Click here and add this page to your favorites!
Introduction | Part 1a: Age of the Earth | Part 1b: Age of the Earth, cont. | Part 2: Garden of Eden Part 3a: Dinosaurs and the Bible | Part 3b: Dinosaurs Alive Today | Part 4a: What is in the Textbooks? | Part 4b: What is in the Textbooks?, cont.
In the last session, we talked about some things that the textbooks show the students that simply are not true. Anyone who believes something wants everyone else to believe like they believe. That’s normal to try to convert people to your belief. There are some that believe in the theory of evolution and I think there are probably four reasons why they believe in that theory and we’ll cover that some other time. But some people like this evolution theory and they want other people to believe in it. And so they are trying to push their belief in our school system.
The typical atheist knows he cannot get a crowd together. If you ran an ad in your paper saying, "Atheist meeting tomorrow night," you know: three people would show up. But if you run an ad about a Creation seminar, you’d get hundreds or thousands of people to show up. So the atheist knows he cannot get people to come together for a meeting and preach his "gospel" (or whatever he calls it) the normal way. The only way they can get other people to believe in their theory is to let all the taxpayers pay for it to be taught in our school system. So a few dedicated atheists or agnostics or skeptics or evolutionists can get evolution into the textbooks and that way all of us pay for their religion to be spread in the school system. So in this session we want to continue what we covered last time about some lies in the textbooks and what you can do about it.
Textbooks often say that there are vestigial organs. This textbook says that the appendix is a vestigial organ. Now, wait a minute, vestigial is supposed to mean you don’t need it anymore. Excuse me but you do need your appendix, okay? It’s part of the immune system. If your appendix is taken out, you can still live; but just because you can live without it doesn’t mean you don’t need it. You could live without both of your legs and both of your arms too. That doesn’t mean you don’t need them. And by the way, the whole idea of a vestigial structure is the opposite of evolution.
The appendix is not vestigial first of all, and so it is a lie to teach that to the kids that it is vestigial. And even if there was a vestigial structure, that’s the opposite of what they need. So they say, "You know, man has a smaller appendix than a horse." Well, that may be true. It definitely is true. But that doesn’t prove we are slowly losing our appendix. We’ve just got a smaller appendix than a horse that’s all. See, what they do is look at any evidence and it becomes evidence for evolution in their minds. And that simply is not fair to teach the kids only one way to look at it.
This textbook says, "The whale has a vestigial pelvis." Look what it says here: "many organisms retain traces of their evolutionary history. For example a whale retains pelvic and leg bones as useless vestiges." It is in many, many textbooks. They talk about the whale having a vestigial pelvis. Now, excuse me, that is not a vestigial pelvis! Those bones are necessary because muscles attach to those bones. And without those bones and those muscles the whales cannot reproduce. It has nothing to do with walking on land. It has to do with getting more baby whales. So the author that wrote this is either ignorant of his whale anatomy and should not be writing a book about it, or he’s a liar trying to promote his theory. I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt and call him dumb. I hope he’s not lying to the kids deliberately. But that is not a vestigial pelvis. And those pages ought to be cut out of the textbook.
But here we have a children’s book. Whales & Dolphins. The first sentence in the book says, "Just imagine whales walking around. It’s true." That is pure propaganda. There is not one shred of evidence for that. Now, if someone wants to believe that, I suppose that’s fine. They can believe In the Tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, and Santa Claus, and evolution. I don’t care what they believe in. But I sure resent my tax dollars going to pay for that junk to go into the school system.
This textbook says, "Humans have a tailbone that is of no apparent use." I couldn’t believe it when I read that. I was doing a debate in Huntsville, AL. I was debating the president of the ‘North Alabama Atheist Association’ or something like that. And he got up in front of God and everybody and said, "Folks, we’ve got proof for evolution. The humans have a tailbone they no longer need." When it was my turn I got up and I said, "Mr. Patterson, I taught Biology and Anatomy. I happen to know there are nine little muscles that attach to the tail bone without which you cannot perform some very valuable functions." I will not tell you what they all are, but trust me, you need those muscles. I said, "However Mr. Patterson, if you think the tail bone is vestigial, I, Kent Hovind will pay to have yours removed. Bend over." Anyone who says that the tailbone is vestigial is either ignorant or a liar. Tell them I said so. But folks, that is propaganda. That should not be in a textbook. Textbooks ought to be accurate. That’s not accurate, that’s pure propaganda.
There actually are no vestigial organs. In the early days they said there were over 200 vestigial organs. That’s because they didn’t know the function of them, that’s all. They thought the pituitary gland was vestigial. I mean they had whole lists of vestigial organs. There are no vestigial organs and even if there were that’s the opposite of evolution. That’s a lousy way to have your theory work. Show kids things that they are losing and that is supposed to explain how we got it all? I don’t think that is good evidence.
In the textbook it says, "Plants have adapted to their environment. The pitcher plant has adaptations to help it get nitrogen." What? Why do they say the plants have adapted to their environment? Now, you’ve got to watch out. That’s a code word. They are going to use that word a lot in textbooks because they don’t want to use the word designed. This textbooks says, "Gills are an adaptation to living in water." Well, how did the fish live before he adapted the gills? Why don’t they say that it’s a design feature? Obviously gills are designed for breathing under water. Well, they don’t want to say that because then some kid is going to say, "Who is the designer?" So they very carefully avoid use of the word "design" because it might bring up, you know, embarrassing questions like, "who’s the designer?"
By the way, you don’t have to see the designer to believe He exists. You believe a lot of people exist that you’ve never seen. For instance, I have a Casio Databank stop watch—$50 at Wal-Mart. This thing holds a hundred and fifty phone numbers. It’s a calculator, a stopwatch, and an alarm clock. It does not tell time—you have to look at it. But this is an amazing machine. Now, I don’t have to go to Japan and see the guy who made this to believe he exists. See, when you see a complex structure like a watch it is common sense to say, "There must be a designer." I don’t have to see Him to believe He exists. There just must be one, that’s all. When you see a complex machine, you should come to two logical conclusions: there is a designer and he’s pretty smart. And when you look at science—whether it is through the telescope or microscope—when you look at anything in nature you should come to two conclusions: there is a designer and He’s pretty smart.
Science ought to bring students to the Lord. But Satan is using it to bring students away from the Lord. And I resent that. I like science. I taught it for 15 years. I’ve got nothing against science. But I sure resent this evolution propaganda being stirred in with our science. That’s not fair.
I like to ask evolutionists this question when they say there is no designer. (By the way, as far as I know, this is the world’s largest rock group. I’ve never seen a bigger one.) I’ll say, "Fellas,—." (some of you are going to get that by Monday.) I’ll say, "Fellas, do you believe that there is any way these faces could have appeared on this rock by chance? Do you think the wind did that? Do you think erosion did it? How about exfoliation? What about thermal expansion of rock? I mean what caused this anyway? They are going to say, "Well, obviously it was designed." Oh well, very good. Now, I have another question, "Do you believe the men represented here happened by chance?" If they believe in evolution, they have to say "yes." And I’ll say, "Now, wait a minute. You don’t think that their face could come on a rock by chance but you do think their whole complex anatomy with 50 trillion cells could happen by chance. I just have one question if you believe that. "Are you dumb in any other area? Or is that the only one?" It had to be designed folks. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
This textbook says, "Boys and girls, we are going to talk about the origin of life. 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." I guess it is—totally stopped. Doesn’t happen at all. And they tell the students in school that life evolved from non-living material. I mean, is that scientific? This textbook says, "Most important events occurred during the Archean era, the most important of which was the evolution of life." And again it says, "Progress from complex molecules to even simplest living organisms was a very long process." Didn’t happen at all. They just tell the kids it happened. Look at this textbook. "The first self replicating systems must have emerged in this organic soup." Must have happened—after all, kids, we’re here. I mean, that is their thinking process. How about this one: "the first living cells emerged (there’s that word again) between four billion and 3.8 billion years ago. There is no record of the event." That’s pretty handy! "Now, look kids, you’re going to be tested on this but there is no proof." You call that science? They just believe it happened. They take that totally on faith.
They tell about Miller and Urey trying to make life in the laboratory back in the fifties. They made this glass tubing where they circulated four gases through there. They very carefully excluded oxygen, I’ll tell you why in a minute. But they had these gases going through this tube system. An electric spark was supposed to simulate lightning strikes in the pre-biotic soup. And then they had a trap at the bottom to trap out anything that was produced. Well, did they make life in the laboratory? Absolutely not! Never came close.
Back in the 1950's, Urey and Stanley Miller wanted to know how the earth and solar system had come to be. I could have told them. It is right in the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." That’s what it says. It’s real simple, folks—not that complicated.
And then it says he [Miller] never proved how life originated. But the students are taught that he made life in the laboratory. Or that life can come from non-living material. That’s what the textbooks teach. Now, is that true?
Well, Miller and Urey, in their experiment, both excluded oxygen. There is a reason they did that. They had what’s called a reducing atmosphere. The problem is if you have oxygen, that creates what’s called ozone. And ozone is essential to filter out UV light. You have to have oxygen to make ozone. And ozone has to be there or else the Ultra Violet light comes down and destroys anything here on earth. So they have to have oxygen or you cannot get life to evolve because it would be destroyed.
Another problem: oxygen is found in the lowest rock layers. I don’t believe the geologic column exists anywhere in the world. But even by their thinking, the oldest rock layers have oxygen in them.
Also, one of the gases he used was ammonia and UV light will destroy ammonia. So he has to have oxygen to make this work. Life couldn’t possibly evolve without oxygen. The problem is if you have oxygen, it will oxidize whatever you make.
See, in the experiment he had, he very carefully trapped out the product that he made. He filtered it out so it wouldn’t circulate through again because the lightning strike would be millions of times more likely to destroy what he made then it would be to create what he made. That’s not realistic for real life. You don’t get to trap out what you make when you are in the ocean.
What he made was 85 % tar, 13 % carboxylic acid, and only 2 % amino acid. And out of that only 2 amino acids were created. And those amino acids quickly bond with the tar or the carboxylic acid. He came nowhere close to making life. And the amino acids he made, [there were] basically only two and there are twenty different ones required for life. No, don’t let them tell you that they made life in the laboratory.
See, amino acids are sort of like letters of the alphabet. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet and from those 26 letters you can make millions of words. And you can arrange those words and make an infinite number of sentences. So, what he made was like making a few letters of the alphabet. Problem, half of those were right handed and half were left-handed. If you dropped letters on the floor, half of them would land upside down and backwards. Well, that’s not any good for making a common sense word. And half of the letters he made were backwards. There was a real problem with that. The smallest proteins have 70 to 100 amino acids in precise order and they are all left-handed. DNA and RNA are all right handed and there are millions of those in order. Now, what are the chances of dropping letters of the alphabet on the floor and ending up with 70 to 100 of them in an exact order, all of them right handed? The chances are zero! That will never happen! But the evolutionist has to believe that it happened. They take that totally on faith. They have not made life in the laboratory.
By the way, proteins (which they wanted to create from those amino acids—[amino acids] bond to make proteins) they un-bond in water much faster than they bond, and the oceans are completely full of water to the top. And Brownian motion is going to drive them away from each other. It is not going to bring them together. This experiment was a total failure.
They tell the kids, "Boys and girls, we are going to think critically." Here we go again with their thinking critically. It says, "there are twenty kinds of amino acids" that’s true. Kind of like 26 letters of the alphabet. "Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor." No, teacher, this fact supports the idea that all life comes from a common designer. And it’s a good thing all life forms have those 20 amino acids, otherwise you would not be able to eat anything except other humans. You wouldn’t be able to digest them. They are all made out of the same amino acids so we can eat other things, folks.
If all you need to do is put all of the molecules together in one place to create life—and somehow that is what they think in their mind: "if we get all of the molecules together in one place it will automatically create life." Well, if you really believe that, put a frog in a blender and turn it on. You will have all of the molecules to make a frog in one place. Let it run for millions and millions and millions and millions of years. How long would it take to create a frog? It won’t do it will it? Never going to work!
The textbook says, "Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than four billion years ago." We started off like bacteria? Yes. They make these family trees and they put them in the textbooks. They tell boys and girls, "Hey boys and girls, we started off like a bacteria and slowly over billions of years evolved to a human."
These family trees that they put in the textbooks are pure propaganda. There is not one shred of scientific evidence for any of them. Even Mary Leaky, who believes in evolution, says, "All of those trees of life with the branches of our ancestors—that’s a lot of nonsense!" Even Stephen Gould from Harvard University (where they ‘pahk the cah in the yahd’ [Boston accent]). Stephen Gould said, "the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are not the evidence of fossils." They make it up folks! It’s pure imagination.
Now, let me see if I’m reading this tree right. Is this thing trying to tell the kids that the humans on the left over here and the birds and the crocodiles and the snakes all have a common ancestor? Wouldn’t you say the average student is going to look at that chart and believe that they all have a common ancestor?
Now, you don’t need to be a genius to figure out that is going to ruin some kid’s faith in the Bible. And anyone that ruins a child’s faith in the Bible should see what Jesus said about it in Matthew chapter 18. "Whoso shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck. And he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Anyone that goes around teaching evolution is in serious trouble when they face God. Don’t do that! You are going to ruin some child’s faith in the Bible.
This textbook—from Glenco Biology, 94 edition—it says, "All the many forms of life on earth today are descended from a common ancestor." Excuse me, isn’t that telling the kids the birds and the bananas are related? I’m not making this up am I? That’s what it is teaching! And it says, "This is found in a population of primitive unicellular organisms." What on earth is a primitive unicellular organism? There is no such thing as we will see in a minute. And then they say, "Boys and girls, no traces of those events remain." That’s real handy! "Now, look kids, you are going to be tested on this but there is no proof." That’s not education, that’s indoctrination.
And they talk about a simple life form. Primitive life form. Now, just hold on a minute! A single celled organism like a paramecium is not simple. You can fit thousands of those into one drop of water and yet every paramecium is more complex than the space shuttle. The most complex machine ever built by man is the space shuttle. And one paramecium has got them beat millions to one. Smaller is not simpler. Somehow in their brains they got it stuck that if it’s smaller it must be simpler. No, no, no. Microchips that fit inside a paperclip are not simple. They are small, but they are not simple.
Let’s compare the brain of a honeybee, which is pretty small, to NASA’s Cray computer. The Y-MPC90. The Cray computer is huge. NASA has seven of those things. Let’s compare that to the honeybee’s brain. The honeybee’s brain is tiny. Nobody is going to argue with that. What about the speed? Well, the Cray computer can process six billion calculations per second. That’s pretty fast. The brain of a honeybee can do about a thousand billion per second. So the honeybee’s brain is about 166 times faster than a Cray computer. Pretty amazing huh? What about the energy consumption? Oh, the Cray uses many kilowatts. A honeybee only 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. Let me see you invent a machine that gets a million miles per gallon. My Heavenly Father did! He’s pretty smart, isn’t He? What about the cost? Well, the Cray costs 48 million. The honeybee’s brain is pretty cheap. You splat them on your windshield all [of] the time. What about the maintenance personnel? Many people have to scramble when the Cray breaks down. The honeybee’s brain? Nobody fixes that. He heals himself. Hey! Let me see you invent a computer that fixes its own problems and replaces its own hard drive when it needs it. Pretty amazing isn’t it? What about the weight? Well, the honeybee doesn’t weigh much. His brain weighs even less. The Cray computer weighs 2300 pounds.
Let’s see, what conclusions can we come to here boys and girls? The super computer is huge, it’s slow, it’s inefficient, it costs a lot of money, and you have to baby sit the dumb thing. It had to be designed. There isn’t anybody with half a brain that would say, "The Cray computer came from an explosion in an electronics factory." Would they? And yet we have the honeybee’s brain which is faster, more efficient, energy efficient, cheap, and they say it evolved. Well, I’ve just got my same question if you believe that. Are you dumb in any other area or is that the only one? It had to be designed. You don’t need to be a genius to figure that out.
And the human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s. You know, you can walk into a room and look around the room and in one second your brain picks up enough information to keep the Cray Computer busy for 1000 years. It’s amazing!
Let’s see: if the human brain is nothing but three pounds of chemicals that got together by chance over billions of years (which is what some people think) and I tell this to atheists all of the time. They’ll say, "I believe in evolution." I say, "Well, then you think that your brain is nothing but three pounds of chemicals that got together by chance over billions of years. If that’s true, how can you trust your thinking process? Wow, a brand new thought rattles around in there for a while and gets lost. Folks, it had to be designed. If evolution is true, you could not know that it’s true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. Think about that.
The DNA molecule in your body (the Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is the most complex molecule in the universe. The average person in this room has 50 trillion cells in their body. Each of those cells contains 46 chromosomes—except for the gammates, they’ve got 23. If you took all of the chromosomes out of your body, you would end up with about two tablespoons of chromosomes. That’s it. Extracting all of them from every cell in your body would give you about two tablespoons. But if you stretch them out, each one six or seven feet long (they are wound up like a tight little spring) if you stretched them out and tied them all together, one persons chromosomes would reach from the earth to the moon and back five million round trips. Coming out of one person's chromosomes. Pretty amazing don’t you think?!
And if you typed out this computer code you would find you’ve got enough code in your DNA, and it is more complex and contains more information than all of the computer programs ever written by man combined! Pretty amazing! And this unbelievably complex DNA code if you typed it all out, when you got done typing you would have enough books to fill Grand Canyon forty times.
Anybody work with computers at all? Who works with computers around here? Anybody? Alright. I want to see you get forty Grand Canyons full of books. More than ever has been written or printed or copied in the history of the world and I want you to condense it to software. You can use CD ROM, PK Zip, or SyQuest. I don’t care what you use, but when you are done it must fit into two tablespoons. My Heavenly Father did it! And it reproduces itself! Did you know you are a copy off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, off a copy of Adam? That’s pretty amazing don’t you think? I mean that is really amazing! King David said in Psalm 139, "I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made." He didn’t even have a microscope and he could figure it out! Today we ought to really be praising God. See, science should cause us to praise God. And the devil knows that, so he’s working awful hard to infiltrate science where it turns students away from God. The probability of just one DNA happening by chance. That’s a complex molecule. The chances of just one coming together in random order has been calculated to be one times 10 to the 119,000th power. That’s a big number! That would have 119,000 zero’s behind it!
One professor told me in a debate—he said, "Now, Mr. Hovind, if we can just get one DNA by chance, evolution can take it from there." Well, there are your odds against getting your first one. But I’ll give you one. I’ll give you two! I’m going to be nice. I’m going to let him start with two DNA.
I did some research on this, folks. I decided the more chromosomes you have, the more complex you must be because it is the most complex molecule in the universe; and so I arranged a bunch of animals and plants in order based upon the number of chromosomes they had. I discovered that penicillin has two chromosomes. Fruit flies have eight. There are a few missing links in there three, four, five, six, seven. I don’t know where they went, but I do believe from this research that I could prove that penicillin slowly evolved into fruit flies. And then over billions of years, they got more chromosomes someplace and turned into either a housefly or a tomato. (They are twins, you know! Pretty tough to tell the difference.) They both have 12 chromosomes. And then very slowly over billions of years we got more chromosomes and became a pea. And then over billions of years they got two more chromosomes and turned into a bee. Pretty close, now: bee—pea, see the similarities? And then very slowly became lettuce. And then a carrot. And when we got to 22 chromosomes a miracle took place. Did you know the possum, the redwood tree and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes? Identical triplets. See, that’s a possum; that’s the tree and kidney bean. Hey! Got them right! Look at that! The average scientist can’t tell the difference. They’ve got 22 chromosomes—all three of them. "Let’s see: we’ve got tree, possum, kidney bean and huh, which one is which? I don’t know." Very slowly over millions of years we got enough chromosomes to become a human. Here we are folks: we have forty-six. And if we can just get two more we are going to be a tobacco plant! I know some that already smell like it! Sometimes I’ll get on the elevator and I’ll say, "(sniff) Man, you’re evolving! You are way ahead of me! How did you do that?" And then some day in the far distant future, we may have enough chromosomes to be a turkey—eighty-two. And some day in the way far distant future (now, this won’t happen in my lifetime but maybe star date 349572), we might have enough chromosomes to be a fern! I was in a church a few years ago and a lady came to me after church, stuck out her hand and said, "Mr. Hovind, I’m Fern!" I shook hands with that hand right there. I’ll never wash it again!
Why don’t they teach the kids about the chromosome number as proof for evolution? I’ll tell you why: because it goes totally against the theory. You won’t find that mentioned anyplace! Those are facts, folks! Chromosome number does not prove evolution. That’s all a farce, of course. And evolution itself is a farce.
Textbooks, though, say, "Boys and girls, we have evidence of evolution from molecular biology." Oh wow, big word! What do you mean by that teacher? Well, the DNA in your body (the Deoxyribonucleic Acid—the chromosome) we’ve compared the chromosomes, or the DNA, of animals and found some similarities. This textbook says, "The percentage of DNA sequence that they have in common is how you tell evolution." It says, "Darwin speculated that all forms of life are related."
Then look what it says: "This speculation has been verified." Oh now, come on teacher, you know better than that! They arrange all the animals in order based upon the similarities of their DNA. They discovered that man is only 11% different from a duck. You only missed being a duck by 11%! You might have been flying south for the winter! How many would like that about now? I saw a bunch yesterday flying south for the winter.
Look, this percentage of DNA sequencing is pure propaganda. It’s bologna! It doesn’t mean a thing! And the evolutionists understand that. We have no direct access to the process of evolution. It’s only by creative imagination that you can come up with this. They had just imagined it. They tell the kids in school that the human and the orangutans are 96% similar in their DNA structure. "And this, boys and girls, proves they had a common ancestor 15 million years ago." Now, just hold on a minute. That does not prove any such thing! It might prove that they have a common Designer. Similar DNA codes prove the same Engineer wrote the codes. I bet I could point out that most of the stuff coming out of Microsoft has some similarities. Most of their programs are similar. That doesn’t prove they all evolved from Morse code! The same guys are writing the programs. That’s what’s going on! And there are thousands and thousands of differences between chimpanzees or apes and humans. Yet they point out the one similarity, the 99% similarity of DNA, and think that is somehow proof. But they overlook millions of other things. Monkeys cannot touch all of their fingers to their thumb. Monkeys are missing a whole section of the brain called Broca’s Convolution. Monkeys can hang upside down with their feet on a tree branch—their big toe on one side and their other toe on the other side. Try that some time! Pick a low tree branch, I would recommend. I mean there are thousands and thousands of differences. The body covering is different—the hair, of course, and its distribution across the body. There are thousands of differences. But they think there are similarities with the DNA code and so that’s the one they point to the students and say, "See, this proves evolution!"
Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that’s supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It’s proof of a common Designer!
However, if you think similarity proves a relationship, let me show you some research I’ve been doing. I’ve been doing a lot of research on things based upon their similarity. I discovered in my research that clouds are 100% water. Watermelons are 97% water—only 3% difference. That proves watermelons evolved from clouds. Not only that, I found a missing link! Jellyfish are 98% are water and so are snow cones. So that prove watermelons evolved into either snow cones or jellyfish, I’m not sure how it happened. I’ll have to work on that some more. But it’s obvious that’s a relationship, you know.
They tell the kid, "We’ve got evidence from fossils." Now, just hold on a minute. What fossil evidence do they have for evolution? Darwin said in his book (which I have right here)—Charlie Darwin said, "If my theory be true," (big "if" Charlie) "numberless intermediate varieties must assuredly have existed." That’s correct Charlie. They must have existed—billions and billions of missing links should be there if the theory is true. But the evolutionists know it is not true. David Raup knows and he’s an evolutionist. He says, "In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general. These have not been found. Yet optimism dies hard and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." Crept in? David, it was thrown in purposely! They want kids to believe this theory.
For instance, they tell the kids that the horse evolved from a four-toed ancestor. How many have ever heard of that before—about the horse used to have four toes? That’s pure bologna! That didn’t creep into the textbooks. That was thrown in! It’s in nearly every textbook, though, about the horse evolving from a four-toed ancestor. What they don’t tell the kids is that the so-called Eohippus, the ancient horse, had 18 pairs of ribs, the next one had 15 pairs of ribs, the next one after that had 19 pairs, the next one after that had 18 pairs. The rib number changes back and forth. Well, that’s kind of interesting! How is that critter going to survive? And the experts are saying, "The evolution of the horse has not held up under close examination."
Here are some problems with the horse evolution theory. The whole thing was made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874. He picked animals from all over the world. He did not find them in one place and he did not find them in that order. He made up the entire thing! It’s propaganda! It was invented. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than the so-called ancient horse. And the ancient horse is not a horse at all. It’s called a hyrax and it is still alive today in South America. It’s about the size of a fox and it’s a meat-eating animal with sharp teeth. That is just propaganda. The ribs are different, the toes are different the teeth are different. And experts are saying, "Look, that’s not a missing link. Not at all." Tulsa Zoo finally removed their horse evolution display because 2000 people signed a petition and said, "Get that thing out of the zoo!" Why does a zoo have to teach evolution? Why doesn’t the zoo teach about animals!
Evolution is unrelated to science. Why do they feel like they have to get evolution into the zoos [and] into the textbooks? Well, folks, otherwise there is no way they can get people to listen to their religion. They have to push it off at your tax payers expense. A friend of mine wrote to the Tulsa Zoo and said, "Why do you have the horse evolution on display? It’s been proven wrong years ago." The director wrote back and said, "We haven’t had the funding to remove it." I’ve got all of the letters over there on the table. Man, I thought, "haven’t had the funding to remove it!?"
Yale University still has the horse evolution on display right now. I was there a couple of years ago. There while I was standing at Yale University Peabody Museum, hundreds of kids came through the museum and went past the horse evolution display and were never told it was wrong. Now, what we need is somebody at Yale who has got some intelligence and some courage to do the right thing and get the horse evolution out of the Peabody Museum. Now, are you trying to educate the kids? Or are you trying to indoctrinate the kids in your religion? And if somebody from Yale gets this tape, get that thing out of your display. That’s not science—that’s propaganda. Don’t lie to the kids. Be honest, take it down. They arrange these animals in order. And say that’s somehow proof.
Now, look, just because you find animals buried in a certain order that doesn’t mean anything. And they do not find the animals buried in the order they would like to find them in to prove evolution. See, if I get buried on top of a hamster, does that prove he’s my grandpa? Well, no. Arranging things in order doesn’t prove anything. But let’s pretend that it does.
Evolution of Silverware
Okay. If you believe arranging things in order proves something, let me show you the research I’ve been doing. I’m a research scientist you know? I’ve been doing extensive research for many years on the evolution of silverware. I believe after intensive research that knives evolved first. This was billions of years ago boys and girls. And then slowly, very slowly over billions of years pressure, great geological pressure squished it. Widened it out, shortened it up, and made a spoon. And then slowly erosion cut grooves into the end and it became a short tine fork. And then very slowly (that’s the secret: slowly) over billions of years the grooves got longer and wider and it became a long tine fork. I knew I had the right order, but I feel like I had a missing link. Particularly between the spoon and the fork. You see, spoons are rounded and have no grooves. Forks are squared and have grooves. That’s two jumps in one. Even punctuated equilibrium couldn’t do that. So I knew that there must be a missing link in here. But I couldn’t find it. Until one day I was flying up to Connecticut on US Air. 30,000 feet off the ground, the stewardess walked down the aisle and handed me the missing link. I don’t think she knew what she had. But my trained scientific eye picked it up right away. "Wow! This is it!" I put it in my pocket. Later that day, I went to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Found another one! There they are folks! The missing links! So the evolution of silverware is becoming very complete. Which means I’m ready to apply for a government grant. I need about 30 million dollars to finish this research, don’t I?
Look, arranging things in order doesn’t prove anything. You can arrange words in order and prove anything you want. You can turn a cat to a cot to a dot to a dog. As a matter of fact you can play around for awhile and turn yourself into a fool. Spend all of your time arranging stuff in order. No, there is no evidence for evolution at all.
Now, the textbooks are going to tell the kids, "Boys and girls, birds are the descendants of dinosaurs." How many have ever heard of that before? Wasn’t that the whole purpose behind the Jurassic Park movie? Now, just hold on a minute, in case you don’t know, there are a few differences between a dinosaur and a bird. You don’t just put a few feathers on him and say, "Let’s go man come on you can do it!" It’s not quite that easy folks. You see, reptiles have four perfectly good legs, birds have two legs and two wings. So if his front legs are going to change into wings (besides lots of other things having to change, like the muscular system, the nervous system to control this and the brain to control flight) besides all of that, somewhere along the line, his front legs are going to be half-leg half-wing. Which means now he can’t run and he can’t fly. This guy is going to have a problem evolving through that stage don’t you think? As a matter of fact, through all the stages he’s going to have a problem evolving.
They tell the kids though, that birds are covered with feathers, (which is true) and they are going to say, "Boys and girls, bird feathers evolved from the same scales that protected the dinosaurs so well." Hold on a second. Feathers are extremely complex. The only similarity they have between feathers and scales is they are both made from the same protein. It is called Keratin. Your finger nails and your hair are made from the same stuff. That doesn’t prove that they are related. It proves they’ve got a common Designer. Did you know battleships and forks are both made out of the same metal? Iron. That proves that they both evolved from a tin can 27 million years ago. (Jump frog jump!) Man, you’re getting the wrong conclu-sions here folks! Similarity proves a common Designer.
There are real problems with the bird evolution from reptiles. The lungs are totally different. Reptiles have a sac type lung. Birds have a tubular type lung. Very different lung system. Modern birds are found in layers with and lower than the so-called dinosaurs. How can they be the ancestors? How can the dinosaurs change to birds? The birds were already there, even by their thinking, with their faulty geologic scale. Scales and feathers attach to the body differently and they come from different genes on the chromosome. Birds have a four chambered heart. Reptiles have a three chambered heart. Major change there, folks! How is that going to survive? In addition to just the heart changing, you have to get the nerve supply changing. And the DNA code changing so the next generation has this heart change. It doesn’t work.
Reptiles lay a leathery egg. Birds have a hard-shelled egg. There are thousands of differences between reptiles and birds. There is no evidence. And the experts know that.
Even W.E. Swinton from the British Museum of Natural History, the largest fossil collection in the world. He said, "there is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." Now, he believes that happened, but he knows that there is no fossil evidence. But the textbooks tell the kids that there is.
They show the picture of Archaeopteryx and say, "Boys and girls, this is Archaeopteryx." (Wow—big word, write that down. It will be on the test!) Archaeopteryx. It means "ancient wing." They are going to say, "Boys and girls, this used to be a dinosaur. This is the missing link." It’s a bird, teacher. It’s twelve inches long. Come on! It’s the size of a pigeon. Only six have been found. Some people think they are all fakes. I don’t know. Even if they are legitimate though it’s just a bird. It’s 100% bird! The size of a crow.
Claws and Teeth
They are going to say, "Well, now, he’s got claws on his wings. Do you see those claws right there? Don’t you see? That proves he used to be a dinosaur." Come on now, teacher. Twelve birds today have claws on their wings. The ostrich, the hoatzin, the touraco, the ibis. I can’t name them all but there are twelve birds that have claws on the wings right now! By the way, going from claws to no claws would be an example of losing something, not gaining something. Is that how evolution works? You lose everything until you have it all? I don’t get it.
Well, they are going to say, "Well, he’s got teeth in his beak! See those teeth right there? That proves he used to be a dinosaur!" Well, now, hold on just a minute, some birds have teeth, most don’t. Some reptiles have teeth some don’t. Some fish have teeth, some don’t. Some of you have teeth. Some don’t. That doesn’t prove you used to be a dinosaur. And again, going from teeth to no teeth is losing, not gaining! That’s the opposite of what we need!
Evolving a Loss?
They told me when I went to school, "Man used to have a tail but he lost it because he didn’t need it." I thought, didn’t need it?! Have you ever thought how handy a tail would be? Have you ever come to the door with two sacks of groceries? That would be nice man. Grab that door, open it right up, and swing it around, walk right in there! Have you ever been driving down the highway and wished you had something to hold that can of Coke or tune that radio knob? It would be tougher to put your britches on, I understand all that. Somebody could figure that out, you know, put another zipper or something. I don’t know, they’d figure it out. But what do you mean lost it because we didn’t need it? That’s propaganda! These experts know that there is no evidence for any changing! They say there is fossil evidence and there isn’t!
These experts know that there is no evidence for any changing! They say there is fossil evidence and there isn’t! Luther Sunderland wrote this book Darwin’s Enigma. He wrote to all of the major universities [and] to the museums (or visited them) and he said, "Would you please show me the evidence you have for evolution?" They said, "Well, we don’t have it here, it must be somewhere else."
Have you ever seen that shell game where they have the three shells and they put a pea under it and they move them around and try to fool you? This evolution is a giant shell game, only there is no pea under any of them! They all think somebody else has it. Nobody has the evidence!
Luther wrote to the British Museum of Natural History. The largest fossil collection in the world and asked Colin Paterson. He said, "Mr. Paterson, I read your book about evolution but I noticed that you didn’t show us any missing links. Why not? Where are the missing links? Colin Paterson 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 (now, that’s interesting, why would you include a living one as a missing link?) He said, "if I knew of any I certainly would have included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil." There is no evidence for changing from one kind to another. It’s not a missing link they need folks. The whole chain is missing! And folks like Stephen Gould understand that. He said, "The absence of fossil evidence has been a nagging problem for evolution." I guess it has Steve. You can’t find any! But he still believes in evolution.
Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge have resurrected Gouldschmidt’s theory and come up with this idea called Punctuated Equilibrium. That’s supposed to explain why we don’t find the missing links. "Yes boys and girls, maybe a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched out! So you see, we won’t find the missing links because they never existed!" So what you’re trying to say is, because we don’t have any proof that proves it? Hmmm, I don’t get it. It’s pretty obvious the conclusions from all these fossils that have been dug up. They’ve dug up millions and millions of fossils. Fossils are not the problem. It’s not that they are rare. It’s that the intermediates are extinct. They don’t exist. But they will say, "Well, you know, fossilization is a rare process." Well, take a look in the dirt, man. There are billions of fossils out there. Don’t tell me it’s a rare process. The flood formed most of the fossils. That’s what they don’t want to admit. Fossils cry out real loud, "Hey! Quick, rapid burial!" All fossils seem similar to living forms. With no undisputed missing links discovered so far. That’s the conclusions of science.
But they do believe in evolution so they’ll say, "Well, since we know evolution is a fact, even though there is no evidence, this proves it happened rapidly." Now, among many scientists who are evolutionists, here’s the argument that’s going on. They are going to say, "Darwin said evolution happened slowly. Gradualistic." They should find billions of fossils of evidence for that. But they don’t find any. And so this new group of folks have come along called the Saltationists and they say, "Well, maybe evolution happened quickly. It happened in leaps or jumps or saltations." See, in their little brain there is only two choices. Evolution happened slowly like Charlie said. Or evolution happened rapidly like Stephen Gould said. They don’t seem to stop to consider that there might be another choice: it didn’t happen at all.
Many evolutionists have admitted, though, there is only two choices, Creation and evolution. And Creation is clearly unthinkable. They won’t even consider that. But folks, I’m telling you, this evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. That’s all it is. The theory is useless. You can’t name me one scientific advancement we have because of the evolution theory. That’s not why we have lights, it’s not why we have electricity, it’s not why we have computers, it’s not why we have cars. I defy you to name me one scientific advancement because of the evolution theory. Even if it is true (and it’s not) but even if it were true, it’s a useless theory. It is of no value whatsoever. You’re wasting classroom space, classroom time, textbooks space. Get that stuff out of the classroom! Malcolm Muggeridge said, "I’m convinced the theory of evolution will be one of the great jokes of the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." Why do people believe that dumb theory? Well, I’ll tell you why! It’s the only way to get rid of God. They have to have an explanation for how we got here and they don’t like the Bible explanation because that involves accountability. So they try to get rid of God. And they will grasp at any straw that floats by rather than the lifeboat of Jesus Christ.
Experts are saying, "The scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men. The story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." "In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact. There’s no evidence for this."
Even Charles Darwin said in his book right here on page 217, Charlie said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd." Charlie very much was confused about the human eyeball because it is so complex. He said, "How could this thing have evolved by chance?" Good question Charlie! How can blind chance make a seeing eye? Explain that to me please! Well, the textbook says, "The complex structure of the human eye may be the product of millions of years of evolution." Why do we have to give evolution the credit for everything when nobody knows of anything that it’s done?
This textbook shows the kids a couple of different eyes and it says, "Boys and girls, you might better understand how the eye might have evolved if you can picture a series of changes." See, you have to imagine it. Evolution doesn’t take place in the world we see today. It doesn’t take place in the fossil record so you have to imagine that it happened. Don’t you see, the devil is blinding you? The devil is laughing at you for believing that dumb theory! And he’s pushing it all over the world, but he’s laughing at folks that believe it! He doesn’t believe it! He knows it’s not true! The devil is just using it to blind people away from the obvious. The Bible says God formed the eye. In Psalm chapter 94, "He that formed the eye, shall He not see?" God ought to get the credit for what He made!
Here is a section of the back of your eyeball. The back of your eye is about one square inch but it contains 137 million light sensitive cells. Now, how would you like to be the electrician responsible for wiring that thing up? Would anybody like to make 137 million connections in one square inch? Anybody want to try that? I got a call a couple of years ago. This guy called up. (You never know what you’re going to get when you answer the phone in my place.) I picked up the phone and said, "Hello, Creation Science, this is Brother Hovind." The voice on the other end said, "How can you be so dumb as to believe in Creation?" I said, "Excuse me?" He said, "How can you be so dumb as to believe in Creation?!" I said, "well, what’s my other choice?" He said, "evolution!" I said, "Why would I believe a theory like that?" He said, "Well, don’t you know things in this world are very poorly designed!" I said, "Like what?" He said, "Like the eyeball for instance. The human eye is a poor design." I said, "Sir, I can see fine out of mine." (Well, I’ve got to have a little help now with glasses when I’m reading but don’t tell anybody.) He said, "The eye is poorly designed. Mr. Hovind, don’t you know the blood vessels are in front of the retina?" I said, "Oh, yes sir I knew about that." He said, "Don’t you know that means the light has to go through the blood vessels to get to the retina so that kind of blurs your vision a little bit. I said, "Well, I don’t think it blurs the vision any but yes it is true that the light has to go through the blood vessels. You’re right about that." He said, "See, that’s a poor design!" He said, "The octopus has a much better eye because their blood vessels are behind the retina." I said, "Sir, I don’t know who you are or where you are calling from, but let me explain something to you. We live in the air. UV light from the sun comes down right through the air, it doesn’t get slowed down hardly at all coming through the air and UV light will burn your retina. And so we have blood vessels in front of the retina to protect us from UV light. Now, octopuses live in the water. Water stops UV light so they don’t need the blood vessels in front. Now, if you want to swap eyes with an octopus have at it, but you’d be blind in a few days. We need the blood vessels in front. It’s incredibly designed! Do you have any other dumb questions?" He said, "No, that was it." Click. Anybody that says the eyeball is a poor design is ignorant or a liar! It’s incredibly designed!
Look, nothing man has made comes close to the eyeball but lets just take a car as an example. I’ve had 99 cars since I started driving. Never had a new one. I always get someone else’s problems and have to fix it. I’ve done just about everything you can do to a car. Started off when we were little bitty. My daddy’s idea was, “Boys, I don’t care what you do for a living but when you get out of my house you are going to know how to do everything.” We built houses together. We designed them. Plumbed them. Heated them. We did it all you know. Daddy taught us everything whether we wanted to learn it or not. I had a great daddy. One thing, we al-ways spent time working on cars. I’ve rebuilt motors, rebuilt transmissions, differentials, wobbelator shafts, muf-fler bearings, cannutin valves. I’ve done about everything you can do to a car folks. I understand how cars work.
Now, understanding how it works does not prove how it originated. And this is where the problem comes in. These evolutionists somehow got it in their brain, "Well, if we understand how it works that proves there is no designer." Oh come on now, fellas. Think about that would you? Understanding how it operates doesn’t prove there is no designer! A car is a complex machine folks! Lets suppose your son turns sixteen. All three of my kids did in the last couple of years. Your son comes up one day and says, "Hey dad I’m sixteen!" "Yep son, you made it. We didn’t think you would but you did." He says, "Hey dad, I got my drivers license!" "Son, let me see that thing. Come on, let me see. Wow son that is a lousy picture! It is a good likeness though!" He says, "Hey dad? Can I borrow the car? Give me the keys dad, I want to borrow the car." "Well, son listen, a car is a complex machine. Your mom and I have been praying about this. We don’t think you fully understand how complex the car is son. Did you know there are 3000 bolts required to hold a car together and one nut can scatter it all over the highway? We decided we are going to let you slowly evolve into the car son. This year we are going to give you 10% of the car. Next year maybe a little bit more." Just hold on a minute. What good is 10% of a car? That’s what you put in a junk yard isn’t it?
Now, what good is 10% of an eyeball, or a wing, or a feather, or a beak, or any complex structure? You ought to get Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box. Now, he’s an evolutionist but he says, "Look folks, things are too complex. They had to be designed. I mean, it just had to be." An excellent book by the way from an evolutionary perspective.
But then the textbooks teach the kids "we’ve got evidence for evolution." And they have none! There is zero evidence! But they want the kids to believe that theory anyway. So they are lying to our students at our expense!
Now, what should we do about it? Let me give you some practical steps. The Bible says, "Ye are the salt of the earth." Salt is an amazing product. Salt does lots of things besides flavor. Salt preserves. Salt also irritates. If you are not irritating somebody, you are probably not a good Christian. You don’t have to try to irritate folks, you just try to be salty and that will automatically irritate them. Our job is to preserve the world. And folks there is corruption in our system.
Some practical things you can do. You can demand that your school cut out the pages with false information. Get the textbooks down; show them where the information is false, the horse evolution, the gill slits, and all this kind of stuff. See? Look, just cut the pages out. How many of you would help cut the pages out so it wouldn’t cost the school a thing. You would do it for free. Go to your school and help cut the pages out. Would you do that? Come on, put your hand up. Let me see if you are willing to volunteer. Doesn’t cost the school a thing. Right? Now, textbooks are expensive. They don’t need to buy a whole new textbook. Just cut those pages out. Very simple! Won’t cost them a thing. Or you can do like a principal in Georgia did: glue the pages together. He got all of the pages where they teach evolution and glued them together. One summer he did that. He didn’t ask any questions, he just did it. That fall the NEA hit the ceiling!
By the way, you should get teachers and encourage them to get out of the NEA. Don’t let your union dollars support the NEA and their liberal causes. In my seminar notebook there is a list of several other Christian or Bible believing unions that teachers can belong to, to get their insurance. Get out of the NEA. If you love God, if you are a Christian and you are a public school teacher (like my brother [is] and my mom was before she retired from there) get out of that folks! Don’t give them a penny of your money. Just quit. The only language they speak is withhold your money.
But this principal in Georgia got all of the pages and glued them together if they taught evolution. The NEA was so angry! They said, "You can’t do that!!" He said, "I did." They said, "But you can’t!" He said, "I did, done, over with, the glue is dry!"
Or put a warning sticker in the front cover. Put a warning sticker in the front of the book that warns the kids, "The information on the following pages is not correct." Don’t you think the kids ought to be warned if they are about to be lied to or taught something false? I mean, come on!
Or give the student my little Brainwashed booklet. We’ve written a little booklet called Are you being Brainwashed by your public school science textbook?
They are two bucks apiece. If you get five or more they are a dollar apiece. That’s our printing cost. So if you want to get some of these, pass them out. One guy came over and bought 3000 of them. And gave them to every kid in his county. Most teachers are going to have a hard time teaching evolution for the next few years. Yay, they ought to have a hard time teaching evolution! How come teachers are scared to teach Creation for fear of a lawsuit? Why aren’t they scared to teach evolution for fear of a lawsuit? They sure should not be teaching false information in the textbooks, that is for sure.
Students ought to be made aware of the fact that they have some legal rights. This book on page 53 explains the courts have always ruled if a parent goes down and says, "Look we don’t want my kid taught evolution." The school must provide alternative information. Alternative studies. You can not force a student to learn something contrary to their religion.
Opt In or Opt Out?
Now, you’ve got to watch this, because here is what happens a lot of time in schools: if you have something you want out of, like sex education or whatever, you have to opt out. The humanist and atheist and agnostics have learned, "you know, we can make this where we get our way most of the time. If we have a bad program like we want in there, we are going to have some queer come in and teach on queer lifestyle, you know, for all of the students." You have to opt out of that assembly. But if it’s a good thing coming in, you have to opt in. See, to opt out you have to go home and have your mom sign a paper or dad sign a paper saying, "I don’t want my student there." That’s called opt out. But how many kids forget to take those papers home? How many of you forgot to take a paper home from school and forgot to get it signed or something like that? Everybody does that. Right? And they know that. So what they do with the good programs is you have to opt in so some kids will forget to bring the paper. But if it’s a bad program you have to opt out. Watch for that and demand that it be equal here. Let’s make everything opt in or everything opt out. None of this stacking the deck type of stuff.
But students have the right to be exempt from anything that is contrary to their religion. They ought to be told about that. See, not knowing your rights is just the same as not having them. Might as well not have them if you don’t know them.
Teachers ought to be aware of the fact that there is some help. If they want to help select good textbooks, they can get a hold of Mel Gabler in Longview, Texas. For 38 years now the Gablers have been researching every new public school textbook that comes off the press. They read it, they write a critique on it, and they help folks select good books.
Now, you may not be able to find a good one. Let us suppose there are 12 biology books available one year to buy. They go from a little bit of evolution like 3 % to 16 % evolution. Pick the least poisonous one for your school. You’ve got to buy a book, okay, buy a book for your school. Pick the least poisonous for your district that year and then be sure to do two more things (and this is where most Christians fall down). Write letters to ones you did not pick and tell them why. Write a letter to Holt or H.B.J. or Prentice Hall or whoever and say, "Look we did not pick your book because of all of the evolution in it." Let them know why you didn’t pick it. Don’t you know if you were the C.E.O. at Holt Rinehart, Winston or H.B.J. or any of these publishers, if you got 5000 letters from across the country from different individuals that said, "We did not buy your book because...." Well, they’re going to look at the bottom line which is money and say, "Man we better take that stuff out of the books!" And then secondly write a letter to the one you did pick. And say, "Dear CEO at whatever, Merrill or Holt or whatever, we picked your book because it has the least amount of false information in it. However, be warned that if we find another book next time that has less, we will pick their book instead." Let them know you still don’t approve of the little bit of evolution that is there but you had to buy it anyway. I mean that ought to be done folks, let them know.
Now, most public school teachers that I know are sincere and dedicated professionals. My brother led me to the Lord. He’s been teaching public school for 28 years. My mom retired from teaching public school. Look, most teachers are good, Godly, honest, intelligent people. They are sincere. They are not trying to lie to the kids. Many of them simply teach the evolution because that’s what’s in the book so they think it must be true. They’ve never heard the other side. They don’t know any better. There are some who may have other reasons, but I think most would fit into that category. Many of them don’t know that they can teach Creation Science in the public school. It’s perfectly fine. It’s okay to teach Creation Science.
In Florida, we have a law that says, "Instructional materials shall be accurate." Anybody disagree with that law? Do you think that is reasonable to require the books to be accurate? Yes, very reasonable. In Texas they’ve got a law that says, "Instructional materials (like textbooks) shall be factual and theories shall be clearly distinguished from facts." Go Texas! That’s a good law! Now, they don’t enforce it, but they should. And if they are not clearly distinguishing between theories of evolution and facts of science they should be sued. It’s against the law to do that. In Wisconsin you’ve got an administrative code here that says, "Textbooks must have factual accuracy." Yay, I think that’s fair! Alabama passed a law that says, "If a textbook discusses evolution it must have a warning sticker in the front cover warning the kids that there is a difference between micro-evolution (which is a fact) and macro-evolution, which is a theory and has never been observed." Go Alabama!! That’s fair! The kids ought to be warned there’s a difference between these two. Because, like we covered in the last session, that’s where the whole problem comes in. They are confusing micro and macro evolution.
Adolf Hitler said, "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state." Here most teachers don’t realize they can teach Creation Science in a public school. It’s perfectly fine. Hey, not only can you teach Creation Science in public schools, you can teach it right out of the Bible! And teach or devote a class to religion and have the textbook be the Bible if you want! We know what happened in 1963 when the Bible was taken out and evolution was put in the schools, but we’ve been deceived by the ACLU folks. 1963 the Supreme Court banned the use of the Bible to try to get kids saved; which is not good, obviously, but that’s a lot better than what the ACLU (the American Communist Lawyers Union) has led us to believe. They did not throw the Bible out, we threw the Bible out! We allowed ourselves to be deceived. It is not against the law to teach the Bible in a public school. It is perfectly fine to teach Creation Science.
You might want to get a hold of Elizabeth Ridnour, they’ve got a program where they help people start Bible classes in their public school. They’re in North Carolina. The phone number is (336) 272-3799 and say, "give me the packet on starting a Bible curriculum in our Public school." Some college student could do that. A Bible college student. You could go volunteer your time to teach a Bible class in the public school here in your town. Yeah, anybody can do that!
States can legally require teachers to discuss evolution. They cannot require them to teach it as a fact but the state can pass a law that says, "We require you to discuss evolution." They can do that. They cannot require them to discuss Creation. And many people have tried to get laws passed that require the teachers to discuss Creation. I’m telling you, you are wasting your time. That law is not going to go anywhere. Teachers may already discuss Creation if they wish, but the state cannot require them to do that. Get ahold of the Gablers, they’ve got all sorts of stuff on that. Courts allow states to require discussing weaknesses of the evolution theory. The courts have never said, "We will demand that the schools be required to teach Creation." That just doesn’t work.
In 1963 the Supreme Court said, "It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion (when presented objectively) as part of a secular program of education may be affected consistently with the first amendment." The Supreme Court never took the Bibles out of the schools, the publishers took the Bibles out of schools. Didn’t have to, but they did. The Supreme Court said, "The Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion or the like." It’s okay to use the Bible in schools, folks. Permitting public school observances which include religious elements promotes, and the courts said, "the secular purpose of advancing the students’ knowledge and appreciation of the role that our religious heritage as played in its social, cultural, historical development of civilization." Eighth circuit court. It’s okay to teach the Bible. If you want to keep up with what’s happening in education, get on the web and get a hold of Fred and say, "Fred, add me to the loop." FredB001@Spectra.net and say, "Put me on the loop." And you will get all sorts of stuff.
Now, practical steps. Listen, if you have a teacher who believes in evolution, here is what I would recommend you do. Number one, don’t confront them publicly. Try to talk to them privately after class. No teacher responds well to a public challenge in front of the students. They are going to jump all over you. Don’t confront them publicly. Number two, if you are late to class frequently, if you are a class troublemaker or a goof off, if you never do your homework, if you don’t pay attention in class, don’t tell them you are a Christian! You’re not helping. Okay?
Answering Test Questions
You want to help make a change. Okay. If a test question comes up and you know the answer is demanding something from evolution like "How old is the earth?" You can write down, "The textbook says... blah, blah, blah." You know, spit it back up to them. "However, this is not correct." Let them know, "Hey teacher, I learned it but I didn’t believe it." You can learn the material but don’t swallow it.
Or you can ask to be exempt. The law requires that they make sure you are exempt from anything contrary to your religion. You can demand that be done. Or, of course, you can get your kids out and put them in private school or home school which is probably the best option of all - get them out of there totally if you can.
Now, if you want to convert your teachers, give them my video to watch at home. We get teachers converted by the hundreds. They call us up and say, "Man, I watched your videotape. Now I’m teaching Creation." One guy called me up, "Mr. Hovind, my second grade daughter has watched your tapes about 50 times." Why do kids do that? Watch the same tape over and over and over again? He said, "My second grade daughter’s teacher just called me and said you know your daughter stops me every time I teach evolution. The teacher said, ‘I’ve decided I’m not going to teach evolution anymore this year.’" I thought, "yay!" Then I thought, "why do we send second graders off to war? Why didn’t some parents make sure there wasn’t evolution in the curriculum to begin with?"
Pray for Teachers
You can pray for your teachers. Folks, public school teaching is a hard job. They get pressure from the students, they get pressure from the parents, they get pressure from the school board. Pressure from the community. I mean—my brother said, "Hey Kent, it’s just not fun anymore. It’s just not fun. It used to be fun to teach. Now there is just too much pressure." Pray for them, they have a hard job. Honestly pray for them.
Invite them to a Creation Seminar. Have them call me with any questions. I’d be glad to help them. Ask them to have a creation speaker come to their class. I speak in public schools all of the time. Have them show my videos or some Creation videos in class. Many teachers have learned the lesson that your kids have learned early in life, it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission. Don’t ask if you can show the video in class. Just show it! We get calls, probably once a week, somebody getting saved watching a video that mom or dad saw because the kid checked it out of their public school library. Somebody donated some tapes to the library. Interesting.
You could run for school board or make an influence on your school board. You could get on the textbook selection committee. Somebody in your county picks the books the kids are using. Get on that committee. You could pass or else enforce laws that require textbooks to be accurate. That’s only fair. They ought to be accurate. Try to convert the teachers and the students and then it doesn’t matter what’s in the books. If the kids don’t believe it anyway, then it doesn’t matter.
Write letters to the editor. I’ve got a bunch in my seminar notebook you’re welcome to copy it and change the name at the bottom of it. None of my stuff is copyrighted.
You can donate Creation books or videos to your library or school library or public library. Educate others. Acts chapter 17, Paul when he went to Mars Hill did not use any scriptures, he used creation as a means of evangelism.
Satan is using lots of evolutionary lies to send boys and girls and men and women to hell. He keeps them thinking, "Hey evidence is right over there. Come on, keep coming! A little more evidence!" Everything gets disproven folks! He’s a liar! The Creation shows us there is a Creator. These people are without excuse.
Here’s what it boils down to and we’ll quit.
If Creation is true, there is a Creator. If evolution is true, there is no Creator.
If Creation is true, there are rules. Like thou shalt not... If evolution is true there are no rules. If Creation is true there is a purpose to life. You know, if evolution is true there is absolutely no purpose to life. Which is why folks who believe evolution like Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Life is meaningless to them. If you need to kill a few million people to accomplish your goals, so what! It goes along with evolution thinking.
If Creation is true, man is a fallen creature and he needs a Savior. If evolution is true, man is an evolving creature and does not need a Savior. You’re getting better all by yourself. You’re going to be God someday yourself. In Genesis 3, Satan told that lie to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Satan’s a liar.
If Creation is true, man brought death into the world. If evolution is true, death brought man into the world. Totally opposite!
If Creation is true, there’s an afterlife. You’re going to Heaven or Hell. If evolution is true, there is no afterlife. Nothing to worry about. Eat drink and be merry, tomorrow you will die.
If Creation is true there is comfort in knowing the future. Boy, if evolution is true, we can’t know a thing about the future. It’s just all chance. The evolution philosophy or mindset is a dangerous mindset. It takes away the existence of God.
These video seminars have been transcribed by Michel Snoeck.