Hovind: Lies in the Textbook

In recent topics such as this Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution
certain newer members have been citing Kent Hovind's seminar series repeatedly. While not denying their source none of the two in question have cited their source either (could one be the man himself?). Suggestions have been made to open up a new Hovind thread. I became impatient and decided that I would try. Since the question that keeps being knocked around is the honesty of Hovind (defended by the poster in question) I thought a focused topic specifically on Hovind's seminar "Lies in the Texbooks" would be appropriate. Transcripts of the seminar can be found here: Telenor | Sidan hittades inte | 404My goal for this topic is to have us choose a particular point to support or not, particularly those statements which are demonstrably lies as opposed to those that are simply ignorant (although with Kent Hovind there seems to be little distinction, when someone is shown something they said is incorrect yet they keep on using it, that then becomes a lie).I want to start with this one, although it has nothing to do with textbooks. However, it is a theme Hovind likes to tie to every point he makes against evolution, that it is tied to every evil institution created by man. He says concerning abortion and Palnned parenthood, "Margaret Sanger was a racist. She hated Blacks, Hispanics, Jews anyone who wasn’t Aryan." A thorough search online found this viewpoint to exist only amoung certain groups of evangelicals. I am assuming the source for this comes from the following quote, "Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race" which was concocted in the 1980's and never said by Sanger. Sanger helped Jews and other minorities to escape from Hitler's Germany. She worked closely with Eugene DuBoise on poverty issues with inner city African Americans. A quick Google search turned up tons of information on this remarkeble woman and her life. So, I will put forth the question, Why is Hovind lying to his audience here? Could it be that his scattered facts alone may confuse and disorient the audience unless he repeatedly ties any point to communism, naziism, and the like?I want this topic to be about specific points. Not a generalized Hovind bash or support. My hope is that if point by point it can be shown that he is dishonest or at least incorrect that his supporters will look to more reputable creationists (I may disagree with all YEC's but some of them I believe are trying to find the truth as opposed to Hovind and his ilk that are snake-oil salesmen). I think this topic would fit into the Education and Creation/Evolution forum.A great source of information on Margaret Sanger can be found on the site http://www.ppct.org/facts/research/sanger.shtml. This is the source of my information as presented above.

I wanted to insure Hovind fans out there that I don't think he a complete liar, he can be completely honest when describing himself.

Just look at my avatar... Those are living trillobites! At least that is what Kent shows in his video series (same species). Actually those are specimens of the deep-sea isopod Bathynomus giganteus. I was in the process of cataloging the specimens prior to preservation and staged the photo as recently there were rumors of cockroaches in the biolab. Seemed funny at the time.

Glad you found my photo funny, the crew didn't. The largest of those (in the picture actually) was 36 cm long! We actually had to wrap them in plastic bags and sneak them into the galley freezer as the head cook was adamant that those things wouldn't go near his kitchen (we were storing frozen specimens in the kitchen deep freeze). This was on a boat commissioned for scientific research that normally just did deep sea oil-pipeline work.I have seen the website before. Thank you it is relevant to bring to the attention of our current crop of Hovinists. Although I hope they respond here, it is more fun.

brennakimi writes: Actually that size is not outside of the trillobite range. What is ridiculous is that these are isopod crustaceans not trillobitomorphs. They are phylogenetically as far (at least) as is a human being and a sea squirt (Tunicate, Urochordate).Back to Hovind: I LOVE this. What he is referring to is a discovery of a species of hemichordate that are structurally similar to graptolites (Cephalodiscus graptolitoides) and believed by the discoverer to be distantly related. Noel Dilly believes that characters of this new species are similar enough to graptolites to group graptolites and hemichordates together as sister taxa. Nowhere is it claimed that these are graptolites. I doubt Hovind ever read the paper, probably just copied the story from other YEC sources. If he did read the paper (and understood it) then this is another lie. Maybe if you read the papers you like to cite rather than high school textbooks you would learn something. Maybe if you studied science you would come up with a good argument. Nope, on the video he shows Bathynomus giganteus. These are isopods and come from the western Atlantic. He got it wrong, the song goes
"I'm not crazy (Institutionalized!}
You're the one that's crazy (Institutionalized!)"
Sheesh, doesn't even know his classic era punk.

It is Ferengi rule of acquisition #223 "Beware the man who doesn't make time for oo-mox"
or maybe #40 "She can touch your lobes but never your latinum"

Buzsaw,
I concede on this point. I agree that a pop-sci web source agrees with this view. While I still hold to my original point that this does not show that graptolites are still alive, I acknowledge that Hovind was only stating what the press said. He is not a liar on this one as far as I can see. He just didn’t read the primary source.

Buz,
I was not dogpiling on Hovind, I was agreeing that he might not have been at fault. I found pop-sci sources that called Dilly's finds true graptolites so Hovind was correct if he was reporting what those said. I made a false assumption that this was another case of repeating flawed information. I completely and totally repeal my accusation that this was another example of Hovind lying. These could be graptolites in the strict sense. The original author believed them to be at first, then took a more conservative view. As for your accusation: The answer is no:
Dilly, P.N. 1993. Cephalodiscus graptolitoides sp.nov. a
probable extant graptolite. Journal of Zoology. London. 229,
69-78.
Dilly, P.N. 1993. When is a graptolite not a graptolite? -
Lethaia 27:34.
Maletz, J. & Erdtmannn, B.-D. - Lebende Graptolithen?
- Leider nicht!. Palantologie Aktuell 32: 50-51.
Urbanek, A. 1994. Living non-graptolite. - Lethaia 27:18.
Urbanek, A. 1994. When is a pterobranch a graptolite ?
- Lethaia 27:324.

I am conceding that Hovind's claim that graptolites still exist may have some validity. Even if incorrect, there are non-creo sources that back the claim. On trilobites he is completely wrong. The difference between trilobites and isopods is not, as he claims, that trilobites have a three-lobed body while isopods have one (apparently a mutation could account for this difference!). The difference is that trilobites have one pair of pre-oral appendages while isopods have two. Not a big difference until you consider that the hardwiring of these appendages are so distinct as to suggest completely independant evolutionary histories. The brain of a trilobite has two sections while the brain of an isopod (and all other crustaceans) has three. In this respect trilobites are more similar to insects (not necessarily closer related though).

I understand what he is saying here. But the lie is that he was somehow a part of that. He did or his school (Patriot University?) did fruit fly mutation experiments? Maybe undergraduate? If so he did not work on these projects nor did, undoubtedly, the university he attended. To claim so is a LIE plain and simple. He is mixing the common intro to biology experiment (crossing purchased mutants with others to demonstrate Mendallian genetics) with the radiation-induced mutation experiments. To make a point about the lack of positive mutations in fruit flies (false, BTW) he claims personal observation where there was none. Liar liar pants on fire!

Here Hovind says: Apparently Hovind (I seriously wish there was a derogatory term to refer to him, Kent doesn't lend itself to such things as he likes to refer to Charles Darwin as 'Charlie' or 'Chuck') does not understand the concept of homology or vestigial organs. The pelvis of all mammals supports muscles needed for reproduction. That same pelvis supports muscles for hind limb motion in species that have hind limbs. If hind limbs are lost it would make perfect sense that the pelvis would remain a minimal function to support muscles for reproduction. He ignores the fact that modern whales have been found with small hind limbs on their sides. Did God create them with that genetic trait?He is lying here because he pretenses to understand what vestigial means. It does not mean useless, it means reduced in size and/or not not being used for its original function. He is deliberately confusing terms, something he repeatedly accuses evolutionists of doing. A whale's pelvis is vestigial because it it is no longer attached to the spine, much smaller that it should be (given the size of the mammal), consists only of a portion of the illia, and ONLY SOMETIMES SUPPORTS BACK LEGS. That the penile retractor muscles are attached to it does not mean anything as to it's vestigial nature. BTW cetaceans have a near-prehensile penis, a trait only found in the artiodactylians which evolutionists claim are the closest group to whales. This is based on evidence from morphology, paleontology, and genetics.

I googled the text from Buddaka's quote and found this:
http://www.grahamkendall.net/...rted_files-2/A327-Hovind.txt
But I don't know the origin of the text, it would appear someone cut and pasted from somewhere (sounds like Hovind's writing but no evidence of authenticity, however the quote is there word for word)