Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar 4, part a - Lies in the Textbooks (1999)

- Textbook Selection
- Pass Legislation Against False Information
- Teaching Creation Science is Legal!
- Use the Bible in Class
- If You are a Student...

(Handling Teachers; Answering Test Questions; Get Exempted; Converting Teachers; Pray for Teachers)

- Use This Material
- Educate Others
- Letters to the Editor
- Etc.

Why Evolution Should be Feared

Seminar 4, part a: Lies in the Textbooks

Indoctrination or Education?

The Dilemma
The Calf Puller
Scoffers
(Why They Scoff; What They Scoff; The Creation; The Flood)
Historical Scoffers
(James Hutton; Charles Lyell)

Well, thank you for joining us today. My name is Kent Hovind; I live in Pensacola, Florida. I was a high school science teacher 15 years. And now I travel around and speak on creation, evolution and dinosaurs. In the first sessions we talked about the age of the Earth and how dinosaurs fit into the Bible; but in this session I want to talk about things in the textbooks that you kids have to face when you go to school in a secular school or a secular university. Things that simply are not true.

The Dilemma

And it's always amazed me in my 15 years of teaching science how two people can look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions of what they are looking at. Two people can look at Grand Canyon. They are both looking at the same canyon. One guy believes in evolution, so he looks at the canyon and he says, “Wow, look what the Colorado River did for millions and millions of years.” The Bible believing Christian stands there, looks at the same canyon and says, “Wow, look what the flood did in about 30 minutes.” How was that canyon formed? Was it a little bit of water and a whole lot of time. or could it be a whole lot of water and a little bit of time? Sometimes there are two different ways to look at things. And if a teacher is only showing you one way to look at things, they're not educating you, they're indoctrinating you. Which may be good-the Bible is good for doctrine. However, in the humanist school system, I'm afraid kids get indoctrinated with evolution only and they're never shown the other way to look at things.

The Calf Puller

I'll give you another example. Anybody in the crowd know what this thing is? Yes sir, what is it? That is a calf puller. A what? A calf puller? Yes. You see, once in a while a cow has a hard time having that baby calf and so they get the calf puller out there, put the cable around the calf's legs and jack the calf out of the cow. You get a few tons of pressure on there and the calf will come right out-no problem. Well this farmer was out pulling a calf one day. It was a breach birth-the back feet were coming out first. Not good. And so the farmer had the calf puller out there and he's trying to pull the calf out. And a city fellow stopped his car to see what on earth is going on. And the farmer said, “Wait, come here and give me a hand will you?” And the city fellow said, “Me? I don't know anything about cows.” He said, “Just give me some help, would ya?” He said, “Okay, okay.” So the city fellow helped him pull the calf and about ten minutes later they are walking up to the barn, going to get washed up. And the farmer said,”Have you ever seen anything like this before?” And the city fellow said, “No sir, I've never seen anything like this.” The farmer said, “You got any questions?” He said, “Yes sir, I've got one question, it's been bugging me for ten minutes.” The farmer said, “What's your question?” The city fellow said, “Sir, how fast do you figure that calf was going when it ran into that cow?” No, no, no, no you are looking at this all wrong fella. We are not separating a wreck here. Sometimes two people look at the same thing and one of them is getting the wrong idea.

Scoffers

You know, the Bible warned us that was going to happen. In II Peter chapter 3 it says, “Knowing this first, there shall come in the last days scoffers.” Did you know there are people that scoff at the Bible? I deal with them on a regular basis. I attract them like a magnet! Scoffers.

Why They Scoff

And it says they are going to walk after their own lusts. See, the reason they scoff at this Book is because of their sin, not because of their science. There is no scientific reason to reject the Bible. But they don't like this Bible because it chaps their hide. Well, get some Vaseline, man, you are going to need it! Because we're going to be judged according to this book-whether you like it or not.

What They Scoff

     But the scoffers walk after their own lusts and they're going to say, “Where's the promise of His coming, for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” [2 Peter 3:4] That's an extremely important phrase. The scoffers are going to teach something in the last days that means 'the way things are happening now is the way they've always been happening-long, slow, gradual processes called Uniformitarianism.' The Bible warned us in 2 Peter that the scoffers are going to teach the way things are happening now is the way they've always been happening. The problem with that is, the scoffers are willingly ignorant. It says in the next verse, they are “Willingly ignorant.” In the Greek, that means ‘dumb on purpose’.

      The Creation: The scoffers are willingly ignorant of how God made the heavens (and heaven is plural. There is more than one heaven; we talk about that in videotape number one. There is more than one heaven.) They're ignorant of how God made the heavens and the earth and how it was standing out of the water and in the water. The earth when God first made it was a lot different than it is today. It used to have water above the atmosphere and more water under the crust of the earth and we talk about all that on videotape number one and on videotape number six. But the scoffers are ignorant about the creation and they're also ignorant of the flood.

      The Flood: The next verse tells us, “Whereby the world then was, being overflowed with water perished.” The world was destroyed by a flood. You see, the scoffers don't want to admit God created the world because that means God owns it. And that means there might be some rules. You know, like “Thou shalt not...” And they don't want those rules so they scoff at the Bible. Rather than change their lifestyle and get right with God, they try to eliminate the thing that's bothering them, which is God's word. They're also ignorant of the flood. They don't want to admit that there was a flood because if there was a worldwide flood, that means God has a right to judge His creation. And He does by the way; this is His world. He can wreck it if He wants.

Historical Scoffers

James Hutton

Now, one of the scoffers in the last days was a guy named James Hutton. James Hutton lived in the late 1700s. He was a scoffer. James Hutton did not like the Bible for some reason. And James Hutton especially did not like the idea that the earth was only about 6,000 years old and God created it. So in 1795, James Hutton wrote a book and said, “I think the earth is much older than most people think.” I think they started off with about 80,000 years. He said that the earth was about 80,000 years old. By 1900 they were teaching the earth is 2 billion years old. Now they're up to 4.6 billion years old. So I figure the earth is getting older at the rate of about 65 million years per year. It's aging rapidly folks! But you have got to understand, in the late 1700s most people believed the Bible and most people thought the earth was about 6,000 years old.
      But that was also the time of many revolutions. Many countries were trying to get rid of the king or monarchy as a form of government and they were trying to establish a democracy where the people rule. Revelation 3 talks about that-the Laodicean age, the rule of the people. I think that started about this time when they tried to eliminate the king. There were many revolutions: the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the German Revolution, the Polish Revolution, the Spanish Revolution. All these countries were throwing off the king. It was an age of anti-monarchy-which may or may not be good, I don't know-but that's not the point. The point is they were looking for a way to get rid of the king but the Bible says to honor the king. And so some of these folks thought the Bible stood in their way for their political objectives. And so they wanted to discredit the Bible for political reasons, which goes back to what Jesus said: “The love of money is the root of all evil.” They wanted financial control and ultimately a one-world government (which we get into later in the seminar about how this evolution theory is responsible [as] the foundation for the philosophy that leads to a one-world government with Satan in charge). But the Bible says honor the king and they didn't like that so they tried to discredit the Bible.
      Now, see, even the textbooks admit [that] in the late 1700s that almost everybody thought the earth was only a few thousand years old. But James Hutton came along and developed his idea called uniformitarianism. (Oh, big word-that will be on the test.) Uniformitarianism means 'the way things are happening now is the way they've always been happening.' Long, slow gradual processes. They've got a fancy phrase for that. They say, “The present is the key to the past.” Well, the problem they don't understand is that's just simply not correct. The Bible is the key to the past. But these guys wrote about Uniformitarianism and long, slow and gradual processes and James Hutton's book had a very profound influence on a man named Sir Charles Lyell.

      Charles Lyell

Charles Lyell was a lawyer from Scotland. He also hated the Bible. Charles Lyell, as I said was a lawyer (somebody told me recently that they figured that if all the lawyers in the world were laid end to end around the equator, we would all be better off) but Charles Lyell hated the Bible. And in 1830 Charles Lyell wrote this book, Principles of Geology, Volume one, (I've got all three volumes all marked up). In this book right here Principles of Geology, Charles Lyell's hatred for the Bible kind of oozes off every page. He talked about 'ancient doctrines' and 'those who rest on scriptural authority.' He talked about how 'religion does not mix with sound philosophy.' In other words, if you believe the Bible you can't really have sound philosophy. He was always looking for ways to put the Bible down. I mean, you can read through this book and see all sorts of slams against God's Word. 'Those whose beliefs are founded on religious prejudices' and 'men of superior talent ([now] he's talking about himself) who thought for themselves.' I mean typical scoffer type vocabulary. He just scoffed at the Bible all through this book.

The Geologic Column

Where's the Geologic Column?
Rock Layers and the Flood
(Hydrologic Sorting; Colorado River in Grand Canyon)
Circular Reasoning
(In the Museum; Blinded by Money; Rocks by Fossils or Fossils by Rocks?)
Trilobites and Graptolites
Other Evidences
Petrified Trees
The Geologic Column and Charles Darwin
(Where Darwin Went Wrong; Leap of Faith)
Micro vs. Macro Evolution
Variation of Corn and Cows
Variation with Limits
Genetic Information Already Present

And Charles Lyell in 1830, building on the work of some other guys and along with some other guys, he really developed what we call the geologic column. How many have ever heard of the geologic column before? All the textbooks teach this in the public school system and all the ones on earth science or geology or even biology. The geologic column was invented in the early 1800s and it's by William Smith and Cuvier and some other guys, but Lyell was the primary culprit as far as I can figure out. In that geologic column, they took the earth (which has many layers to it) and they gave each layer a name and they gave it an age and they gave it an index fossil. Like, for instance, maybe you saw the movie Jurassic Park. Well, the Jurassic was supposed to be an era that lived millions of years ago and they have an index fossil of the dinosaurs. So each layer of the earth was given a name, an age and an index fossil.

Where's the Geologic Column?

Now, you might want to know a couple of things about this geologic column-and I taught earth science for 15 years-the geologic column is the bible to the evolutionists. That's their bible folks. Secondly, it can only be found one place in the world-in the textbook. The geologic column does not exist in reality. The textbooks admit that. “If there were a column of sediments...unfortunately no such column exists.” The whole thing is imagination.
Now, it is true, the earth has many layers. That is not the question. I've been to the Grand Canyon, Royal Gorge, been to 49 states and 20 countries, been to the San Andreas Fault, the Hayward Fault, the New Madrid Fault-none of them are my fault but I've been there, done that, seen that, have a T-shirt. There's no question the earth has layers. The question is how did they get that way? How did the earth get all those layers?

Rock Layers and the Flood

There might be two ways to look at that. (How fast was that calf going?) Keep that thought in mind. It could be that each of these layers is a different age or it could be all of those layers were dumped off in one big flood. You know, if you had a flood lasting for 12 or 13 months, like the Bible says the flood lasted-.

Hydrologic Sorting

See, just the earth turning under the moon-the moon causes the tides, and if the earth were totally covered by water the tides would become harmonic. You music folks understand that. People have calculated that the tides would go [through a] 200-foot tidal change. If the earth were covered with water, there would be no continents to stop them. And with a 200-foot tidal change every 6 hours and 25 minutes, you would get reshuffling of the sediments down at the bottom for thousands and thousands of feet. You would get over a mile of sediments down there in finely stratified layers.
You can get a jar [of mud] out of your yard here, put some water in it, shake it up and set it down it will settle out into layers for you. Hydrologic sorting. They say those layers are different ages, I have a hard time with that because don't you think if each one of those layers laid there for millions of years waiting for the next one there would be a few erosion marks in-between the layers? Why are there no canyons and gullies and cricks in-between the layers? I mean, why is it all stacked up like pancakes? Those layers are not different ages and the Grand Canyon did not take millions of years to form.

Colorado River in Grand Canyon

I was in a debate a few months ago and the professor said, “Mr. Hovind, obviously the world is millions of years old. Look at Grand Canyon. It would take millions of years to form Grand Canyon.” I said, “Sir, did you know that the top of Grand Canyon is higher than the bottom?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Well, did you know the river only runs through the bottom?” He said, “Well, yes.” I said,”Did you know the top of the canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon? So if that river made that canyon, it had to flow uphill for millions of years to cut the groove deep enough to flow down hill.” I don't think so. I don't think the river made that canyon. I think the flood made Grand Canyon, probably in a couple of hours when the mud was still soft and there was lots of water running through. We cover lots more on that in video number six about the flood.

Circular Reasoning

But oftentimes there are two ways to look at things. (How fast was that calf going?) I took my family one time when I was preaching in Union Center, South Dakota. Now, Union Center, South Dakota is not quite the end of the world, but we could see it from there. We were close. I mean, it's the middle of nowhere. There were forty people in the whole town. Thirty-eight of them came to church. (I don't know where the other two were, out pulling a calf I reckon.) But anyway, we had a great meeting. And the preacher said,”Hey, Brother Hovind, lets get the cars and vans and lets go down to Rapid City, South Dakota, where they've got a museum with a bunch of dinosaur bones in it.” I said, “Alright, I like dinosaurs, lets go.”

In the Museum

So we all drove down to Rapid City, South Dakota. We walked in this museum and a guide, an older fellow met us at the door and he said, “I'm a guide here, would you like me to give you a tour?” We said, “That would be great, sir.” The first place we stopped on the tour was a great big huge chart all lit up called the 'Geologic Time Scale.' The geologic column. And the guy started his speech right there. He said, “Ladies and gentlemen, this layer of rock you're looking at here, is about 70 millions of years old.” My daughter was twelve at the time. She raised her hand. She said, “Sir, how do you know how old the rock layers are?” He said, “That's a good question honey. We tell the age of the rock layers by the types of fossils they contain. They're called index fossils.” She said, “Thank you, sir.” We walked around the other side of the dinosaur. We're standing over there and the guide said, “Now, ladies and gentlemen, these bones you're looking at here are about a hundred million years old,” or something like that. And my daughter raised her hand again. She said, “Uh, sir-how do you tell the age of the fossils?” He said, “That's a good question honey. We tell the age of the fossils by which layer they come from.” She said, “Excuse me sir, but when we were standing over there, you told me you knew the age of the layers by the fossils and now you're telling me you know the age of the fossils by the layers.” She said, “Isn't that circular reasoning?” I thought, “Wow, a chip off the old block!” That guide had the strangest look on his face. It was almost as if he were thinking. He looked at my daughter; he looked at me. I wasn't about to help him. I thought, “Wow! This is going to be good!” He looked back at my daughter and he said, “You know, you are absolutely right. I never thought of that before.” He said, “That is circular reasoning.”
That poor fellow drove fifty miles one way that night to hear me preach in Union Center, South Dakota. The crowd swelled to thirty-nine. We set up a chair in the aisle. Afterwards, he talked to me for nearly an hour. He said, “Mr. Hovind, is everything I believe about geology wrong?” He said, “I teach this stuff at the college.” I said, “Oh no, no. Man, I like geology. You learn lots of good stuff. You learn all the names of the minerals.” Just that's a good trick folks. There are 1200 minerals, some have names about that long. I said, “You learn to prospect for ore, the hardness test, the Rockwell test, the scratch test.” I said, “No, no. I like geology and there's nothing wrong with geology. But as far as the layers being different ages,” I said, “Yes sir, that's all baloney.”

Blinded by Money

Now, he doesn't dare quit teaching it because he'll lose his job. And kids you might as well learn this today: to some people in this world, money is more important than truth. And if they have to lie or teach a lie to keep the paycheck coming in, they will do it because money means more to them than what happens to you if you believe their lie. And there are teachers all over the world that do not believe in evolution but continue to teach it because they're afraid they might lose their job. We know who their god is, don't we?
The Bible talks about those folks whose god is their belly. They are more worried about keeping that paycheck and keeping that food coming in, which is really what it boils down to. Well, you've just got to make a decision some time in your life if you're going to serve God you've got to decide, I don't care what anybody else thinks. I'm just going to serve God. Like Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. We don't care what Nebuchadnezzar says. We are going to serve God. If that means going to the den of lions or the fiery furnace, “Well, okay!” Boy, we need some folks with some backbone like that; who are just going to stand up and say I'm going to do what God says regardless of what anybody else thinks about it. But there are a lot of teachers, even Christian teachers in our public school system, that teach evolution for fear of losing a job. They are cowards. They should quit. They should get an honest job picking peaches or changing tires and quit destroying boys' and girls' lives. That's my humble opinion on the subject. Anyway, I have a lot of humble opinions on lots of things we'll talk about.

Rocks by Fossils or Fossils by Rocks?

     So, let's see what the evolutionists say about this circular reasoning in the textbooks. Do they really use the fossils to date the rocks and the rocks to date the fossils? Well, here's Glencoe Biology. On page 306 they date the rocks by the fossils. On the very next page, page 307 they are dating the fossils by the rocks. Circular reasoning right in the text book. “The intelligent layman has long suspected the use of circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results.” (J.E. O'Rourke) “Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the nineteenth century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very modern examples, which really are archeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.” (Derek Ager) Don't tell me they date those layers by carbon dating or potassium argon dating, or rubidium strontium, or lead 208, or lead 206, or U235 or U238; that's not how they date them! They date the rock layers by the fossils in every case. “Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from.” Quote goes on. “And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record.” That's Niles Eldredge, one of the biggest evolutionists there is. American Museum of Natural History in New York. He knows it's circular reasoning.
      How about this: “The rocks do date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.” (Figure that one out) “Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” (J.E. O'Rourke) They have to use circular reasoning. “The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the concern of the public (In other words, it is none of your business) or.it can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice.. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.” (J.E. O'Rourke) Don't tell me that you know the age of those rocks or those fossils because they are both based upon each other. It's all based on circular reasoning.”.evolution is documented by geology, and. geology is documented by evolution.” (Larry Azar) Figure that one out, would you please. It's all based on circular reasoning. It cannot be denied.”.from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists here are arguing in a circle.” (R.H. Rastall) They date the rocks by the organisms they contain and the organisms by the rocks they are found in. Folks, it's all based on circular reasoning.
      I like to show evolutionists the geologic column, and I ask them this question: “Now, fellows,” I'll say, “You've got limestone scattered all throughout this geologic column. I mean there is limestone and shale and sandstone and conglomerate and limestone and sandstone and limestone and shale. And I say,”How do you tell the difference? If I hand you a piece of limestone, how would you tell the difference between 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone and 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone? I mean, how would you know how old it is?” There is only one way they can tell the difference: that is by the index fossils. It's all based on that. “Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” (J.E. O'Rourke) They don't date them by carbon dating folks; it's all based on fossils.

Trilobites and Graptolites

This is from a textbook. It shows a trilobite. It says, “Trilobite fossils make good index fossils. If a trilobite such as this one is found in a rock layer, the rock layer probably formed 500 million years ago.” You think the rock with the trilobite is 500 million years old? Well, I have a question. How come somebody found a human shoe print where somebody with a shoe on had stepped on a trilobite? They asked geologists all over, how could a human step on a trilobite? I mean trilobites lived 500 million years ago, man didn't get here until three million years ago and he didn't start wearing shoes until five thousand years ago. How can this be? One geologist said, “Well, maybe aliens visited the planet 500 million years ago.” Yes, that will do it every time. Another guy said, “Maybe there was a larger trilobite shaped like a shoe that fell on a small one.” Oh there are some big ones, but they are not shaped like a shoe.
Anyway, if you took this fossil and showed it to any University professor who believes in evolution, and said, “Sir, how old is this rock?” He'd say, “Ah, this is an easy one. This contains an index fossil. That index fossil is in graptolite, and the graptolites lived 410 million years ago. It's the New York State fossil.” That's what they said until 1993 when they found that graptolites are still alive in the South Pacific. Oops. Well, now, think about it. If they are still alive, maybe they lived between 400 million years ago and today. Maybe they could be found in any rock layer. Maybe all of the dating we've done by geologic positioning is baloney, and it is by the way. By the way, there is good indication that some trilobites are still alive in the Deep Peruvian Trench. In the Pacific Ocean. All that geologic dating is crazy. However, it has a profound influence on folks. As we'll see in a minute.

Other Evidences

“Dinosaur blood found in bone. Medical pathologists examined dinosaur bone under a microscope and found dinosaur blood inside the bone.” (Earth June 1997) How could the blood survive seventy million years? Well, it couldn't but they don't want to admit that. Eighteen million-year-old Magnolia leaves from Idaho shale were still green when the rock was cracked open. Kind of interesting don't you think? Folks, those layers are not different ages and if you've been taught that the earth is millions or billions of years old, you have been either lied to or deceived. Hopefully, the teacher doesn't know they are lying to you. But they are regardless. It's a lie. The earth is not millions of years old. Those layers are not different ages.

Petrified Trees

Here is a petrified tree standing straight up running through many layers of rock strata. Now, think about it for a minute. If those layers are different ages, you've only got two choices: the tree stood there for millions and millions of years and didn't rot or fall down, or it grew through seventy-five feet of solid rock looking for sunlight. Which do you prefer? Petrified trees standing straight up are found all over the world, folks. They are called Polystrate fossils. Evolutionists have no explanation for this. I've seen lots of them. Petrified trees standing up. How can this be? Well, according to evolution, this is a real problem. They call it a geologic enigma. Because it doesn't fit the theory. Sometimes the petrified trees are upside down running through many rock layers. Explain that one, would you please? The tree grew upside down for millions and millions of years? “That sun is up there somewhere, we've just got to find it, boys-keep growing!” I don't think so.
No, this geologic column does not exist anywhere in the world. But in spite of that it has had a profound influence. It has changed people's worldview. The geologic column was accepted in the early 1830s-long before there ever was any carbon dating. That was done in 1950. But it turned people away from a Biblical worldview. Up until that time people accepted the Bible as God's word and the earth is about 6,000 years old and the world was destroyed by a flood. It was just a common, accepted worldview. This geologic column is one of the primary things that changed people's minds about the authority of God's Word. And it is still taught in your textbooks today, by the way, in earth science and geology classes.

The Geologic Column and Charles Darwin

Especially this had a very profound influence on Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin graduated from Bible College to be a preacher. The only degree he ever got, by the way. Charlie Darwin, at age 22, fresh out of Bible College, couldn't get a job. So his dad pulled a few strings and got him on board HMS Beagle. He was going to sail around on this ship for five years collecting bugs and birds for somebody back in England.

Where Darwin Went Wrong

While he sailed around on that voyage, he brought with him some books to read. He brought his Bible (he had just gotten out of Bible College) and he brought with him this book, Principles of Geology. As Charles Darwin read this book, Principles of Geology, it absolutely changed his life forever. Later in life he said, “Lyell one of my favorite authors, has made a profound influence on my life.” As he read that book, Charles Darwin began to doubt the Bible and began to think the earth is millions and millions of years old. That's the book that changed his life. Studying about Geology. And it's amazing how many kids go through seventh or eighth grade in regular public school and they are taught in their earth science book that the earth is millions of years old and it destroys their faith in the Bible and they don't even realize it. It undermines it. Cuts it right out from under them. That's where it all starts.
Later in life Darwin said,”Disbelief crept over me very slowly. I felt no distress.” By the way, he did not repent on his deathbed. His wife started the rumor that he did and that rumor still circulates today. But the best research says he did not repent on his deathbed. He remained loyal to his atheism right up to the end. But that is the book that changed Charles Darwin's life.

Leap of Faith

As Charlie sailed around the world, he came to the islands off the coast of Ecuador, South America, called the Galapagos Islands. There on those islands Charlie noticed there were fourteen different varieties of finches. He studied the finches carefully and he said, “You know what? I think all of these birds came from a common ancestor.” I bet you are right Charlie-it was a bird. Which is all correct; they probably had a common ancestor. But then Charlie made a giant leap of faith and logic in his book, which I have right here. Charlie said on page 170, “It is truly a wonderful fact that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other.” Whoa, now hold on a minute Charlie. I'll go along with all of those birds coming from a bird, but that doesn't mean the birds are related to the bananas. But isn't that what he's saying? Am I reading that wrong? Birds and bananas are related? That's exactly what he was saying. See, what happened, Charlie got all confused with the two different meanings of the word evolution.
Now, there [are] two different Charlie's. We've got Charlie Lyell and Charlie Darwin. Call them Chuck one and Chuck two or Chuckles for short if you'd like. But Charlie Darwin said, “All the animals and plants are related.” Charlie actually observed what we sometimes call micro-evolution.

Micro vs. Macro Evolution

     Now, I object to the use of that term. We really should just call it variation. It's a variety. But they call it micro-evolution. Okay for the sake of argument, we will use their word but I don't like the word. I think it is deceptive. Micro-evolution tells us that dogs produce a variety of dogs. Nobody is going to argue with that. Probably the dog, the wolf and the coyote had a common ancestor. But stand 30 feet away and look at it. It still looks like a dog. This is not a banana or a tomato, it's a dog. Anybody can recognize that. And roses produce a variety of roses.
      Now, if you are going to get into a discussion on evolution or a debate (I had one last week in Detroit, I've got one this week in Peoria, one two weeks next to that in Georgia)-if you are going to get into a debate on evolution, let me just tell you, you have to do this. First thing you must do is define the word. “What do you mean 'evolution'?” Because there are two different meanings to the word and this is where all of the confusion comes in. And you will never get any place in the discussion unless you define the word. Micro-evolution is a fact of science. It is observable, it is testable, it is demonstrable it is also scriptural. The Bible says, “They bring forth after his kind.” You might get a big dog or a little dog, but it is still a dog. And it could be the wolf, the coyote, and the dog are related. I wouldn't argue about that. They are still the same kind of animal. And a three year old could tell the difference. Okay boys and girls, here we have a dog, a wolf, a coyote and a banana. Which one is not like the others? Well, duh. A three-year-old can figure that out. The Bible says, “The animals bring forth after his kind.” Not after his species or variety. After his kind. Ten times that phrase appears in the first chapter in the book of Genesis. I think God wanted us to get the message. They bring forth after their kind.
      But what happened, Charlie somehow in his mind made a giant leap of faith and logic from seeing the micro-evolution into believing in macro-evolution. See, macro-evolution says the dog and the rose are related if you go back far enough in time. And the ancestor ultimately was a rock. Now, the evolutionists really get upset when I say that but I say it anyway. I'm not trying to upset them, but I'm trying to make them realize how dumb their theory is. They believe 20 billion years ago, there was a big bang, where nothing exploded and produced everything. Figure that one out. And then 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust. And it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup. And the soup came alive about three billion years ago. And this early life form found someone to marry. (A pretty good trick!) And something to eat. And very slowly evolved into everything we see today. That is the evolutionary teaching in a nutshell.
      One lady came to me after a debate one time. She taught at this university I was speaking at. She said, “Mr. Hovind, tonight you said that we believe we came from a rock! We do not believe that!” I said, “Well, ma'am, do you believe in evolution?” She said, “Yes, I do!” I said, “Well, then do you believe that 20 billion years ago there was a big bang?” She said, “Yes, I do.” I said,”Do you believe 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust?” She said, “Yes, I do.” I said,”Do you believe it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup, and the soup came to life about 3 billion years ago?” She said, “Yes.” I said, “Well, then you believe we came from a rock.” She said, “No, I believe we came from a macro-molecule.” I said, “Where did that come from?” She said, “Well, it rained on the rocks for millions of years....” It finally dawned on her. She does believe we came from a rock. And I don't care if you want to believe that. You can believe that if you want. But don't call it science. That's not science-that's a pagan religion. It's a dumb one, too, by the way. Macro-evolution is the other meaning of the word. And Macro-evolution is the other meaning of the word. And what they do is give the kids millions of examples of micro-evolution and try to make them believe in macro-evolution, and that is where it gets deceptive. Macro-evolution is a fantasy. It's based upon imagination. We've never seen it in nature. Can't find any fossil evidence of it. You can't even imagine how it could happen. It's just a fantasy; but they will give the kids millions of examples of micro-evolution and try to make them believe in macro-evolution, which has only been assumed-it has never been observed. It's a religious world view.
      So when I say evolution, I'm talking about macro-evolution. But if you get into a discussion with some professor someplace, and you start using the word evolution, and when you say, “I do not believe in evolution,” he will be thinking of millions of examples of micro-evolution, which is true. And he doesn't understand how you can't see it. 'How can you be so blind as to not see this?' But you are thinking of macro-evolution and you don't understand how he can see it. And there is no communication taking place. You are not talking the same language and that is why you will never get anywhere with this guy or girl. If you are talking about evolution, you have to define the word.

Variation of Corn and Cows

Now, I come from Illinois, corn country. There are so many kinds of corn down there that they have to number them. You'll see XL 1047, don't mix it up with XL 1029-something will blow up. But I'll tell you right now, folks. You can cross breed your corn from now until the cows come home and you're always going to get corn. You will never get a hamster, or a tomato or a whale to grow on that cornstalk. It won't happen. All you are going to get is a variety of corn. Sometimes pretty wild varieties, but you are just going to get a corn that's all you are going to get.
Sometimes you get a variety of cows. This is what farmers do for a living. They try to get a new variety that's bigger and better or something. And the cows probably all had a common ancestor. A cow. That's not evolution, that's variation (which they like to call micro-evolution). But really it is a variation. That's not evolution.

Variation with Limits

See, variations do happen. That's not the question. However, they have limits. Haven't the farmers been trying to raise bigger and bigger pigs? Do you think they will ever get a pig as big as Texas? Probably not. I bet there is a limit in there, isn't there. Haven't roaches become resistant to pesticides? They will say, “See, Mr. Hovind, roaches have become resistant to pesticides, that's evolution.” No, no it is still a cockroach. And their resistance has limits. I bet they will never become resistant to a sledgehammer. In an evolutionist's mind, they have no limits. This variation that does happen and is observable and stays within the kind, somehow the Devil has tricked them into believing that this goes on forever and there are no limits to these evolutions. Plus they are still the same kind of animal. It's still a pig, or still a cockroach, or still a dog-it's not anything different.

Genetic Information Already Present

And another major point, the information was already present in that creature for the variation. If you had a million cockroaches and you sprayed pesticide on them and it kills all but a hundred of them, the resistance was already in the cockroaches. The pesticide didn't add the resistance. It just allowed that section of the population to survive.
Another major factor they don't like to admit, when you get done going through this resistance phase, you have now limited the gene pool. What you have left is roaches that are resistant to a particular pesticide, but the genetic information is very limited from the original grandpa cockroach. So it's not going to help the species anywhere. Somehow in their mind they think it does.

Three Bad Books (Overview)

Several books had a profound influence down through history. Charlie Lyell's book is based on James Hutton's book. James Hutton really said the earth is millions of years old. He took away the authority of the scripture in the time factor. Along came Charlie Lyell's Principle of Geology, published in 1830, and he took away the flood. The Bible says there was a flood that destroyed the world and made all of the sediment layers, and Charlie Lyell took that away from us. He said the present is the key to the past. Then along comes Charles Darwin's book, published in 1859, and he said all things come from a common ancestor. He took away the Creator. These books had an incredible influence on the world. And what this book particularly did to different people is unbelievable folks. (We cover that on videotape number five, about the influence of evolution on communism, socialism, Marxism, the New World Order. Very politically incorrect. You don't want to watch that video. I recommend that no one buy that one.) All three of these false teachings: Millions of years, uniformitarianism, slow gradual processes, and evolution saturate textbooks today.

Lies in the Textbooks

No Evidence
Natural Selection
Good Observation, Bad Conclusions
(Jump, Frog, Jump!; Fruit Flies; Moth Population)
Trick Questions
Comparative Anatomy
Embryology
(Haekel's Lie; Tie to Abortion; “Choice Above All?”; Abortion Deceptions; “Planned Parenthood”)

For many years I have been collecting public school science textbooks. I have lots of them. My wife says too many. I don't think I have enough yet. I've got hundreds. I've got them from many countries, in many languages, many years, many publishers. I collect public school textbooks. There is a lot of good science in the textbook, folks. Lots of good science. But there is some poison mixed in there. I'm afraid some teachers are trying to use those books or those classrooms to teach evolution instead of teach science. I don't mind if a book is about science. But some of these books are not about science, they are about evolution instead. They've mixed the two together so much, they think they go together. And they are trying to convert people to their belief. Which is normal. Everybody tries to convert people to believe like they believe. We all do that. If you think the Green Bay Packers are the best team, then you try to make other people think that way. Everybody tries to convert people to their belief. But if you are going to lie in order to do it, now there's a problem. I don't mind if the evolutionists want to convert people to their belief. I do mind if they want to use my tax dollars to do it. And I do mind if they are going to lie to do it.

No Evidence

     There are some lies in the textbooks. The textbooks say, “Boys and girls we've got evidence of evolution. We have evidence from fossils.” Not true at all. No evidence what so ever for evolution from the fossils, as we'll see later. But they say, “Boys and girls we have evidence from structure. The design of the bones, we'll talk about that in a minute. Evidence from molecular biology. Evidence from development-Embryology. We will talk about that in a minute. And they say natural selection is what causes all of this.
      Now, just hold on a minute. Evolution is based on two faulty assumptions: number one, they assume mutations make something new and natural selection makes it survive and take over the population. Neither of those has ever been observed. But that's what they base everything on. The textbooks say, “Mutations provide the source of variations.” That is how evolution is supposed to work. A mutation causes something new. Well, mutations do happen, that's not a question. Here's a five legged bull. He has an extra leg growing out of his back. Now, he can't run any faster. Mutations do happen but they are harmful or fatal or neutral. And even if you can get one that you can claim might be good, who is it going to marry? And who are its kids going to marry? It is going to get blended back into the population. The chances of it taking over a population are zero. This is not going to happen. But they believe it did. Mutations happen. Here is a short legged sheep. Notice the textbook says, This “Mutation would not last in nature.” Well, of course not, he is the first one the wolf is going to catch! “Go boys go! Here comes the wolf! Well, Herman didn't make it! Sorry about that.” Here's a two-headed turtle. That's a mutant. Not ninja but mutant. He is going to freeze first winter. Nobody makes a double necked turtle neck sweater. See, mutations are harmful or fatal or neutral.
      A mutation is a scrambling up of information already present. It doesn't add something new. It takes information already there and scrambles it up. It's like taking the letters of the words Christmas. You can scramble them up and get all kinds of different words. But you are never going to get Xerox, zebra or queen from the letters in Christmas. It's not available. And a mutation can only take gene pool information already present; it can't get something new. The bull got an extra leg. He did not get a wing, a feather or a beak. He already had information to make a leg and it made one in the wrong place, that's all. That's not going to make something new. But somehow these evolutionists think mutations can create something new. And that simply does not happen.

Natural Selection

     Then they say natural selection makes the new one survive. This textbook says, “Natural selection causes evolution.” Now, just hold on a minute. Natural selection is kind of like God's quality control.
      How many of you have worked at a factory someplace where they've produced something, and when they got to the end they checked it before they sent it out the door to sell it? Have you ever worked at a place like that? I worked at General Motor's truck and coach in Pontiac, Michigan when I went to Midwestern Baptist College (I graduated back in '74. I worked my way through school working the second shift at General Motors). We built trucks. The medium sized big truck. The dump truck size and school bus size C60 and C70 series. Those things came down the line and we did our thing. Put on the screws, nuts and bolts, fender and hoods and motors and all of that. When it got to the end of the assembly line, they checked it. If they found something wrong, it was rejected. That's normal. Every factory does that. Quality control. Now, quality control might be good and it might be bad, but let us suppose you had some guys that were eagle eyed, I mean they caught every mistake. Nothing got past those quality control guys. How long would it take that process of quality control to change that truck to a helicopter? You say, “Well, it will never change into a helicopter.” Well, that is precisely the point. See, quality control cannot change the product. It just keeps it good. That's all it can do.
      And natural selection cannot change the animal. It just makes it good. Keeps it good. That's all it can do. Christians have nothing against natural selection. We thought of it first. It happens folks. Natural selection can only act on properties that are already present. It cannot create anything new. So don't let them tell you that natural selection is part of evolution. It is not! It is part of Creation. God wants a species to stay strong. And by the way, 'survival of the fittest' is a phrase they often use, but 'survival of the fittest' does not explain arrival of the fittest. It doesn't tell you how it got there does it? And if a whale goes through a school of fish and eats 80% of them, it's not survival of the fittest. It is called survival of the luckiest. Which is really a little more toward reality. What really happens.

Good Observation, Bad Conclusions

See, some people are capable, I've learned, of making good observations. Like the strongest survive. That's a good observation. But they still come to the wrong conclusions. Just because the strongest survive doesn't mean they evolved to get there. It could mean that they were created.

Jump, Frog, Jump!

Example; there were some brilliant scientists one day who wanted to see how far a frog could jump. They put the frog down on the ground and said, “Jump, frog, jump!” The four legged frog jumped 80 inches. They said, “Wow!” They brought him back and cut off one of his legs. And said, “Jump, frog, jump!” The three-legged frog only jumped 70 inches. They brought him back and cut off another leg. “Jump, frog, jump!” The two-legged frog only jumped 60 inches. They brought him back and cut off another leg. “Jump frog jump!” The one-legged frog only jumped 50 inches. They brought him back and cut off his last leg. “Jump, frog, jump!” The frog didn't jump. They expected the frog to jump 40 inches based on their observations. But he actually jumped zero. So they tried it again. “Jump, frog, jump!” Frog didn't jump. After concluding the experiment they came to several conclusions. Number one, the frog jumped less every time the legs were removed. Good observation. Conclusion: a no legged frog goes deaf. No, no, no. It's possible to have good observations and still get a bad conclusion folks.
Did you know the lug nuts from a Chevy would screw onto a Pontiac? That's a good observation. So that proves that a Chevy and a Pontiac both evolved from a Honda 29 million years ago. Bad conclusion. Just because someone has a good observation doesn't mean a thing. He may still have the wrong conclusions.

Fruit Flies

For instance, when I was in school we did the fruit fly experiment. They raised flies in the laboratory. They nuked them, they microwaved them, and they x-rayed them. They got those flies to have mutated babies. They got flies with curled wings. They fly around in circles and couldn't go anywhere. Flies with red eyes, and white eyes and brown eyes. They got flies with no wings at all! What do you call that? A crawl? Can't fly. After raising 80,000 generations of flies, they concluded: “Well, boys and girls, we have some conclusions to reach. All the mutations that we observed made the fly worse off than great, great, great, great grandpa fly.” Good observation. Everything they did to those flies wrecked them. Conclusion: “Flies must have evolved as far as they can go.” No, no, no. (Jump, frog, jump.) You've got the wrong conclusion. It could be that God made the flies right the first time. Why do they have to conclude evolution is done?

Moth Population

     I know in England someone went around and counted the moths on the trees. (Must have been a government project.) They discovered it was 95% light colored moths only 5% black. Then they started burning coal in the factories and the trees turned black and they went around and counted the moths again and found that it was now 95% black moths and only 5% light. They said, “Wow, look at this! Evolution right in front of our eyes! The white moth evolved into a black moth!” No, no, no. See, when the tree turned black the white moth lost his camouflage. They were burning coal in the factories and made the trees turn black and he lost his camouflage. He stuck out like a sore thumb and he got eaten by a bird. And the black moth had more babies that survived. But they said, “Boys and girls we can conclude that the moth population ratio shifted from mostly white to mostly black.” That's true. “The moth population was able to adapt to a new environment. See, boys and girls, this helps prove we all came from a rock.” No, no, no. Actually the peppered moth is proof of design.
      They even had the kids do activities on this one. “Boys and girls get a large piece of black paper one meter square.” (By the way, I like to kick this dog every time I walk by. Did you know all of the new textbooks that I'm aware of are metric? Now, I understand the metric system very thoroughly. I taught physics. I'll take a metric quiz against anyone you know. But I'm not sure I want a kid coming to help build my house that doesn't know what a two by four is. So if you are a patriot, make your paper a 39.37 inches square instead.) “And then get 200 black circles and 200 white circles and cut them out and throw them on the paper. Okay now, boys and girls. We are going to see how many can pick up the most in one minute. Ready, set, go!” Well, of course you are going to pick up the white circles off of the black paper! You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. And then they say, “See, boys and girls, this proves evolution.” No teacher I think this proves that we have extra money to waste in our school district. We just cut up a whole bunch of good paper and threw it on the floor.
      Actually the peppered moth is proof of design. God designed the animals to survive in any environment. If it is dark or light they can still survive. That's called planning ahead. By the way, the variations in the moth, the dark and the light variety, it's still a moth. And it has limits. They never got a pink one, or an orange one or a green one. There are limits to the variations, and it was already programmed into the code of the moth gene pool. That's not evolution.
      And see, providing two colors in the gene pool is pretty smart thinking. Did you know that Ford and General Motors put heaters and air conditioners in some of their cars? I've seen them. I drove one. Wait a minute. Doesn't a heater and an air conditioner do the opposite thing? Oh yeah. Well, isn't that dumb? No, that's called planning ahead. They don't know if it is going to go in a warm climate or a cold climate. So you put them both in there. The peppered moth is an example of God thinking ahead. That's not evolution that's an example of Creation.

Trick Questions

And then they tell the kids, “Boys and girls, we want you to think critically.” Now, look at this sentence.”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?” Well, now, hold on a minute. If I say yes then I'm admitting I did. If I say no then I'm still doing it. I mean that is one of those unanswerable questions. Right? Doesn't the question in the text book here assume that evolution did happen? Do you think they are still evolving? Wait a minute. That's not teaching the kids how to think. That's teaching them what to think. That is brainwashing. If a kid does not believe in evolution at all, how is he supposed to answer that question? He's got a problem doesn't he? That's not thinking critically. That's brainwashing.

Comparative Anatomy

Then they tell the kids, “Boys and girls, we have evidence from structure. Yes, boys and girls, did you know you have two bones in your wrist? The Radius and the Ulna. And do you know, boys and girls, that the whale has two bones in the flipper and they are called the Radius and the Ulna.” Wow. Who named them teacher? The whale? I doubt it. “Yes boys and girls all these animals have similar bone structure.” Here is what the textbook says;”Comparative anatomy provides further evidence of evolution. The commonalities suggest that these animals are all related. They probably evolved from a common ancestor.” Uh, excuse me teacher. There may be two ways to look at that. (How fast was that calf going anyway?) Maybe this proves that they have a common designer. A similar structure might prove that the same guy designed all the animals instead of a common ancestor. But they conclude many animals have similar forelimb structures. That's true. They must have had a common ancestor. False. This helps prove it came from a rock. False. But that's supposed to be evidence for evolution. They've got it in the textbooks.

Embryology

Then they are going to say, “Boys and girls, we've got evidence from development.” What do you mean by that teacher? “Well, you know, when the babies develop inside the mother they go through similar stages. And evolution is broken down into four stages. We went through the fish, amphibian, reptile and mammal. Just memorize the word 'farm'. F.A.R.M. And you got it. Fish, Amphibian, Reptile and Mammal. And, boys and girls, the embryos growing inside the mother go through similar stages.” That's baloney, by the way! They say the human starts out with gill pouches. Gills? You mean like a fish? Gills? Oh, that's exactly what they mean. They are going to say the human has gills. Now, just hold on a second. There are folds of skin in the embryo but those are not gills. They are little folds of skin that later develop into the Mandible, the Masseter muscle, and the Sternocleidomastoid. It has nothing to do with breathing. I've seen fat people with five or six chins. They can't breath though any of them but the top one. Those are not gill pouches, folks.

Haekel's Lie

A guy named Ernst Haeckel made up this whole thing back in 1869. See, Charlie Darwin's book came out in 1859. He said, “We should find evidence for my theory.” Ten years later they had none. So Ernst Haeckel in Germany-who also hated God-Ernst Haeckel said,” I'm going to make some evidence.” He took the drawing of a human and a dog embryo at four weeks development and he changed them and made them look exactly alike. There are the drawings he made. He traveled all over Germany with his fake drawings and just about single-handedly converted Germany to being atheistic. Ernst Haeckel was the evangelist for evolution in Germany in 1869. He took his drawings, right here, made huge posters and he went around holding seminars like I'm holding today. He held seminars on evolution in Germany. He had these drawings that he made right there showing the different animals and how their embryonic stage is nearly identical.
Well, somebody a few years ago decided to check out his drawings and see how accurate they were. On top are Ernst Haeckel's drawings; on the bottom are actual photographs. He blew it. He lied, actually. And it was proven that he lied. He was taken to court at his own university, the University of Jena. And he was convicted of fraud in 1874. One hundred and twenty-five years ago Ernst Haeckel confessed to lying about this embryology thing. He lied. And he confessed it. But guess what. That concept is still in textbooks today. Holt Biology 94 edition shows the human embryo with gill pouches. Proven wrong 125 years ago. Glencoe Biology showing the human embryo with gill pouches. Simply a lie. College textbooks still have it. Proven wrong in 1874. This textbooks shows a five to six week embryo but look what it says: “By seven months the fetus looks from the outside like a tiny normal baby but it is not.” It is not a baby at seven months? Well, what is it? Kids are born at less than that and still survive. Aren't they? Let's see, the angel of the Lord said, “Behold, thou art with fetus.” No, “Thou art with child.” See, it's a child the instant it is conceived. But why do they keep this lie in the textbooks anyway?

Tie to Abortion

Well, it is the only way to justify abortion. See, they want people to believe in abortion and what evidence do they have that it is not a human? It is obvious it's a human! But they want you to think that it is not a human yet. You might have heard of Ana Rosa. She had her arm chopped off in a botched abortion. She was born anyway, missing an arm. As far as I know, she's still alive today. Ask any abortionist: you say, “You think that's bad what happened to Ana Rosa?” They will say, “Oh, that's terrible!” And then ask them, “Well, what if they would have cut her head off instead?” Would have been fine then, wouldn't it? According to their thinking. By the way, it is happening right now as we speak. 4,500 abortions taking place today. It's murder folks! Just plain murder! The Bible says,”Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay and innocent person.” These doctors get paid under the table, tax-free $150-$250 bucks every time they do an abortion. No accounting process. The Bible says there is a curse on them.

“Choice Above All?”

     Now, I live in Pensacola, Florida. You might have heard of my town. We have had two abortion clinics-two or three-blown up or burned down, and two doctors shot and killed. I didn't shoot any doctors and I didn't blow any clinics up. And I don't think Jesus would do it that way either, by the way, but-. Jesus grew up under Roman control. He didn't go around blowing up tanks and burning down bridges. But the doctors were murderers, plain and simple. I was preaching in Ft. Lauderdale the day the first doctor got shot. And the next day I was flying home to Pensacola. And there on the airplane right in front of me were two of the ladies-I'm sorry-two of the women from NOW (National Organization of Wild Women). They were going to come up to Pensacola and hold a big rally and march around town holding their signs “PRO CHOICE!” “PRO CHOICE!”
      Have you noticed the news media and the textbooks call them “Pro Choice” and they call us the “Anti Abortion.” There is a reason they do that. See, nobody wants to be an “Anti.” It's a little negative jab they get in there. “Oh, you're a antiabortionist.” Well, how about they call us “Pro Life” and them “Pro Death.” That would be fair wouldn't it?
      Anyway, as we are getting off the plane walking down the gangway, I notice these two ladies, I'm sorry; women had on their shirts 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, “We believe a woman ought to have the right to choose.” I said,”Choose what?” She said,”choose if she wants to have an abortion. It's her body you know!” “Well, yes ma'am if she wants to abort her body I suppose that is fine. Looks to me like she wants to abort somebody else's body!”
      I said, “Ma'am, I'm kind of curious about this. I've got three kids. I delivered one of my kids at home. I taught biology and anatomy. I used to raise hamsters. I'm kind of familiar with how this works.” I said, “Tell me, why does the woman's right to choose stop at birth? I mean, if that is really what you are worried about (the right to choose), let's let the mother choose to kill the baby after it's born. It would be a lot safer and simpler. I've got a brilliant idea! Let's extend abortion rights up until the kid is two years old.” I know a lot of mothers with a two year old that have thought about it a time or two. (I won't make you raise your hand, but I know you are out there!) Hey, I've got a brilliant idea, let's extend abortion rights up until the kid is 18. I bet they'd behave a lot better! “Look son, one more time and I'm going to abort you.” “Teacher, where's Johnny today?” “Well, Johnny didn't do his homework last night so his mommy aborted him.” Hey, grades would sky rocket wouldn't they?
      Well, the ladies-I mean the women did not want to talk about it anymore. So they went down and got their luggage and I got my luggage and I'm waiting for a taxicab to take me home, you know. And I got talking to a cameraman. He showed up from Chicago, I believe, to film this rally. And I thought, “Wait a minute. Six people are going to march around town and it's going to make worldwide news? You could have a hundred thousand people line your street against abortion and it wouldn't make the news!”
      Have you noticed that? That's why I don't take the paper. We get a call once a month around our house. “Mr. Hovind, would you like to take the paper?” I say, “No, I don't have a parakeet.” Lady called about a month ago, “Mr. Hovind, would you like to take the Pensacola News Journal?” I said, “No, ma'am, we don't have a parakeet.” She said, “What?” I said, “We don't have a parakeet. I don't need the paper.” She said, “I don't understand.” I said, “Well, look ma'am, when we had the parakeet we needed the paper but now we don't have the parakeet so we don't need the paper.” She said, “Sir, what are you talking about?” I said, “Ma'am, I know you are just on the phone trying to sell me a paper, you don't work for them. But I don't want to take that liberal rag. I don't want my money to support that propaganda. Sorry about that.” The only thing I could think that it is good for is wrapping mullet or under the parakeet's cage.
      Anyway, the cameraman and I were talking and I said, “You know, I live right here in Pensacola, and I think there are two things wrong with what happened to this doctor.” He said, “Oh, yeah? What's wrong with this?” I said, “Well, there should have been a trial first. Nobody should be shot without a fair trial.” I said, “Secondly, the state of Florida should have shot him, Griffith shouldn't have shot him.” If you don't understand my position on abortion, see me later. I'll try to clarify it for you.

Abortion Deceptions

     But you know the logic they use to try to justify abortion is absolutely crazy. They are going to say, “It is not a human.” Well, I'm sorry. That was proven wrong in 1874. You need to get up to date on your science. It is human the instant it is conceived.
      They are going to say, “Well, it is not viable. It can't live on its own.” Well, neither are you viable stark naked on the North Pole. I mean, is the baby viable after it is born? Lay it on the sidewalk for a couple of months and let's see how it does. Now, think about that logic. Just because it can't live on its own, we have the right to kill it. I know kids that are 25 that still go borrow money from dad.”Hey, uh, dad, can I borrow some money?” [Gun shot noise] “You ought to be able to live on your own by now, son.” Justifiable homicide.
      How about this: the child might be unwanted. There are a lot of kids that are unwanted. That doesn't mean we should kill them. My parents moved four times when I was growing up, but I found them every time. How about this: the child may be a financial burden. Well, show me a kid that is not! Every kid is a financial burden. Come on.
      They're going to say, “Well, it may be from rape or incest.” Well, then you kill the rapist, not the baby. Execute the rapist and adopt out the baby. See, in case you don't know how it works, there are three people involved here: the mother, the father and the baby. If we have to murder one of them, why is it always the baby? Why don't we abort the mother once in awhile? I've got a brilliant idea. Pass a law in your state that says, “If a woman goes in for an abortion, the doctor will have a bag with four marbles in it. One marble is labeled “Baby.” One marble is labeled “Mother.” One is labeled “Father.” And one is labeled”doctor.” You reach in the bag and pick out and decide who dies. Give it a lottery. Give the baby a sporting chance. Don't you think that would be reasonable? I bet that would stop abortions in a hurry wouldn't it?
      They say, “Well, what if a woman is raped?” Okay now, think about that. Suppose a woman is raped and gets pregnant and has the baby. Five years later, she's holding her five-year-old and it reminds her of the horrible experience. So she kills the five-year-old. Is it murder? Obviously! Of course it is murder. Now, what is the difference if she kills it afterward? It is still bothering her. It's still the same folks. There is no difference. It's still murder.
      They are going to say, “Well, abortion is legal!” Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right. Did you know that in 1936 the German Supreme Court declared that Jews were not persons? If you are Jewish and you live in Germany you are not a person. So when Hitler's guards killed the Jews it was perfectly legal. They had no rights what so ever. They slaughtered them by the millions, folks. It was murder. I have been there before. I've stood next to the ovens. Watched the place where thousands and thousands of them died and were cooked to ashes. They've got a giant mountain there where the people are buried. I was there a few weeks ago in Nürnburg in the courtroom where they had the trial. The Germans stood up and said, “We were just following orders and it was perfectly legal.” Did their logic hold up at the trials? No. And you abortionists, your logic is not going to hold up at God's trial either. It is murder plain and simple. You know, during the Revolutionary War 25,000 Americans died. During World War to 400,000 Americans died. So far in the war on the unborn we have had 38,000,000 babies murdered by abortion. And we pray “Oh God bless America.” God says, “Forget it. I'm fixing to judge you folks.” We deserve God's judgement.

“Planned Parenthood”

In 1916 this lady-this woman I mean, Margaret Sanger founded a group called Planned Parenthood. Now, Margaret Sanger was a racist. She hated Blacks, Hispanics, Jews anyone who wasn't Aryan. They wanted to eliminate those inferior races and let the white race thrive and survive. But clear up until 1952 when planned parenthood published this document about how to plan your children, (you know, birth control stuff-they answered questions in this document. What is birth control? Is it an abortion?), back in 1952 they said, “Oh definitely not. An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health and it may make you sterile.” Boy, they have changed their tune haven't they? Now 300 million tax dollars a year goes to support planned parenthood, killing babies all over America. There is probably a clinic in this town. Funded by your tax dollars.

Why Satan Loves Evolution

I think Satan is using this evolution theory because he hates humanity. You see, Satan lied to Eve in the garden of Eden and said, “You can be like God.” And he's been using that lie to get some people to think that they have evolved farther than other people and it is really better if they eliminate these inferiors.
See, Satan's ultimate plan here is to get humanity to destroy each other. He hates humanity. And this evolution theory is a lie. He's been using this theory for 6,000 years to get humans to fight against each other. Through 'racial ethnic cleansing'-through genocide. World War I and World War II were direct results of the philosophy of evolution. The reason we have communism in the world. How many folks have died because of communism? It is directly because of evolution thinking. See, communism and Christianity are polar opposites. They can't go together folks. I've got a lot more on that on videotape number five about how evolution ties in. Satan is using this evolution theory to destroy humanity. Here we are killing the babies; next it will be infanticide (killing them if they are deformed, after they are born), genocide, the elderly (euthanasia-Jack Kevorkian (Jack the dipper) up in Michigan killing the people if they are old and out of service for humanity or whatever his thinking is).

In the next session, we are going to show you some more lies in the textbooks and tell you what you can do about it. Some practical steps. Don't miss that one, coming up next. Thank you so much.

Continued on Part 4b


	Creation Science Evangelism c/o 29 Cummings Rd. Pensacola, Florida [32503] (850)479-3466 Kent Hovind OFFICIAL