Bad Creation Arguments?
By Kent Hovind
Many have asked me what I thought of the
list AiG (Answers in Genesis) published
about arguments that should not be used by creationists. I have avoided answering for
months now. I do not wish to get into a battle over details with others who love the Lord.
The Christian world is already far too fragmented on dumb topics to be the effective
force needed to combat evil. While I love the work being done by my friend Ken Ham
and the fine folks at AiG, sell many of their materials on my web site and would never
want to harm their outreach for the Lord in any way, I must disagree with several items
on their list below. I still encourage people to visit their web site and use their fine
materials even though they apparently do not do the same for many other creationists
Please remember that neither CSE nor AiG claim to be infallible and both ministries
revise their teachings as needed when new facts come to light. There are many fine
creationist organizations and speakers who are trying to stem the tide on humanism and
evolutionism. It has been my privilege to meet many of them in the 14 years I have been
involved in creation ministry. All creationists that I know are sincere and would not
deliberately use false information but many differ on some issues. We all have points
where we agree and points where we disagree with every one but that should not hinder
our Christian fellowship with each other. Everyone needs to learn to eat the meat and
spit out the bones.
To my knowledge, no one on earth has been assigned by God to police all of His
children. Each of us must stand before God to give an account. Since some of the items
AiG had on their list are used in my seminar [and the seminars done by others] and many
have asked me why I still use them, or what my reaction was, I thought a response was
needed. My [Kent Hovind] comments are embedded in AiG's list below. I would
welcome any comments. With my hectic travel schedule I simply do not have time for
written debates or discussions. I hope you will understand. I will probably not respond
in writing to rebuttals that may come. Feel free to call me if you would like more input on
finer points. In my response I will refer to the parts of my seminar where these topics are
addressed in greater detail. My entire seminar may be viewed on my web site
or may be obtained on DVD, VHS or audio from my bookstore, web
site or by phone. I can assure you that if any information I use in my seminar is proven
to be inaccurate, I will remove it immediately.
According to AiG, these arguments should definitely not be used:
Darwin recanted on his deathbed
AiG: Darwin probably did not recant before dying.
KH- I agree- there is no proof of this and much evidence against the story. To my
knowledge I have never said he recanted in my seminar.
Moon dust thickness proves a young moon
AiG: Pre-moon landing calculations varied too widely to assume exactly what
was expected with the first moon landing.
KH- I mildly disagree. The verdict is not in yet on this one. Walt Brown has done a
great study on this topic on www.creationscience.com. The rate of moon dust
accumulation has only been estimated a few times and all of those were in the last 50
years. Only one part out of 67 parts of moon dust is actually from space and it is logical
that space would contain more dust earlier and less as it gets vacuumed in by various
planets and the sun. I do not use the moon dust argument in my seminar except during
Q&A but I think the argument is still valid. It has certainly not been proven wrong.
NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day
and 40 minutes, proving Joshua's long day and Hezekiah's sundial movement
of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20
AiG: This story is an urban myth.
KH- I agree. This story still circulates but has never been verified.
Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe
AiG: The mammoths were buried by wind-blown silt.
KH- I disagree. Mammoths died a variety of ways including wind blown silt but some
definitely appear to have frozen too rapidly for normal temperatures found on earth. The
Mammoth was not designed to be a cold weather animal. I cover the mammoth topic in
The Hovind Theory.
The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in old strata invalidate the geologic column
AiG: These remains are not natural burials.
KH- Moot point. The geologic column has been invalidated many ways. The entire
geologic column is a house of cards. Human remains and artifacts have been found in
most layers of the earth. I cover much on this topic in
Lies in the Textbooks
and the Question and Answer Session.
Dubois renounced Java man as a missing link and claimed it was just a giant gibbon
AiG: Dubois, discoverer of Java man, had an eccentric view of evolution that
Java man did not fit.
KH- I don't know whether he did or didn't. I don't mention this in my seminar. Dubois
was a committed evolutionist and deliberately withheld info that would damage his finds.
I cover this on The Garden of Eden .
The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand
AiG: Although it is impossible to make a 100% watertight evaluation of any
creature based solely on a few photographs, an interpretative sketch and eye
witness reports of the decomposing remains, the evidence collected so far
overwhelming favours the basking shark identity for the Zuiyo-maru carcass.
KH- I disagree. The similarity of protein structure between the carcass and shark protein
was about 96%. No one has ever seen plesiosaur protein to know what it is supposed to
look like and human and chimp DNA is 98.6% similar yet they are very different in
hundreds of ways. I do not know for sure if the carcass was a plesiosaur but it has
certainly not been proven that it was not. The fishermen and the marine biologist that
examined the carcass were baffled by it and did not think it was a shark. The jury is still
out on this one. There was an excellent color pamphlet about this topic published in
England recently that I read but cannot find now. If you know where I can obtain one
please let me know.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall
AiG: Death began at the Fall, not the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
KH- I do not know how this could be determined and I do not address this in my seminar.
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
AiG: Evolutionists teach that humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that
humans evolved from apes.
KH- I agree. Most evolutionists teach that humans and apes had a common ancestor,
which is just as dumb a theory.
Women have one more rib than men
AiG: Dishonest skeptics are usually the only ones who use this ridiculous
argument to discredit creationists.
KH- I agree. Only Adam was missing a rib and probably only for a short time. AiG has
a great article on the fact that the lower rib will grow back if taken out.
Archaeopteryx is a fraud
AiG: Archaeopteryx is a genuine fossil of an unusual bird.
KH- Scientists split on this one. Sir Fred Hoyle said it was a fraud. I teach in
Lies in the TextBooks that it does not matter. Modern birds are found in "older" rocks (based on the
evolutionists imaginary geologic column) and Archaeopteryx is moot. There is no
evidence that any animal is now or ever has been capable of producing anything other
than its kind. Also, no fossil could ever count as evidence for evolution since it could
never be proven the fossil had any offspring that lived let alone different offspring.
There are no beneficial mutations
AiG: We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in
those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.
KH- The terms would need to be defined here. Most creationists that make this comment
mean that there are no mutations with a proven benefit that would change anything major
about the animal or plant.
No new species have been produced
AiG: New species have been observed to form.
KH- I agree but the terms need to be defined here also. Who is deciding when a new
species is produced and exactly what is a "species?" The Bible clearly teaches the plants
and animals will bring forth after their "kind."
Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood
AiG: There is no basis for this claim.
KH- I don't think it is possible to know the truth of this one but it has not been proven
that it was not. I address the possibility in
The Hovind Theory.
Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
AiG: Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur
tracks obscuring the claw marks.
KH- I disagree. 1. We do not need to find tracks together since, A. There is ample
evidence from many sources that man and dinosaurs coexisted. B. The Bible says all
things were made in six days. C. No one has ever found human and chicken footprints in
the same rock. With that said, I have been to the Paluxy four times and have seen the
evidence first hand. There is ample evidence that the tracks [except for a few known and
obvious frauds] are genuine. Many intelligent and godly people have devoted hundreds
of hours to this study and disagree with AiG here. It appears that AiG may have been
taken in by the computer programmer Glen Kuban who poses as a creationist. He has
been thoroughly discredited on www.omniology.com. I cover this topic in
The Garden of Eden and
Dinosaurs and the Bible.
Darwin's quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species
AiG: Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context.
KH- I am not sure exactly what they mean here but as I understand their position, I
disagree. Darwin did indeed say: "To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed
by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored
Races in the Struggle for Life 1859 p. 217. He went on to explain that he believed it
must have happened anyway and even made feeble attempts to invent a way it "might
have" happened but he did make the statement above. I cover this in detail in
Lies in the Textbooks.
Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents
AiG: The 'Earth' that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one
language, i.e. 'Earth' refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet
KH- I may agree if they mean this should not be taught dogmatically. There are at least
four theories about the meaning of this verse. 1. The languages and nations were divided
at the tower of Babel. 2. The continents moved and split. [this is unlikely due to the
devastating effect even small plate movements have, but it has not been proven wrong] 3.
The water came up and divided the high spots into islands and continents. 4. The land
was surveyed "divided" to avoid disputes due to population increase. I cover this in more
detail in The Hovind Theory.
The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology
AiG: The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the
(obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood.
KH- I do not address this topic but the entire topic of which version of the Bible is
reliable is covered on my seminar part 7 and on www.avpublications.com. I stick with
the KJV for many reasons covered on our new
Question and Answer Session.
There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be
10,000 years old or even more
AiG: The language is clear that they are strict chronologies.
KH- I agree. The three missing names between the various genealogies do not justify
adding thousands of years and there are several reasonable explanations for the missing
names given in the book "The 'Errors' in the King James Bible" available on my web
site. While I disagree with the author, Peter Ruckman and several key topics I think he
has done a fine job refuting many of the so called errors.
Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would
have inherited original sin
AiG: This is not stated in Scripture and even contradicts important points.
KH- I do not address this topic in my seminar.
The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution
AiG: The original Greek word translated 'science' is gnosis, and in this context
refers to the élite esoteric 'knowledge' that was the key to the mystery religions,
which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism.
KH- This phrase probable refers to evolution as well as many other false doctrines. I
would never say it does not refer to evolution. I also get nervous when someone says,
"the original Greek…" There are two very different Greek sources. I cover this in the
Question and Answer Session.
Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference
frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural
AiG: AiG rejects dogmatic geocentrism, and believes that the Biblical passages
about sunset etc. should be understood as taking the Earth as a reference frame,
but that this is one of many physically valid reference frames; the center of mass
of the solar system is also a valid reference frame.
KH- As surprising as it may sound, the jury is still out on this topic. I am open for
discussion but so far remain convinced of the heliocentric position. I think the terms
need to be carefully defined. Could the Bible be saying that the earth is in the center of
the "universe" and of God's attention but not of our little "solar system?"
Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark
AiG: This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a
KH- I disagree. I do not say in my seminar that he did or did not find it but it is not
certain that he did not. The mud flow argument is flawed since the point is at the wrong
end. Mud flows around an object produce a rounded end on the uphill side and a point on
the downhill side much like an airplane wing. I knew Ron [he died a few years ago] and
still keep contact with those continuing his ministry. When Creation Magazine published
articles to "disprove" Ron's claims I did what I am convinced is the Christian thing to do
in matters like this; I called Ron and allowed him to defend his position. He was able to
give very good answers to the objections, misrepresentations and accusations made in the
article yet, to my knowledge, neither Ron nor his successors at www.wyattmuseum.com
were given the opportunity for a public hearing facing their accusers. I cover some of
this controversy in
Dinosaurs and the Bible and would be glad to discuss more by phone or you may
call Richard Rives at the Wyatt Museum. 931-486-0557.
Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible
AiG: There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt's claims, just excuses
to explain away why the evidence is missing.
KH- I disagree. See above. While I differ with Ron and his successors on several
doctrines I remain convinced that he did much valuable research that deserves to be
studied. I cover some of Ron's discoveries in the
Question and Answer Session. The main grip of his critics
was that there was not enough documentation or proof for some of his claims. Obviously
"not proven" does not equal "disproven."
Many of Carl Baugh's creation evidences
AiG: Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he's well meaning but that he unfortunately
uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically.
KH- This needs clarification. It is obviously impossible to defend against a general
accusation such as the one above. Which specific "evidences" are they talking about?
I have known and loved Dr. Baugh for years. He has done much great research that
deserves to be studied. Some topics regarding the original creation cannot possible be
proven due to the radical changes made by the flood but Dr. Baugh has some excellent
According to AiG these arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?
AiG: The "windows of heaven" refers to rain, and the "waters above" refers to
KH- I disagree and cover this in The Garden of Eden and the Question and Answer Session.
The Bible says there was water above the firmament (where the birds fly- Gen. 1:20) and there is no other good way to
explain the existence of giant insects that are found in the fossil record. There may still
be water above the stars- see Psalm 148:4, but it appears that the layer above our
atmosphere fell down at the time of the flood.
There was no rain before the Flood
AiG: This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there should be no
KH- There is no way to know the truth of this one. During the creation week a mist went
forth to water the face of the ground and most people assume this was the watering
system until the flood but the Scripture is silent on this topic.
Natural selection as tautology
AiG: Maybe it is, but it's still a fact, and creationists accept natural selection as
an important part of the Creation/Fall framework.
KH- If they mean "survival of the fittest," I disagree and cover this in Lies in the Textbooks.
The only way to know which ones are the fittest is to see which ones survive. How else
can we know?
Evolution is just a theory
AiG: It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an
unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
KH- It is actually a religion not even a plausible theory.
The speed of light has decreased over time
AiG: Although most of the evolutionary counter-arguments have been proven to
be fallacious, there are still a number of problems, many of which were raised by
creationists, which we believe have not been satisfactorily answered.
KH- I disagree and cover this in the
Question and Answer Session. While it has not been proven either way I
would not close the door on the idea that the speed of light has decreased and have an
article on my web site FAQ
about this. One main point many creationists miss is that the
God who can make a full grown man and woman in a full grown garden can certainly
make a full grown universe with light already showing on earth. Also many people seem
to want to place human limitations on God.
There are no transitional forms
AiG: While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous
transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable
KH- This would need to be more clearly defined. Since no fossil could count [see above]
as evidence for evolution, and no living animal could count either, I am not sure what
they mean here. There are certainly no transitions between the "kinds" of animals or
Gold chains have been found in coal
AiG: The evidence is strictly anecdotal.
KH- I disagree and cover this in
The Hovind Theory. Only one gold chain has been found in
coal to my knowledge [On June 11, 1891, The Morrisonville Times reported; "A curious
find was brought to light by Mrs. S.W. Culp last Tuesday morning. As she was breaking
a lump of coal apart, embedded in a circular shape a small gold chain about 10 inches in
length of antique and quaint workmanship..." The Hidden History of the Human Race
Michael A. Cremo p.113], as well as an iron pot [found in coal in 1912 at the Municipal
Electric Plant in Thomas, OK. Now in Creation Evidence Museum,
www.creationevidence.org] , a soul of a shoe [Oct. 8, 1922 American Weekly section of
New York Sunday American by Dr. W. H. Ballou. The stitching pattern was clearly
visible including the twist of the thread. The rock was "213-248 million years old". The
Hidden History of the Human Race, Michael A. Cremo p.113-115, ph. 209-337-2200]. A
bell was found by W. V. Mr. Newton Anderson inside a lump of coal in 1944. He still
has the bell. (304)-842-5556. email@example.com. A Carved Stone was found in Lehigh
Coal Mine near Webster, Iowa, April 2, 1897 Daily News Omaha, Nebraska
Plate tectonics is fallacious
AiG: Dr John Baumgardner's work on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics provides
a good explanation of continental shifts and the Flood. See
Q&A: Plate Tectonics.
However, AiG recognizes that some reputable creationist scientists disagree with
KH- This needs to be defined better. The plates are moving but this does not prove they
have always been moving or that there ever was ever a super continent called Pangea.
Much more on this in The Hovind Theory.
Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution
AiG: These terms, which focus on 'small' v. 'large' changes, distract from the
key issue of information.
KH- I disagree and cover this in
Lies in the Textbooks. This needs to be defined better. I
object to the word, "micro-evolution" and say so repeatedly in my seminar but it is a fact
that there are minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal that some people
refer to as "micro-evolution." There is no reason to argue over such a small semantic
detail. I understand the concern that admitting "micro-evolution" may give the evolution
theory the "free rider" effect but as long as terms are defined there is no cause for alarm.
The Gospel is in the stars.
AiG: This is an interesting idea, but quite speculative, and many Biblical
creationists doubt that it is taught in Scripture, so we do not recommend using it.
KH- I disagree and cover this in the
Question and Answer Session. I do not teach dogmatically that the
gospel story is presented in the stars but it is certainly not proven to be untrue. Dr. D.
James Kennedy, www.coralridge.org has a great book on this topic. I do not
know for sure but I would hate to close the door on honest research into this topic.
I hope this is helpful. Regardless of your position on any of the topics above, serve God
and win souls for Him!
29 Cummings Road
Pensacola, Florida 32503
See our Other articles here.