Religion vs. Science

Kent Hovind / The age of the earth

This time I’ve decided to go into a quite a controversial field. Religion vs. Science.

I’m not going into a discussion above believes here. This is stupid, since you can’t discuss about religion or only to a certain degree and there will rarely be an outcome. This is merely a post about how religious believes can mess up logical argumentation and daily perception.

I spent the two hours watching and being astonished by the argumentation style of Kent Hovind. You’ll find the videos easily on YouTube.

His presentation

Here’s just one example:

“No one has ever seen a star forming. We see a star blow up once in a while, but that is the opposite of evolution. Why don’t we see one forming?” (13:56)

Well.. it might be because of the time it takes? And for making it as visual as he likes to do it: Building a house takes longer than to destroy it.

Second example?

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”

—A. Hitler

Quoting Hitler always come great when you want to be sure something will be put on the evil side. Unfortunately: It’s not sure that Hitler ever said this. Neither his PR-Manager Goebbels. It seems that the quote is unknown. Search it up for yourself, it won’t take more than 2 minutes to realize that there’s no confirmed source for this quote. That’s enough to start questioning in general. But I stopped verifying there and just leaned back for the entertainment.

His presentation is basically following always the following rules:

  • If there is no answer, then it must come from God.

  • Correcting or adjusting theories only proves they must be wrong anyway and this doesn’t show a process in science.

  • Reproduce able scientific methods shall not be mentioned.

  • Make jokes to prove your confidence.

  • Experience everything yourself.

He’s also not missing the typical stereotypes mostly coming with religion to discredit:

  • Music styles like Punk and Rock are praising _death_ and therefore evil. - Generalization and prejudices.

  • If you don’t believe you’ll take responsibility at the end of your life. Not questioning if this is likely to ever gonna happen.

  • Linking Evolution with crimes (like the columbine massacre).

  • Do not deliver any evidence or reproduce-able result for your arguments.

  • Selling tapes at the end of the presentation (58:00).

This man is 40 years old and seems to be spinning around in his own mind.

One of the highlight was certainly the argumentation for why the world isn’t overcrowded:

“If you think it’s overcrowded, go to Nebraska”

Following this logic, the earth must be a disc, because that’s what you can see when you go outside every day.

I think it would be fine if he’d keep that to himself. Unfortunately he’s touring around, speaking openly on stage of that and also talking to kids.

In an argumentation or discussion with somebody I often consider a rule I’ve learned some years ago.

What is the argument I need to come up with in order to make you reconsider your position? If there is none, you’re a fanatic. You can’t discuss with fanatics.

I consider this valid, independent of the topic.

The world is so messed up …..