“Dr. Hovinds Creation Seminars” banner

Creation index

Dr. dino
Seminar 4    Lies in the Textbooks, part c
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”]

“A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.”
    Proverbs 19:9  

Seminar 4: Lies in the Textbooks  
(part c)

Go to “Lies in the Textbooks” index page

Go back Think critically: It's ok to inquire HOW it evolved. It is nót ok to inquire IF it evolved (3)

In the last two sessions, we've covered 15 lies found in the typical textbook. I taught high school science for 15 years. And I'm not against science. I'm not against schools. I'm not against teachers, but I'm against lies. Just don't lie to the kids, ok. The Bible says in the book of Proverbs (19:27): “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth thee to err from the words of knowledge.” Don't listen to things that are simply not true, ok. Get the lies out of the books. The Bible says (Rev. 4:11): “God created all things...,” and it says: “Heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool... Hath not my hand made all these things?” (Acts 7:49-50) God made everything. And the Bible says: “God formed the entire world.” The Bible says: “God created great whales and every living thing.” (Gen. 1:21) Now, the textbooks in school are gonna teach your kids that every living thing happened by itself. They're not gonna teach ’em God created every living thing, that's for sure. Here's a textbook that says: “The history of life on earth began about 3½ billion years ago. How this occurred has been and will continue to be a topic for inquiry.” Let me give you the Hovind translation of what they just said. What they just said is: “It's ok to inquire how it evolved. It is not ok to inquire if it evolved. Hey, kids, you're allowed to research into how did evolution happen.” And if some kid says: “Well, maybe it didn't happen at all.” - “Oh, shut up kid, you're out of my class!,” ok. The only way you can research it is how did it happen. You cannot even ask the question: “Did it happen?” That's not education. That's indoctrination, ok. I'm sick and tired of paying for that stuff.

Back to Main Index
Producing life in the laboratory?

Go back Is spontaneous generation of life possible?

Now, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell,” Paul Davies said. Nobody has a clue how life got started from non-living material by itself. There is not even a good theory how it can happen. But the textbooks are gonna teach your kids: “It just happened!,” ok. They just tell ’em: “Hey, it happened.” And you can't even consider the option that maybe God made it.

Go back The experiment

Here's what happened. Back in the 1950s, two guys, Miller and Urey, decided to figure out how life evolved. So they took a mixture of chemicals and ran them through these tubes and tried to create life in the laboratory. The experiment has been duplicated many, many times, always been a failure. And it always created more problems for the evolutionist. This textbook says: “Although he never proved how life originated, he did add evidence to the theory that life could have started by itself.” That is a lie. All they did was create problems for the idea that life could have started by itself. This one says: “Swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals. Progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow.” Boy, it sure is. It don't even happen. That's how slow it is.

There are several different articles that say life came from clay. Yep, got some clay together, and poof..., it came alive on the bottom of the ocean. They did not address the origin of life in Darwin's book. And it's never been figured out since how life could have started. What Miller and Urey did was they took these 4 chemicals and put them in these glass tubes. Made them circulate around and tried to create life in the laboratory. This textbook says: “Many important events occurred during the Archean era. The most important of which was the evolution of life. Progress from complex molecules to the simplest living organism was a very long process.” I guess so! If you give it billions of years, somehow it looks more reasonable, you know? This one says: “The first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago. There is no record of the event.” But you'd better believe it, and you're gonna be tested on it. “The first self-replicating systems must have emerged in this organic soup.” So great-great-great-great-grandpa was soup. This is one of the lies in the textbooks you kids have to face.

Nobody has a clue how life could have gotten started by non-living chemicals. Even Haeckel confessed; he's the guy we talked about in the last session that made up the idea that the embryo has gill slits, you know, so that they can justify abortion. Haeckel said, he claimed that spontaneous generation must be true. Not because it had been proven in the laboratory, but because otherwise “it would be necessary to believe in a creator.” Well, Ernst, I'm sorry, but that's just the way it goes, ok. There's a Creator, whether you like it or not, ok.

Go back An engineered environment; The problem with the oxygen

So have they really produced life in the laboratory? Oh, they haven't even come close. Here's what they did. They took 4 gases, they took methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen, ran them through these tubes, ran it through a spark chamber which is supposed to simulate lightning; pooghh...! And they say: “See, we're gonna put them together and make life in the laboratory.” At the bottom of the flask, they got this red goo, and they kept draining the goo off. Because if it went through the spark again, it would destroy it. So they had to make the goo, and then save it from the next spark, ok. They said in the textbook here: “It was rich in amino acids,” this red goo was. Well, that's simply a lie, ok. They didn't come close to making life. The problem is, they had a reducing atmosphere. In other words, he excluded oxygen. You can look at his 4 gases. There's no oxygen there. He knew if he had oxygen in there, it would oxidize whatever chemicals tried to combine. You know, you cut a banana open, and lay it on the table, it turns brown. It oxidizes. You don't paint your car, and it oxidizes, it rusts. Well, living cells will oxidize quickly in the presence of oxygen, so he didn't put any oxygen in there. That creates a serious problem. Because if you have oxygen, you cannot get life to come from non-living chemicals.

  1. The problem is, ozone is made from oxygen, and ozone blocks UV light, and UV light destroys ammonia. And ammonia is one of the 4 gases he's got. So you cannot get life to evolve with oxygen, and you cannot get life to evolve without oxygen. Because if you don't have oxygen, you don't have ozone and now your ammonia gets destroyed. It's just not gonna work, either way. And the earth has always had oxygen, even more than today.

This guy said: “What evidence is there for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is there is no evidence for it but much against it.” “We find in general no evidence in the sedimentary distribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, etc., of an oxygen-free atmosphere ever existing on the earth.” If somebody tells you the early earth had a ‘reducing atmosphere’, you tell them Kent Hovind said they're confused or they're deliberately lying, because it's not true. The earth has always had oxygen. This article says: “It's suggested from the earliest dated rocks that 3.7 billion years ago, earth had an oxygenic atmosphere.” They have always known the earth had oxygen, even more than we have today. We cover that in seminar part 2 how the early earth probably had even more oxygen. It made them live longer. This textbook says: “There was no oxygen on the Earth.” That is a lie. And then it says: “The rocks absorbed it.” Hello...? How can they absorb it if it wasn't there? Well, think about it.

  1. Second problem they had with the Miller experiment, they filtered out the product. That is not realistic for nature, ok. They saved the red goo from getting sparked the second time, because that would have destroyed it.
  2. What they actually made in this experiment was 85% tar and 13% carboxylic acid [and 2% amino acids]. Now, both of those are poisonous to life. If you make a mixture that's 98% poisonous to the other 2%, I don't think it's logical to say you've succeeded in creating anything that's gonna help make life, ok. The problems are, he made mostly only 2 amino acids. There are 20 different ones required to make life; 20 different amino acids.

Go back Amino acid scrabble

  1. Now, these amino acids are kind of like letters of the alphabet, ok. You have to have 26 letters in the English alphabet to make all the words that we have. Well, you have to have 20 different amino acids to make all the proteins that your body has. With those 20 different amino acids, your body can build a bazillion kinds of proteins. Kind of like you can make a lot of different words with the same 26 letters, ok. What he actually made was a couple of letters like 2 of the letters of the alphabet by combining these gases.
  2. This creates a real problem since half of them were left-handed and half of them were right-handed. What he actually made was amino acids, only 2 of them, and half of them were backwards. I mean, if I drop letters of the alphabet, there's a 50/50 chance some of them are gonna land upside down. They don't do any good. You have to have them all facing the right way. The smallest proteins we know of have about 70-100 amino acids; all of them facing the right way. This greatly compounds the problem, ok? DNA and RNA are all right-handed. All other proteins are left-handed. “This is a very puzzling fact that all proteins that have been investigated from animals, plants, and higher organisms and from simple organisms, bacteria, molds, and even viruses are made of left-handed amino acids.” They're all that way. So he's really got a problem since half of his letters were backwards.
  3. And there are hundreds of amino acids required to combine in just the right way to make a protein. And they unbond in water faster than they bond, and they claim this all happened in the oceans? Well, the oceans are completely full of water all the way to the bottom.
  4. And Brownian motion is going to drive them apart. It's not going to put them together.

One of the lies in the textbooks is that they made life in the laboratory. All they've done, every experiment, has made the problem worse for the evolutionist, ok. Spontaneous generations “do not occur spontaneously in water.” Life is not gonna get started in that way. There is a whole lot more in the book Icons of Evolution if you want a lot more on the subject to go down deep. But they got this weird idea in their head that all they have to do is get all the right chemicals together and add energy, pfoo... and it will make life.

Go back Frog-nog or frog soup

Ok, well, let's do an experiment. Let's put a frog in a blender and turn it on. In a matter of moments, you will have frog-nog. And you will have all of the chemicals required to make a frog in one blender, right? Now, we're gonna add energy. You can turn it on puree for 30 minutes. You can nuke it, microwave it, zap it with jumper cables. I don't care what you do, drop a hand grenade in there, add all the energy you want, ok. How long will it take to reassemble the frog? It will never happen.

See, just getting the chemicals together isn't the problem. You go to the mortuary. You've got a dead body laying there, you've got all the chemicals required for life right there in one spot. Bring it back to life. Life is something different. I don't think science has ever defined that clearly.

Back to Main Index
The evolutionary tree of life

But they talk about how we all came from this early life form. Once this first life form got started, the single cell, then it evolved into everything else. Like this textbook shows the kid that a bacteria slowly evolved to a human. These trees of life are absolute propaganda. There is no evidence for any of these, ok. Even Mary Leakey said: “Those trees of life with the branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense,” ok. Stephen Gould said: “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are ...not the evidence of fossils.” That's for sure. There is no evidence that any animal is related to any other kind of animal.

But this textbook says: “All the many forms of life on earth today are descended from a common ancestor found in a population of primitive unicellular organisms.” There's no such thing as a primitive unicellular organism. If it's alive, it's complicated. We'll cover more on that in a minute. And then it says: “No traces of those events remain.” What they do is they tell the kids: “Ok kids, the mammals, the birds, and the crocodiles have a common ancestor.” They draw these trees in the books, and they look so pretty. And the kid goes: “Wow, they've got proof. I saw it in my book.” No, they've got a picture in your book, ok. Everything inside that circle is pure religious speculation. They think it happened, they hope it happened, but there is zero evidence for anything inside that circle. It's one of the lies you're gonna have to face in your textbook. The Bible says, if you “offend one of these little ones, you'd be better off with a millstone about your neck” and go swimming. (Matt. 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2) These folks teaching evolution are in serious trouble when they stand before God.

Back to Main Index ‘Smaller’ means ‘simpler’?

Go back The paramecium

Then they tell ’em we come from a simple primitive unicellular organism. Look, just because it's smaller, doesn't mean it's simpler. A paramecium is more complicated than a space shuttle. And you can put thousands of those into one drop of water. Smaller is not simpler. That's one of the lies in the textbooks. I'll show you. Here's a microchip inside a paper clip. Pretty small. Not simple. This microchip is being held in the mouth of an ant. And that little microchip can process every letter of the Bible 200 times per second. Smaller is not simpler. I'll show you.

Go back The honeybee vs NASA's Cray computer

Let's compare the brain of a honeybee to NASA's Cray computer, at one time the world's fastest computer. I think they've got a faster one now. The brain of a honeybee is pretty small, the Cray computer is huge. We would all agree there's a size difference, right, ok? Now, the Cray computer can do 6 billion calculations per second. It was estimated that the honeybee's brain is doing about a trillion calculations per second. That is a thousand billion. So that little honeybee brain is about 133 times faster than a Cray computer. The Cray uses many megawatts. It's power-hungry. The honeybee uses 10 microwatts. Did you know honeybees not only make honey, they fly on honey? That's their energy source. And a honeybee can fly a million miles on one gallon of honey. How would you like a machine that gets a million miles per gallon? Especially at today's price of gas, right? Fill up once, and you're done for the rest of your life. The Cray cost 48 million dollars. The honeybee's brain is pretty cheap. You splat them on your windshield all the time, right? Many people scramble when the Cray breaks down. Nobody heals the honeybee, a self-healing computer. Steve, you work on computers, how'd you like one of them? Something crashes, tjuuu..., reconfigures itself, fixes it all up, no problem. The Cray will weigh 2,300 pounds. The honeybees brain doesn't weigh too much. So what should we conclude? Let's see, the supercomputer is huge. It is slow. It is very inefficient. It is power-hungry, and it had to be designed. We all know that, right? But yet, they turn around and look at the honeybee and say: “Well, that happened by chance.” Huh...

Go back The human brain

And the brain of a human is a whole lot more complex than a honeybee, for heaven's sake. Your brain can hold more information than the entire British library. The human brain is phenomenal! You have more computational power in bits per second than the entire national telephone system. One brain surgeon estimated that there are more connections in just one person's brain than the entire electrical system of the United States. How many wires have been connected together in the United States, would you guess? With every computer and inside every machine and inside every building, like zillions of them? One brain has more than that. One professor told me that he believed in evolution, and I said: “Well, sir, do you believe your brain is nothing but 3 pounds of chemicals that got together by chance?” He said: “Yeah.” I said: “Then how can you trust your thoughts and the conclusions you come to? Maybe you got a chemical in there backwards?” He did, by the way, several actually, but...

Back to Main Index The complexity of DNA

Then they tell the kids: “Well, DNA is pretty tiny, but that proves evolution.” That's what this textbook says. “We have evidence of evolution from molecular biology.” “Darwin speculated all forms of life are related... This speculation has been verified.” They are lying to your kids. Nothing about DNA has helped with the evolution theory at all. DNA, which stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, is the most complex molecule in the universe, unbelievably complicated molecule. That little DNA molecule; the average person has 50 trillion cells in their body with 46 of those little molecules in each cell. 46 chromosome strands in each cell of your body. If you extracted all of it, it would only fill about 2 tablespoons. But if you took those DNA strands and unwound them, stretched them out, tie them together, one person's DNA would reach from earth to the moon and back over a half-million times, round trips to the moon. They say the DNA holds more information than all computer programs ever written by man combined. “IBM models the newest computers after DNA. The quantity of information is so vast, we have to invent new numbers to measure it. Not terabytes, but petabytes, or exabytes, yottabytes, and zettabytes. All the words uttered by everyone whoever lived would amount to 5 exabytes.” And your DNA in your chromosomes holds more information than that? It is so unbelievably complex. If you typed out the code found in your DNA, when you got done typing, you'd have enough books to fill Grand Canyon 78 times. That's the instructions to make you. I'd say you're pretty special. Quite a list of instructions to make you! David said: “I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Ps. 139:14) And he didn't have a microscope, and he could figure that out, um-hmm, ya. You know, from conception to birth, the baby adds 15,000 cells per minute to its body. Each one is more complicated than a space-shuttle. How would you like to be in charge of the supply end of supplying a factory that is producing 15,000 space shuttles a minute? And it's your job to make sure they have all the nuts and bolts and screws and everything they need to put that thing together? Some of you women are saying: “Boy, I did it.” That's hard too. Sometimes they want pickles in the middle of the night, you know? “What are you building down there anyway, huh?”

The probability of one DNA happening by chance has been calculated to be 1 in 10. That's a big number when you figure the entire visible universe is about 10 inches in diameter. DNA has not proven anything that would help the evolution theory. It's been, made the problem much, much, much worse.


Go back Chromosomes?

But, let's just assume that the chromosome number means something and that, you know, it could evolve. Ok, well then I did some research on this. I discovered penicillin has 2 chromosomes. That one had to evolve first. And then slowly over millions of years, they got some more chromosomes because they're complicated, you know, and turned into a fruit fly. You can see the similarity there. It's only got 8 chromosomes. And then very slowly, it evolved some more chromosomes and became either a tomato or a house fly. It is very tough to tell the difference. They're identical twins, you know? And then very slowly over millions of years, it evolved into either a pea or a bee. You can see the similarity there. You know, pea, bee, very similar. It slowly became lettuce and then a carrot, and finally, when we got to 22 chromosomes, triplets. The possum, the redwood tree, and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes. Average scientist cannot tell them apart. Let's see, which one is which here. Ok, let's see, tree, possum, bean, huh...

And we have 46 now, folks, and if we can just get 2 more, the next step of human evolution, we're gonna become a tobacco plant. I know some already smell like it. Sometimes I'll get on the elevator, and I'll say: “Man, you're evolving. You're way ahead of me.” And it probably won't happen in my lifetime, but we might get enough chromosomes someday to be either a dog or a chicken. They're twins too, you know. And then way down the road, you know, we're going to become a carp. They've got double the chromosomes we do. And someday, stardate 349572, we're gonna become a fern. I was at a church one time, and this lady walked up to me afterward, and she said: “Mr. Hovind, I'm Fern.” I shook her hand with that hand right there. I'll never wash it again.

Go back Framework logic of the evolutionist

Hey, how come the evolutionists are always comparing things that fit their theory? Why don't they show us the things that don't fit their theory? Like, let's just say we're gonna examine how things evolved based upon how long they lived. Well, we could arrange animals by how long they live, and we'll find out the hamster evolved first, slowly turned into a cat, and then a canary, and then a dog, and then a chimpanzee, alligator, elephant, horse, turtle, and human. We made it, folks, we made it.

Let's arrange the animals based on how long they're pregnant, their gestation period. Well, in that case, the possum, only 13 days. How would you like that, ladies? Only be pregnant for 13 days, not bad, huh? Yeah, I'd have a bunch of kids then. Slowly evolved into a hamster, then a rat, then a rabbit, kangaroo, on down the list, and the elephant, 640 days. They are the winner. The most evolved creature on earth. Oh really? You can see here the cat and the dog are identical twins, you know?

Maybe we should arrange them based on how much they weigh in their adult form. Well, the shrew only weighs 4 grams. Slowly, it became a mouse. And very slowly, slowly, over billions of years, became a whale. The whale is the most evolved now. Why don't they show us these charts, huh? And why is it that “amphibians have five times more DNA than mammals and some amoebae have 1,000 times more DNA?” They don't tell us these things because it doesn't fit their theory. “It's impossible to arrange in any sort of evolutionary series” based on just one little bit of fact. You'd better find all the facts. You find out that this evolution theory fails miserably.

Go back Amino acids; Children, now think critically! (4)

But they tell the kids: “We're going to think critically, boys and girls.” There are “20 kinds of amino acids,” that's a fact. “Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor.” How's a Christian kid supposed to answer that for homework for Monday? Hmmm? Don't you see a built-in assumption in this question? That's not learning to think critically! Would the kid be allowed, teacher, to explain how this fact that they all have 20, all life forms have 20 amino acids? Would the kid be allowed to say: “Maybe that proves the intelligence of a common Designer?” Maybe God gave all the animals the same basic 20 amino acids so that we don't have to just eat each other, you know. I mean, if they're all totally different, wildly different kinds, then we could only eat other humans. But see, God made it this way so the brown cow can eat the green grass and give the white milk and make the yellow butter, and I eat it and get the blond hair. Um-hmm. Maybe that's why there's all the same basic building blocks, hmm, ya.

Go to index

Common ancestry?

Back to Main Index Genetic legacies

One of the lies they face in the textbooks is this idea that all these similarities prove a common ancestor. Well, let's pretend that it does, ok?

Go back How closely related are man and apes?

This textbook says: “Humans and orangutans are 96% similar, proving a common ancestor 15 million years ago.” I don't think so. Humans and chimps have thousands of differences, thousands of differences. “Overall,” this guy says, “the genetic difference is only 1.6%.” Oh, that's what they used to think, but that's a lie. Barney Maddox was the leading genome researcher on this project, he said: “The genetic difference between human and chimpanzee is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that's a gap of 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal;” he said, “'s not gonna happen.” That's when they thought the difference was 1.6%. It's still too big of a gap. Later they found out, oh, actually, it's a 95% similarity, which is 5% difference. And just recently, they said: “Oh, no, wow, look at this. It's 7.7% difference.” The more we study about this, the worse the problem gets for the evolutionist. Actually, it's becoming worse by the day.

“This result is based on only one million DNA bases out of three billion.” They've only analyzed “1/3,000th of the human DNA code.” A very small percent has actually been analyzed. “French and American scientists have mapped chromosome 14 the longest sequence to date and the site of more than 60 disease genes. The feat enlisted nearly 100 researchers and marks the fourth of the 24 human chromosomes mapped so far.” If somebody tells you they have mapped the entire human genome, you tell ’em Kent Hovind said they are mistaken or they are lying, ok. They've only mapped a small percentage, ok. And it says: “The French National Sequencing Center [Genoscope], said the chromosome is comprised of more than 87 million pairs of DNA, all of which have been sequenced so the chromosome's map includes no gaps. This is the longest piece of contiguous DNA sequenced. ...87 million pairs, a fraction of the total 3 billion pairs found in the human genome.” They still don't know how much there is in there, and it's already a 7.7% difference.

Go back Pseudogenes, no such thing...

This researcher said: “The human genome is littered with up to 20,000 pseudogenes. That proves evolution.” I get this in debates all the time. They'll say: “What about the pseudogenes?” I'll say: “There's no such thing.” They'll say: “Well, yeah, there is. There are thousands of pseudogenes, which means a false gene, it doesn't do anything.” Oh no, those pseudogenes serve several purposes.

  1. They serve as decoys to draw poisons away from the real ones.
  2. They serve as backup mechanisms. It's like your computer has an automatic backup, you know? If a piece of the memory gets destroyed, another one of those ‘pseudogenes’ jumps right in, takes over.

They took out some of the pseudogenes to see what would happen. They said: “Well, the mouse doesn't need these things. Let's take them out.” And there's how they turned out. They were deformed terribly. No such thing as a pseudogene. “The pseudogene may function as a decoy to lure away destructive enzymes,” Discover magazine of 2003.

Go back Blueprints indicate a common designer

We could spend all day on DNA sequencing, but... You know, it could be we have similar DNA to other animals because we have the same Designer. You know, similar bridges would have similar blueprints, wouldn't they? Similar cars would have similar instructions on how to build them, how to make them. Man has a pretty good understanding of how cars work. My daddy started us boys off working on cars when we were, you know, 7 years old. I've had 128 cars, I believe. I rebuilt the motors, the transmissions, the wobble plate shafts, the differentials, the high-speed pneumatic valves and the muffler bearings. I have a pretty good understanding of how cars work. But understanding the operation of a car does not explain the origin of the car. Big difference.

See, let's suppose your son turns 16. All of my kids did a few years ago. Your son comes up and says: “Hey, dad, I got my license.” - “Let me see that thing, son. Let me see your license, come on. Wow, son, that's a lousy picture. It is a good likeness though.” He says: “Hey dad, can I drive the car?” - “Well, son, your mom and I knew this day was coming. The car is a very complicated machine. Did you know there are 3,000 bolts required to hold a car together and one nut can scatter it all over the highway? We don't think you're ready for the whole car, son. We're gonna let you slowly evolve into the car. This year, we're gonna give you 10%, next year maybe just a little more.” Hey, what good is 10% of a car? That's what you put in a junkyard. How many things have to be right on a car to make it work? Like thousands of things, hmm? How many things would have to be wrong to make it stop working? Any one of many thousands of things like not having the keys, you know, not having any gas in it, you know... Take your distributor cap off and run a pencil around the inside and put it back on. Boy, they'll never find that one. Take a spark plug wire off, put a doorbell wire in there, shove it back down, feed the doorbell wire through the firewall and weave it through the fabric of the front seat. Do that when they're going on their honeymoon, you know? Get in the car, and wow, let's go, honey. Bam! Whoa, what was that? There's a thousand things that make your car quit running. Probably 10,000 ways to stop a car from running. Shove a potato in the exhaust pipe, you know, and watch what happens. I don't wanna give you any more ideas, ok, but....

There are thousands of differences between humans and chimpanzees. But if you think a percentage of similarity proves a relationship, let me show you the research I've been doing. I discovered clouds are 100% water. Watermelons are 97%. It's only 3% difference. That proves they're related. Jellyfish are 98%, missing link! And so are snow cones, um-hmm... Yeah, there we go, we've got us a proof, ok.

Back to Main Index The fossil record

Go back Where is the fossil record?

Then they tell them fossils prove evolution. I say: “Guys, you've got to be kidding!” This textbook says: “Evidence of evolution from the fossil record...” Oh no, don't give me that. That's a lie. There is no fossil record. There's a bunch of bones in the dirt. It's not a record, ok. You're putting your interpretation on those bones you're digging out of the dirt. There is no ‘fossil record’. This textbook says: “Evolution is a fact. The fossil record provides some of the strongest evidence that species evolved over time.” This is silly. There is no fossil record. You don't look back into time. You look at a bunch of bones you dug out of the dirt, and you put your interpretation on them, ok. Fossils only exist in the present. They don't exist in the past. I mean, you're digging them up, and it's 2005, ok. You can't say: “Wow, this fossil is 40 million years old!” You don't know that, ok. All we do is put our interpretation on the fossils, but the kids are taught: “Fossils contribute to our understanding of evolution.” Kids, keep in mind, dead animals do not reproduce or evolve. Darwin said: “If my theory is true, numberless intermediate species ought to have been found in the fossil record.” Well, I'm sorry. This guy said: “Since Darwin, many of these links have been found.” Oh, they are lying to you... No missing links have been found. Even David Raup, who believes in evolution, says: “In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found—yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” Sigh, you're kidding! Fantasy in the textbooks? That's a fancy word for, a lie, ok. And we could spend two days on the fossil record. There is no fossil record, and “there are gaps all over the place.” Every place where there ought to be something, they find nothing, no evidence for how the whale evolved or how the birds evolved or how the flowering plants evolved. No evidence whatsoever.

Go back Where are the missing links and how do you prove it?

If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is, it died. You couldn't prove it had any kids. And you sure couldn't prove it had different kids. And why would you think a bone in the dirt can do something animals today cannot do? Which is produce something other than their kind! Luther Sunderland wrote to major evolutionists all over and said: “Hey, where is the evidence for evolution?” They wrote back and said: “We don't have it. Somebody else has it.” He wrote to Colin Patterson because Patterson has access to the largest fossil collection in the world, British Museum of Natural History. Nobody got more fossils than them. Patterson wrote a book about evolution, but he didn't show any missing links. So Sunderland wrote him a letter and said: “Excuse me. Why didn't you show the missing links in your book? I'd like to see a picture of the missing link.” Patterson wrote back and said: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil.” There are no missing links. The whole chain is missing. It's not a link they're looking for, folks. Even Stephen Gould said: “The absence of fossil evidence is a nagging problem for evolution.” Yeah, it sure is. Stephen Gould died with a set of my videos on his shelf in his library. I hope he watched them. I donated them to him years ago, way before he died. Hopefully, he watched them and got saved. I don't know.

Go back Punctuated equilibrium; Children, now think critically! (5)

So, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould have kind of ‘resurrected’ the punctuated equilibrium idea that came actually from Richard Goldschmidt. Goldschmidt said: “The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.” They got so frustrated looking for missing links, they couldn't find any, they said: “Well, this just proves evolution happened quickly.” Oh, I see, yeah. And this bird that hatched from the reptile egg, uh, excuse me, who did it marry? Don't you have to have two in the same place of the opposite sex? I mean, what if you get two males? And don't they have to be at the same time in history? What if one is born just 10 years before the other one? Ah, just missed it. You've got to get them in the same place, of the opposite sex, at the same time, and they got to be interested. You've got a whole bunch of problems, ok? Serious problems.

Then they tell the kids to think critically: “Which theory best describes the organism's evolution, gradualism or punctuated equilibria?” Look what they do.

  • “Kids, which theory is the best explanation, slow evolution or fast evolution?” Do you see how they're giving the kids two options, both of which are false.

“Which is correct, boys and girls, elephants are orange or elephants are pink?” Uh, oh, man. “Mom, what should I write for this one?” - “I don't know, honey. Go do your homework.” They're neither one! Do you realize how frustrating this is for Christian kids? To go through public schools and have this kind of stuff day after day after day, and how it wears at their faith. And they finally just start giving the evolution answers. And 75% of the kids from Christian homes are being destroyed and losing their faith going through these public schools. That's not thinking critically.

  • This textbook says: “Which is correct, boys and girls, did evolution happen gradually or in short leaps and punctuated equilibria?” They give them two options, evolution happened slowly or evolution happened quickly.

These guys are not capable of thinking outside the box. It didn't happen at all. Is that an option? But I guarantee you if a kid puts: “It didn't happen at all” on his test question, the teacher's gonna count it wrong.

Go back The shell game

I debated Dr. Pigliucci from Knoxville, Tennessee, UT Knoxville. I said: “Dr. Pigliucci, you've studied and taught evolution of plants for 10 years. You've received $650,000 in grant money to study the evolution of plants. What's the best evidence you know of for evolution?” That was my question. His answer was: “The evolution of whales.” I said: “Just exactly what kind of plant is a whale anyway? Hmm?,” yeah. He said: “The hippo is evidence for evolution because it's in the process of adapting to an aquatic way of life.” The hippo is proof for evolution because it likes to go in the water? Wow, I like to go in the water too. What's that mean?

Evolution is a shell game. Everybody thinks that somebody else has the evidence. The biologist says: “Oh, we don't have it. The geologist has it.” The geologist says: “Oh, we don't have it. The anthropologist has it.” It's a shell game with one major difference. You know how they put the pea down there and try to get you confused, you know; which one has the pea. Uhm, the difference is there is no pea under any of them! Nobody has the evidence, nobody. They're all lying.

Go back The evolution of the horse...

They say: “What about horse evolution? Yes, boys and girls, you see this? The four-toed horse evolved to the one-toed horse.” That's a lie proven wrong 55 years ago. The hyrax is the so-called four-toed horse. They're still alive today in Africa and Turkey. It's a little bitty critter. There's one right there, a hyrax. They don't tell you the early horse had 18 pairs of ribs. The next one had 15. These animals are not even related. They just picked some bones and put them in the order they wanted them. The next one had 19 and then back to 18. This horse evolution theory was proven wrong a long time ago. There's a whole variety of horses today, by the way, big ones and little ones. But back in 1950, G.G. Simpson, a famous evolutionist said: “This horse evolution was unintentionally falsified. It's not true.” “The evolution of the horse was all wrong.” “It never happened in nature.” “Horse evolution has not held up under close examination.”

  1. The whole idea was made up by Othniel Marsh back in 1874.
  2. Modern horses are found in the same layers as the so-called ‘ancient horse’.
  3. The ‘ancient horse’ is just an animal still alive today in Turkey and East Africa.
  4. The ribs, toes and teeth are different.
  5. In South America, the fossils are in the reverse order! Real problem.
  6. They're never found in the order presented in the textbooks.
  7. Three-toed and one-toed horses grazed side by side.

Tulsa Zoo finally took out their display because a friend of mine wrote them a letter and said: “Hey, why do you have the horse evolution on display?” I've got the letters here somewhere. Did you get those out, Steve? The..., they're in the suitcase, ok. You can come read those later. He wrote them a letter and said: “Guys, your horse evolution thing was proven wrong like 50 years ago. You know, would you please remove the display?” And they said: “We don't have the funding to remove it.” So he went to a sign shop and got a bid for a sign, 60 bucks or something, that says..., the sign would say: “We will take down this display as soon as we receive the funding because the display is not accurate.” He went into the curator at the zoo and said: “Here's 60 bucks for the sign. This guy will make the sign. When would you like it delivered?” He said: “What's this?” - “Oh, we're going to take down the display when we get the funding?” - “Yeah,” he said: “you ought to at least warn the people, you know, the display's not right.” Well, they didn't take it down. Finally, I forget, 2,000 people signed a petition saying: “Get this thing out of our zoo.” It came on the evening news 10 o'clock one night: “Tulsa zoo has a false display.” Next morning, it was gone. They found the funding! Six months later, they put it back up.

Yale University still has their horse evolution on display proven wrong 55 years ago. Get more on the horse evolution in the book Icons of Evolution. Just because you can arrange animals in order, that doesn't prove anything. Even if you find them buried in a certain order, that doesn't prove anything. If I get buried on top of a hamster, does that prove he's my grandpa? No! Order of burial means nothing! But if you think you can arrange things and that somehow proves something, ok.

Go back The evolution of the fork...

I've been doing a lot of research on the evolution of the fork. I've pieced together fragmentary evidence for a long time. I believe after studying this very intently that the knife evolved first. Slowly, over millions of years, great geologic pressure squeezed it, purrrr... and made it concave on one side, convex on the other, and squeezed it into a spoon. And then, slowly, erosion cut grooves into the end and turned it into a fork. I knew I was onto something here, but I felt like I had a missing link, particularly between the spoon and the fork. I just couldn't find it until one day I was flying to Connecticut on US Air. I was 30,000 feet off the ground, and the stewardess walked down the aisle and just handed me the missing link. I don't think she knew what she had. But my trained scientific eye picked it up right away. I said: “Wow, this is it! I've got it!” I stuck it in my pocket. Later that day, I went to Popeye's Chicken and found another one. There they are, folks, the missing links.

So the evolution of silverware is nearly complete. Of course, we've got a few mutants along the way that didn't quite survive for some reason. And of course, people found out I was doing research on this, they all wanted to be famous, you know. So they tried to get in on the glory. They sent me their research. This one was an obvious fork head on a spoon handle. I mean, look. It didn't get by me. I caught it right away. You know, I don't fall for stuff like that. Even the races, of course, evolved along the way, but...

Look, if you want to arrange things, you can turn a cap to a cop to a dot to a dog by changing one letter at a time. You can play with this for a while and turn yourself into a fool when you're done.

Back to Main Index Did birds evolve from dinosaurs?

They say: “Dinosaurs turned to birds.” There are very few ideas as dumb as this one. The Bible says, God made the birds on day five.(Gen. 1:20,23) He made the reptiles on day six. (Gen. 1:24,31) Evolution says reptiles came first and then the birds. You know, everything about evolution is backwards to the Bible, everything. But this article says: “Dinosaurs alive – as birds – scientist says.” Oooh, wow, scientist says, well, that proves it right there. It's like it gives them some kind of authority. Wow, scientists says. This is absurd. Everything about the bird evolution is baloney, ok?

Go back Archeoraptor and Archeopterix, the missing links!


Archaeoraptor was listed in 1999 as the missing link. Yes, boys and girls, breaking news! National Geographic: “We found the missing link!” They had a whole big article about the missing link has been discovered. Then, a couple of months later, oops, it was proven wrong. You know, everything about these feathered dinosaurs has been proven baloney. But guess what, they're still teaching it. Here's a whole book: The Feathered Dinosaurs of China [© 2004].You just got this recently? Why would they still be teaching something that's been proven wrong for five years? All this feathered dinosaur stuff is baloney. It's all baloney. We cover more on that on one of the debates I did. I forget which one, but...uh. They say: “Birds are descendants of dinosaurs.” Well, kids, in case you don't know, there are a few differences between a dinosaur and a bird. Ok, you don't just put a few feathers on them and say: “Come on, man, give it a try. It won't hurt too bad.” It's just not that easy. See, reptiles have 4 perfectly good legs. Birds have 2 legs and 2 wings. So if his front legs are gonna change to wings, somewhere along the line, they're gonna be half-leg and half-wing. Which means, on that particular day, he can't run anymore, and he still can't fly yet, so he's got a real problem. A serious problem.



They say Archaeopteryx is proof for evolution. You got one here on the table, brother. Archaeopteryx? Whenever you buy a bag of dinosaurs, they almost always stick one of these in there, Archaeopteryx. Wow. And this somehow gets the impression to the kids: “Wow, we've got proof that dinosaurs turned to birds. Here's one here with feathers on it.” They're lying. It's still in the textbooks, I mean today, about Archaeopteryx. And it's been proven years ago, “Archaeopteryx was just a bird, a perching bird.” Alan Feduccia, who believes in evolution, says it's not a missing link. It had the right features for flight. All the features of the brain were for flight, ok? Archaeopteryx means, ancient wing, and he had claws on his wings. Well, that's kind of unusual, ok. But 12 birds today have claws on their wings, the swan, the ibis, the hoatzin, several birds have claws. They say: “Well, he had teeth in his beak.” Well, not many birds have teeth, some do. There's a hummingbird that has teeth in his beak. But most birds don't have teeth, I agree. Actually, some mammals have teeth, some don't. Some birds have teeth, some don't. Some fish have teeth, some don't. Some of you have teeth, some don't, ok? Missing link! The Chinese dino-bird was a forgery, and we don't have time to cover all of that today. We give lots more on that on one of the debates I did.


Go back Additional differences between birds and reptiles

It's true feathers and scales are both made of keratin, same building block, that's true. But that's where the similarity stops, ok. Actually, birds and reptiles have different lung system, different reproductive systems, different body coverings, different brains, I mean... different circulatory system. Thousands of differences exist between dinosaurs and birds. That could be a whole seminar by itself. It's interesting, there are 2 different kinds of dinosaurs, the bird-hip and the lizard-hip dinosaur. Their hips are very different.

Ask an evolutionist: “Which type of dinosaur evolved into the bird? Was it the bird-hip or the lizard-hip?” And they will probably kind of hang their head and quietly say: “Well, it was the lizard-hip.” Oh, so now the hip's got to turn around backwards too in addition to the billions of other changes you got to make. There's no evidence of how dinosaurs evolved to birds. None. Zero.
[Problems with Reptile to Bird Evolution Theory, as found on seminar slides, see here]

So who's right? Well, Richard Dawkins said: “It's absolutely safe to say if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked.” Sounds like he's open for a discussion. When I went to England, we tried everything to get to debate Richard Dawkins. He refused. He hung up on my secretary. His secretary hung up on me when I called back.

Go to index

Foundations of the evolutionist

Back to Main Index Evolutionary theory unmasked

Go back Various people have said...

Jesus said: “Ye shall love the Lord your God with all your mind.” (Matt. 22:37) There's no mental reason to reject Christianity. Jesus said: “Ye shall love the LORD your God with all your mind.” There's no mental reason to reject Christianity. It's a logical deduction to say: “Hey, there must have been a Designer.” You see something complicated like this world, you say: “Hey, must have been a Designer.”

  • “Evolution is not a fact. It's not even a good theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a metaphysical research program.”
  • Julian Huxley said: “I suppose the reason we leapt at Origin of Species was the idea of God interfered with our sexual morés.” We don't want God telling us what to do.
  • Evolution is a religion. Even Michael Ruse said that. He said: “I'm an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint, Mr. Gish is one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right, evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it's true of evolution still today.”
  • “We believe in evolution because the only alternative is creation.” And that's right; that is the only alternative.
  • One Russian atheist astronomer came over here to America, and he was speaking at the university, and he said: “Folks, either there is a God or there isn't.” I thought: “Wow, now that's a brilliant conclusion to come to.” But then he said: “Both possibilities are frightening.” I thought: “Wow, now that is a brilliant statement.” See, if there is a God, we'd better find out who He is and find out what He wants and do what He says. If there is no God, we're in trouble. We're hurtling through space at 66,000 miles an hour, and nobody's in charge. That's a scary thought.
  • One famous scientist said: “This evolution transformism is a fairy tale for adults.”
  • “The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. it is useless.” Even if evolution theory is true, it's useless. It's of no value to science whatsoever.
  • “Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe but which they uphold for the people.” Even most scientists don't believe in this, but they're afraid of losing their job or their research grant money or they're afraid of peer pressure. No different than a 5th grader, afraid what the other 5th graders think of them. We've got college professors out there teaching these lies that I've covered just because they have to. Because, you know, that's their job.
  • Muggeridge said: “I'm convinced the theory of evolution will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.” Satan is a liar. And everything about this theory is based on lies.
  • Even Tahmisian said: “People who go about teaching evolution are great con men. The story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. We do not have one iota of fact” to support this evolution theory.
  • Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer said: “Well, life is so complicated, it could not have evolved on earth, so it must have come from outer space.” Well, duh, all that does is postpone the problem. How did it happen out there?, hmm.
  • This guy says: “Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, [which] all lines of thought must follow--this is what evolution is.” Pierre de Chardin, the Catholic priests, they got most of the Catholics to believe in evolution, including the pope. It's three times now they've said: “We believe in evolution.” Pierre de Chardin is one of the guys responsible for the great Piltdown hoax. He's a liar. An absolute boldfaced liar. God's Word is a light (Ps. 119:115), ok, not evolution is a light.

But if a kid goes 12 or 15 years to school in your school system, how's he gonna view the world? Probably like an evolutionist.

Go back Why would they teach these lies?

  1. Well, some people think that if everybody believes in evolution, that will make it true. It doesn't matter if everybody believed in it. That wouldn't make it true yet, ok.
  2. Some people teach the lie to keep the paycheck coming in. Kids, there are teachers that don't believe in evolution, but they keep teaching it anyway because they like their paycheck every Friday. And they will lie to you to keep their paycheck coming in.
  3. Some understand the bigger picture. Evolution is the foundation for the New World Order. We cover more on that on seminar part 5.

Evolution is the foundation for Marxism, Nazism, communism, socialism. That's why when I do a debate, I always call it, ‘Creation versus evolution-ism’. It drives them nuts, you know. Because they're used to saying: “Oh, it's evolution versus creationism.” They always put the ‘ism’ on creation. So when I flash up my sign at the beginning that says: ‘Creation Versus Evolutionism Debate’, they always sit there with that puzzled look on their face. They're trying to read it, thinking: “You know, something doesn't look right about that, but I don't know what it is.” It's just a little jab in there, you know?

Go back Why do they believe this stuff?

Why do people believe in evolution? Well, you might wanna get this book, The Case Against Darwin. Excellent, short book, quick read for your intellectual friends who want to get the quick picture.

Some people, that's all they've ever been taught. When I spoke in Russia; I was over there at the university, there were 30 professors came in to hear me speak, and after about an hour, one of the professors was crying. And I asked the interpreter, I said: “What's he crying about?” And she said: “He's never heard the creation story. He didn't know there was one. All he's ever heard is evolution. He wants you to keep going.” I went for another hour.

I spoke at a public school over there in Russia. The room would seat 400 kids. They had 700 high schoolers come in there and listen to me for two hours. I mean, you could have heard a pin drop the whole time. I couldn't believe it. When I asked the principal before I started, I said: “Hey, are there any things I shouldn't say to these kids? I know this is a public school, it's kind of sensitive.” He said: “What do you mean?” I said: “Well, I'm a Christian. Is it ok to, you know, mention the Bible?” He said: “Oh yeah, tell them anything you want.” I said: “Well, would it be ok if I told them, you know, how to go to heaven?” He said: “Sure, sure, please do. These kids would love to hear about Christianity. They've never heard any of this.” Wow! A door you could drive a truck through, brother. But they use the same lies in Russian textbooks. Here's a Russian textbook talking about the forelimb proving evolution, the different geologic column strata, all the stuff we covered earlier. Why do they believe this stuff?

  1. Well, some believe it because that's all they've been taught.
  2. Some, their job depends on it.
  3. Some, they hope there's no God to answer to. “They do not like to retain God in their knowledge,” (Rom. 1:28) the Bible says. They just don't like this idea. And it says: “God will send them strong delusion.” (II Thess. 2:11) The more I think about this, that is so true. Anybody that believes they came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago has to be strongly deluded. Think about it. Oh, there's so much we could cover on this.
  4. They have social-political reasons.
  5. Some people simply have too much pride to admit they have been wrong all their life.

Back to Main Index What do we do about it? What can we do about it?

  1. So, kids are being taught evolution. There's no question about it.
  2. Kids are being lied to in these textbooks. There's no question about it.

What do we do about it? Well, we cover that in great detail on our Public School Presentation on the green series of tapes. Get the Public School Presentation. We'll tell you step-by-step what to do.

  • How to get these lies out of your textbook.
  • How you can get on the school textbook selection committee.
  • How you can get your kid exempt from class.

Parents, if your kids are in a public school, you should send a little note to the teacher saying: “I don't want my child taught evolution. It's against my religious convictions.” Sign it, notarize it if you'd like, give it to the teacher and to the principal. Then, if they continue giving you a hard time, you say: “Oh, now, excuse me. Do you discriminate against people because of their religious convictions?” Watch their eyes light up on that one. And if they still give you a hard time, contact me. I got some lawyers waiting in the wings that are anxious to get a lawsuit like that. Title 42, Discrimination Based on Religion. Wow, that principal's gonna be the garbage collector the next week. I guarantee that principal is gonna call that teacher and say: “Look, let this kid out of class. Stop teaching evolution.”

I had one guy call me a couple of years ago. He said: “Brother Hovind, my second grade daughter's teacher just called me, and the teacher said: ‘Mr. Jones (whatever his name was, I forget),’ he said, ‘your secon grader is in my class, your daughter, and she stops me every time I start teaching something about evolution.’ And the teacher said: ‘I've just decided I'm gonna skip this evolution stuff for the rest of the year till your daughter is out of my class.’” And my first thought was, yeeh! And then I thought: “Wait-wait-wait-wait, why are we sending second graders off to war?” This is a battle the parents ought to be fighting, not the kids.

We're the salt of the earth. Salt irritates. Hey, if nobody's irritated at you, you're not a good Christian. You don't have to try to irritate them. You try to be salty, that will irritate them. Salt preserves from corruption.

  • How come you've got so many lies in the textbooks right here in Tennessee in the middle of the Bible-Belt.
  • Where is the Christians that are supposed to preserve the world, huh?
  • Why don't some of you get on the school board and do something about this?
  • Why don't some of you get a committee to say: “Hey, let's take these pages out of the book. This is a lie.” It won't cost the school anything. I'll show you. How many of you would volunteer to take the pages out of the book and bring your own scissors? It won't cost the school a dime. Let's do better than that. How many of you would pay $20 for the privilege of being on the committee to cut the pages out of the book and still bring your own scissors?

We just had a fundraiser. We just raised $1,000 for the school. Wow! It won't cost them a dime. There are many good, sincere, Godly public school teachers, and I praise God for them. And they are as frustrated as I am with what's going on.

  • If you've got a good teacher in your school that wants to do what's right, support them. Because I guarantee if there's a teacher that tries to get up and stand up for creation and against evolution, there's a good possibility they'll get fired or get persecuted for it. We cover much more on that on video #7, how teachers get persecuted for standing up for what's right.
  • Many teach this theory because they simply have never been taught anything else.
  • Many don't know it's ok to teach creation. It's perfectly fine. Oh, what do we do? Well, there's a long history of how we got this theory in our schools. And we'll cover all that in the Public School Presentation.

Now, what do we do about it? It's all covered on videotape #5. We'll show you the dangers of this theory. It's not just a dumb idea. It is a dangerous religion. I will tell you some real practical steps to fix it on seminar part 5.

Thank you for joining us.

Continue to Part 5a


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

Go to top of this page