The Retriever, Dog, & Wildlife Blog

Posted in creationism | Tagged creatard, Kent Hovind | 15 Comments

15 Responses

1. on May 16, 2012 at 8:31 am | Reply chervilmeadow

   What worries me most is not this fool so much as the kids listenin quietly and not challenging him. Only in America?

   
   
   • on May 16, 2012 at 11:02 am | Reply Kathy

     When I was a kid in America there was no creationism unless you had the misfortune to have been sent to a catholic (Roman Catholic) school. In the public schools creationism was not taught because it was regarded as religion, not science, and religion was not taught at all.

     This arrangement dates from the Scopes trial, I believe. The-Bible-
     As-Science was revived in the 80′s. In 1986 I was shocked when I returned to school and had a full professor of biology spend two whole (expensive) lectures rebutting creationism. That just shows you how politically and economically threatening the creationists had become by that time.

     Our kids are trained to be uncritical, non-confrontational zombies, IMO. Unless, of course, they are religious fanatics; you’ll hear from the fanatics, loud and clear. And you’d better show respect for them or risk being regarded as rude, intolerant, an intellectual snob, a devil-worshipper or a communist.
     Common sense is dead; wacky beliefs prevail. The consensus that science is good is no more.
     Scottie the historian may want to weigh in here; this is not my area of expertise (I don’t have an area of expertise, actually). But I think it was d’Toqueville who observed early in the 19th c. that Americans are both the freest and the most frightened of people. He was looking at our extreme conformity.

     
     
     • on May 17, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Reply atheist

       Biblical literalism is more of a Baptist and Presbyterian phenomenon, and has not been prevalent among Roman Catholics until recently. I spent grades 6 through 10 in Catholic schools. We were never taught creationism or biblical literalism. In fact the priest that taught my 10th grade world history class explicitly stated that the Bible was not to be taken literally.

       This is consistent with one of the main points of the protestant reformation. The Roman Catholic view is that the congregation requires the intercession of the clergy, including interpretation of scripture. If the Bible is to be taken literally, no interpretation is required and this limits the perceived value of the clergy. The protestant view is that no such intercession is required, everyone has a direct relationship with God, and everyone is capable of reading and interpreting the scriptures. The invention of the printing press made the reformation possible, and put Bibles in the hands of the masses for the first time. It is a sad irony that the same philosophy that fostered an explosion in literacy and independent thought and provided a foundation for the Age of Enlightenment is five hundred years later the major force pushing us off the cliff into the Age of Ignorance.

       It seems that Catholic primary and secondary schools have mostly gone the way of the dinosaur, and I am not sure what the few remaining schools are teaching.

       Under John Paul II the Roman Catholic Church accepted the theory of evolution, and also the big bang theory, with the proviso that the “soul” was created by God and is not an emergent phenomenon. Benedict XVI does seem to be swinging toward “intelligent design” though.

       I would venture that many (and perhaps most) practicing Catholics are unaware of the official position of their church, and are active participants in the current trend toward anti-intellectualism that is underway in the US.

       
       
       • on May 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Reply retrieverman

         Thank you, I didn’t want to get into this on this particular thread. I knew that Roman Catholics generally accepted evolution, but I was unaware of the particulars.

         
         
2. on May 16, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Reply massugu

   And how does ol’ Kent explain how Noah kept Mr. & Mrs. T. Rex fed during the approximately 5 months that Creationists estimate they were confined to the Ark. He would have had to take on a lot of extra meat animals just to support them–otherwise they would have decimated all the other “kinds.” Since T. Rex was a carnivorous Theropod, it would presumably require about the same number of calories per pound of body weight as a lion. A lion requires about 11lbs of meat per day, which works out to roughly 1600 lbs over a 5 month period. At 7 tons, a typical T. Rex equaled the weight of about 30 lions (at 400lbs each.) So that pair of T. Rex’s would have required roughly 100,000lbs of meat during their stay on the Ark. Of course, this doesn’t even begin to address the waste removal problems associated w/ keeping animals that size. Yeah Kent, Ol’ Noah had dinosaurs on his Ark, uh huh. ;^P

   But hey, there’s the answer to what happened to all the dinosaurs. The T. Rex’s on the Ark ate them all! (LOL)

   Can this guy get any dumber? I can’t believe that he actually lectures college audiences.

   
   
   • on May 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Reply retrieverman

     Kent does have an answer: they took only the baby dinosaurs!

     
     
   • on May 16, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Reply retrieverman

     The good news is he won’t be lecturing at too many colleges for a while:

     http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/11/03/kent-hovind-dr-dino-guilty-guilty-guilty.htm

     
     
3. on May 16, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Reply Bob Brenchley

   Look, we all know how ignorant Kent Hovind is when it comes to anything scientific – so just let him rot in jail. I’m sure we will have more of his stupidity to deal with when he gets out.

   
   
   • on May 16, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Reply retrieverman

     He’s had a lot of time to think, too. Which means, he’s got lots of other crackpot theories.

     His son Eric is continuing on the stupidity, though:

     http://www.creationtoday.org/

     
     
4. on May 18, 2012 at 6:57 am | Reply chervilmeadow

   To me the whole concept of religeon is plainly fictitious. I would think that maybe religeon got started started possibly as a way in which the elders of the stone age tribe sought to explain the inexplicable to uneducated people, thus helping the old men to keep control. Maybe some control would be necessary anyway for cohesion and discipline within the tribe, but it’s no longer relevant of course.

   There are plenty of examples throughout the ages of religeous organisations doing much practical good. However, sadly we have the modern example within the Roman Catholic priesthood of the wrong sort of people in charge with, consequently, tremendous harm being done and I think we all know what I’m hinting at. The Roman Catholic faith in Ireland for example, seemingly no longer has the respect it once had – to put it mildly.

   
   
5. on May 22, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Reply Rathunters

   I am so grateful that I live in Sweden, a country where science at least so far trumps idiocy and fairy tales. It will be interesting to see how the U.S. will fare in the future when fairy tales are taught in school.

   
   
   • on May 23, 2012 at 10:25 am | Reply massugu

     You just voiced one of my worst nightmares.

     
     
6. on May 23, 2012 at 11:47 am | Reply chervilmeadow

   I just wonder which of the three militant branches of potential domination may pose the most likely threat to the world within the near future: militant Christianity, militant Judaism or militant Islam, or perhaps more likely it will be the fourth one, militant Capitalism, although of course that one began its disastrous end game in 2008, arguably. Thankfully, number five, miltant Commumnism, went a bit downhill after 1989 or thereabouts – that is if we forget the Chinese version which in any case seems to be a bit of a disingenuous hybrid dictatorship.

   Well ,using that word HYBRID I’m almost back on topic for this blog. Messrs Hovind andf Hovind comprise a mere joke in comparison to those other big and dangerous boys in the world playground, of course, and he provides a convenient figure for us righteous people here to poke fun and sneer at, does he not?

   
   
7. on May 23, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Reply massugu

   If history teaches us anything it teaches us that when you take away everything a man has then he has nothing to lose. Those who lust for ultimate power over others, whatever their ilk, would do well to remember that.

   
   
8. on May 24, 2012 at 3:02 am | Reply chervilmeadow

   Problems may emerge a ‘big boys’ look for ‘foreign’ enemies. World, watch out!

   
   

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.