” I said: “We live in the air. Now, air is a pretty poor insulator for UV light. So your body is designed with the blood vessels in front of the retina. That's your body's last defense against ultraviolet light. Now, octopus live in the water, ok. Water blocks UV light. So they don't need their blood vessels in front. See, we're designed for living in air. And they're designed for living in water. Now if you wanna swap eyes with an octopus, you just go ahead, sir, but you're gonna be blind in a few days, ok. Because they don't have the blood vessels in front to block the UV light.”

What a dumb evidence for evolution. What they're trying to say is “Well, God wouldn't do it this way, so it must have evolved.” Well, that's a silly argument for evolution. Maybe you just don't understand why it was designed that way. I think, man's understanding of the human body is about like putting a 5-year-old kid under the hood of your car and saying: “Hey, kid, take out whatever this thing doesn't need.” They don't know what any of it does. You take it all out, right?

Go back Your eyeball: Far too complex to have been evolved

You know, your eyeball is amazing. “It would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray computer time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” Eyeballs are amazing. But this textbook says: “The complex structure of the human eye may be the product of millions of years of evolution.” Why doesn't God get the glory for what He did? This textbook shows the kids a bird eye and a reptile eye. And it says right up here, boys and girls, “You can better understand how the eye might have evolved if you picture a series of changes.” You have to imagine how it happened. Just image the eye changing. That's not science. Imagining how it happened. Where's the evidence? See, evolution only takes place in the imagination. It never takes place in reality. They're lying to you, ok. “He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps. 94:9) Science deals with things we can observe and study and test. You don't observe anything about evolution. If you have something that's designed like an eyeball, it demands a Designer.


Back to Main Index Evidences for design

A painting is proof there was a painter even if you never see the guy. A building is proof there was a builder, and a watch is proof there was a watchmaker. And design, the creation is proof there was a Creator. See, design simply demands a Designer, period. “Invisible things that came from the creation of the world are clearly seen, ...they are without excuse,” (Rom. 1:20) the Bible says. There is no excuse. The psalmist said (8:3): “When I consider the heavens...” You know, God knows that the study of real science will draw us to Him. Satan knows that too. So Satan has worked really hard in the field of science to make sure it pushes kids away from God. And we need some good Godly science teachers to get involved in the school system and turn this thing around, ok. And by the way, we can prove the existence of God by the impossibility of the contrary. It's impossible that there not be a Designer. It's just not possible. There had to be a Designer, ok.

Go back Mount Rushmore National Memorial

I like to show evolutionists this picture. I say: “Guys, here we have, as far as I know, the world's largest rock group.” Ah, you know a bigger one? I'd like to see it, ok! I'll say: “Do you think there is any way George Washington's face could have appeared on this rock by chance?” They say: “No, it was designed by a guy named Borglum. It look him a long time to build it.” - “Ok, very good. Now, let me ask you a question. You say there is no way this face could appear on the rock by chance. You don't think wind could have done that, abrasion, exfoliation, thermal expansion of the rock, nothing?” - “Nope, nope, it happened by design,” they reply.

Ok, now let me ask you this question: “You think George Washington himself, with 50 trillion cells in his body and all these complex systems happened by chance?” They say: “Yeah.” - “Now, wait-wait-wait... You don't think this face could appear on a rock by chance, but you do think this whole complex anatomy can happen by chance? Are you dumb in any other area or is that the only one?,” you know.

Go back ‘Adaption’ versus ‘design’

Then they tell kids that “plants are adapted to their environment.” Adapted? Yes, boys and girls, “fish gills are an adaptation to living in water.” Oh well, how did they live before they adapted the gills, um-hmm? Well, you see, Mr. Hovind, for millions of years, they all died, none of them lived until they adapted the gills. Ohhh, I see. Why don't they say it's a design feature? See, they avoid using the word ‘designed’ because then some kid's gonna say: “Who's the designer?,” um-hmm. “Adaptations for living on land. ... Legs...” oh yes, boys and girls, “Legs support the body's weight as well as allow movement from place to place.” Well, that's true. That doesn't prove they adapted by themselves though. “Lungs,” oh boy, “The delicate structure of a fish's gills depends on water for support. On land, lungs carry out gas exchange.” That's true. That's not proof one changed into the other, though. They just make this mental imaginary connection in the kids’ minds.

Go back Have you seen the watchmaker?

I've got a Casio Databank watch, ok. Holds 300 phone numbers. It's a calculator, stop watch, an alarm clock, and a countdown timer. It does not tell time. I have to look at it. But, it's a pretty amazing machine. $70 at Wal-Mart. I was in Japan a couple years ago, but I did not see the guy who makes the Casio Databank watch. I never saw him. Do I have to see the guy who made it to believe he exists? Hmmm. Is it logical for me to stand here in Tennessee and say: “I believe there's a watch designer in Japan that made this thing.” Is that logical? Even if I have never seen him? Sure. Would it be illogical for me to say: “I've never seen him so I don't believe he exists.” That would be totally dumb, wouldn't it? And you don't have to see the Creator to believe he exists, ok? “Evolutionists argue against design, using arguments they designed.” Hmmm, think about that one.

Go back Adaption at random?

Here's a great book talking about the complexity of living things at a microscale. We sell the book at our website. Michael Behe wrote this on Darwin's Black Box. He spends a whole chapter describing the hair on a bacteria. That hair is so complicated. It's attached to a little tiny motor. The motor is so tiny that 8 million of them would fit in the cross section of a human hair, but the motor turns a 100,000 RPM's! Let's see you build a motor like that. Pretty amazing. And as things get smaller, the world they live in feels more sticky to them, the viscosity of the fluid seems greater. So, a bacteria swimming through water is about like a person swimming through peanut butter. And that little motor is so powerful and turns so fast, that bacteria can swim, about like a person going 60 miles an hour through peanut butter. We've got a little model of it in our museum if you wanna come down and see how they work. In the textbook it says: “Humans probably evolved from bacteria more than 4 billion years ago.” What? If they can swim through peanut butter at 60 miles an hour, we should sign them up for the Olympics, man! We evolved from them? Huh, we're getting worse, not better. It's a lie! Nothing this small and complex could have happened by chance.

This is a great book we sell in our bookstore, just simple illustrations. “Could a box evolve? Could an ink pen evolve? Could a paper clip evolve?” It just goes through a bunch of simple things and shows it just can't happen. ok.

Then they talk about the origin of life. Yes, boys and girls, how living things started from non-living matter. This is pure baloney how they teach this in the books. We're going to cover that after a quick break. We'll cover a few more lies in the textbooks and then tell you what you can do about it. There are some practical steps to fix the problem, right after the break.

Continue to Part 4c


Creation Science Evangelism
     488 Pearl Lane
     Repton, AL 36475
     1 (855) BIG-DINO (244-3466)
     Official Website

Go to top of this page