Refuting Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind is a supposed creation scientist and former science teacher. He believes that the FACT of evolution should not be taught in schools!

• He tries to lump together the Big Bang, stars, origin of life, and natural selection into one big category. Only one - the last - is Darwin's theory.
• He says the Big Bang theory says that the Big Bang made hydrogen. Hydrogen actually formed early in the life of the universe.
• "We've never seen stars form," he says, although theories on that do exist- such as nebulae
• He says the theory of evolution required life to form at one point in time from nonliving matter. That has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. Even so, there is experimental evidence of organic chemicals forming on a young earth.
• "Nobody's ever seen a dog produce a non-dog, but the evolutionists believes a dog came from a rock." That's not how it happened. Its more of a theory of single-celled organisms coming from natural processes(in a primitive earth, organic chemicals formed naturally, then, on clay, became amino acids, and then through a series of unknown steps, amino acids became proteins, became DNA, and then became life), then, step-by-step, changing due to additional chance of reproduction.
• Note on many of these: Observed microevolution can be extrapolated into macroevolution, because of the principle of uniformitarianism. Evolution does not require a gorilla to conceive a human.
• He says on the Big Bang: "What exploded?" NOTHING. THE BIG BANG WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION. The reason for it is unknown, but it would be fallacious to invoke God here. There are some physicists who try to explain it's cause - such as with virtual particles. The evidence - there is evidence - for it is based on Hubble's discovery of an expanding universe
• He asks for intermediate fossils between birds and woodpeckers. Assuming that it had to be fossilized...
• One of his arguments involves irreducible complexity. Evolution can add as well as subtract - there doesn't have to be an "evolved first".
• He says evolution is a religion. Sure, like not teaching science is a job. Evolution is supported by science - designed to be the simplest scientifically accurate worldview.
• He says "Why did they evolve to reproduce more if it caused competition for the food supply?" This is a complete misunderstanding. Evolution is not what the animals WANT to be, it's what they MUST be for increased reproduction.
• "The birds and bananas have a common ancestor?" Yes, that ancestor was the first single-celled eukaryote. Just because you can't imagine a birdnana, doesn't mean they don't have a common ancestor. The ancestor of ducks and crockodiles wasn't a crockoduck - it was a feathered dinosaur.
• He argues that the fossil record does not prove the mechanics of evolution - HOWEVER, the fossil record is far more likely(seeing its interrelations) in an evolutionary worldview.
• Like Comfort, he asks where the transitional fossils are. The answer: there are a LOT of transitional fossils from amphibians to birds, from beasts to whales, and from apes to men.