David Bloomberg
94-03-15 21:%:08
Till-Hovind Debate, I/II

The following is an article from the March issue of The REALL News.  
It was originally printed by _The Skeptical Review_ in the Winter 
1993-94 issue, and was updated by the author in February 1994. REALL 
requests that you please send a copy of any publication that reprints 
one of our articles for our files.  This article may also be cross- 
posted onto other appropriate conferences.

This article represents the opinions of its author, and does not 
necessarily represent the opinions of REALL or its officers.

==============================================================================

                  On the Till-Hovind Debate
               by Prof. Karen E. Bartelt, Ph.D.

On Sept. 11, 1993, Kent Hovind, a "creation-scientist-evangelist" from 
Pensacola, Florida, and Farrell Till, English professor and editor of 
_The Skeptical Review_, met in public debate at Faith Baptist Church 
in Pekin, IL. Although the topic of the debate was "The Genesis story 
of the flood is scientifically accurate in all details," Hovind 
distributed to the audience a handout ("Debate #7") that was a 
generalized attack on evolution. The paper warned the audience to 
watch for "desperate measures" and "illogical ideas" that the 
"evolutionist" could be expected to use during the debate. Among other 
things, the paper listed ad hominem arguments, ridicule and scorn, 
citation of majority opinion, and various appeals to scholarship. 
Additionally, the paper stated that the "evolutionist" would "change 
the subject to avoid answering the opponent's questions and comments."

   The debate was supposed to be comprised of a 30-minute opening 
statement each, 20 minutes of rebuttal each, and a question-and-answer 
period (questions sent in by the audience). Hovind's opening statement 
was nothing but his well-traveled slide show. He opened by stating 
that all "evolutionists" believe that anyone who is a Bible-believing 
Christian is ignorant. Some other highlights: An 11-foot skeleton has 
been found in a coal mine in West Virginia_proof positive that 
pre-flood humans were bigger (so where is this skeleton now, Kent?); 
the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere in the world; Noah's ark 
contained only babies, and only single "kinds." There was a relatively 
new (for me, at least) twist_the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth 
happened during the flood. A giant "ice meteor" which, because of its 
low temperature was magnetic, banged into the North Pole, dropped 
mammoths in their tracks, the vapor canopy collapsed, and the earth 
was flooded to a depth of 12,000 ft. As Dave Barry says, "I am not 
making this up." The presentation was rapid-fire, leaving no time for 
the audience to digest a topic before the next slide was flashed. 
Indeed, for someone who told the _Peoria Journal Star_ that he does 
the show 700 times a year, the presentation was unpolished, and the 
slides were of poor quality.

   Farrell Till accurately defined science as being outside the realm 
of the supernatural. He spoke of the polystrate Specimen Ridge trees 
in Yellowstone Park as evidence of multiple volcanic burials and 
attacked the seaworthiness of the ark. The audience was asked to 
consider how probable it was for a lone man or small group to build a 
huge ark without modern tools. All-wooden ships have a maximum length 
far below the purported length of the ark (indeed, this was one reason 
that the shipbuilding industry turned to steel), and the audience was 
encouraged to search the references Till provided concerning 
shipbuilding. Till asked if such a ship did manage to stay afloat, how 
did the cargo survive the rough seas described by other creationists? 
How did the crew handle the 40 tons of manure produced by an elephant 
in a year? Finally, if, as Hovind asserted, only a few "kinds" were 
present on the Ark, then Hovind must also admit that all forms of 
bovids, from bison to cattle to deer, evolved rapidly after the 
flood_something no "evolutionist" would ever state.

Hovind's rebuttal was to place God in the same bracket as electrons 
and gravity_ natural particles/forces which cannot be seen, either! 
(Never mind that the effects of electrons and gravity are easily 
observed). He stated, without evidence, that humans "back then" were 
not only bigger and longer-lived, but had higher IQ's. Thus they could 
build the pyramids, a feat we humans of today could never accomplish. 
(Two points here. Apparently not very many skeletons/mummies have been 
found associated with the great pyramids_grave robbery took its toll 
on archaeological evidence. However, those that have been recovered 
are normal- to-small-sized humans. Second, no archaeologist has ever 
referred to water damage either inside or on the outside of the 
pyramids). Hovind stated that the Specimen Ridge trees have no roots 
(flatly false_roots are clearly visible in photos of the trees). God 
brought the animals to Noah and took care of all the little 
incidentals (like tons of manure). Hovind encouraged the audience to 
be polite to Till because after all, "He is not the enemy, he just 
works for him." Hovind admitted he couldn't prove most of his 
assertions, but that Till could not, either. Admitting that, one is 
forced to wonder why he agreed to debate the affirmative in the first 
place!

Till pressed the issue that since there were seven pairs of each 
type of clean animal on the ark, that meant 14 giraffes slopping about 
the ark on stormy seas, like it or not. How did they survive? He 
pointed out that the largest pyramids are in the Americas, not Egypt, 
and even according to Hovind's chronology must, therefore, be 
"post-flood." He closed by pointing that Hovind's assumptions_a vapor 
canopy, a level antediluvian earth, smarter people, were not supported 
by evidence.

The audience was asked to submit written questions for the final 
session.

Concerning a question on missing links, Hovind stated that "Lucy" 
was not a missing link at all but a chimp that was assembled from 
bones found at sites miles apart. He said, "I wish I could have seen 
the train that hit that chimp." Of course, it is well known that Lucy 
was recovered over about 50 square meters of ground.

Hovind was asked what the anteaters ate the day the ark landed. He 
replied that they were vegetarians_pre-flood and immediately post 
flood_and that special diets were not necessary then or now. Even now 
"Pandas don't eat just bamboo. They love meat. Ask any zookeeper." 
Perhaps that is why pandas are doing so well in the wild right now! 
Till replied that you can't have generalist animals on the one hand, 
and then, on the other hand, argue that the yucca plant and pronuba 
moth were obviously created for each other.

Till pointed out that it was an anachronism that the ark would have 
been sealed with pitch, because this is obviously a coal (post-flood) 
by-product. Hovind stated the word "pitch" could have meant any 
oil_corn oil, for instance. I will have to pass this new use for corn 
oil on to the Illinois Department of Agriculture_let's grease up those 
boat bottoms. Till stood by the translation of the Hebrew word; it had 
to be a petroleum product.

Hovind was taken aback by my question on the tremendous amount of 
heat that would have been released by 40 days and 40 nights of rain 
(Soroka and Nelson's J. Geol. Ed. article). He talked instead about 
craters being evidence for an "ice meteor" and said this was all on 
faith. He changed the subject! Till, who had the article in hand 
expanded on the problem and made the reference available to the 
audience.

As I reread Hovind's handout, it became clear to me that Hovind is 
his own best example of "illogical ideas" and "improper tactics." He 
certainly resorted to an ad hominem argument and "ridicule and scorn" 
when he implied that Till worked for the devil, or the blanket 
statement that evolutionists considered "Bible-believing Christians" 
to be ignorant. He changed the subject frequently when backed into a 
corner, and had to resort to "It's all on faith"_essentially falling 
back on the "majority opinion" in the church at the time. And although 
his academic credentials remain somewhat of a mystery (He claims B.S., 
M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in education but has never said from where), 
it was clear that with his breathless presentation, his intention was 
to wow the audience with largely unsubstantiated "facts" so that they 
would see him as the authority, and "see his diploma."

Was anyone swayed? Unlikely. The bulk of the audience was clearly 
unable to understand how science differs from the supernatural. They 
became defensive and irritated whenever Till mentioned, "...but it's 
just not science." They were for the most part quiet, although a few 
choruses of "Amens" resounded when they felt Hovind had made a point. 
The moderator/minister is to be complemented. He was polite to both 
parties and clearly kept a lid on what could have been a volatile 
situation.

[Dr. Bartelt is an assistant professor of chemistry at Eureka 
(Illinois) College.  Reprinted from _The Skeptical Review_ (Winter, 
1993-94), with revisions by the author in February 1994.]