Also available under my Scribd as jacksonwarrier:

Eric Hovind Science

Whether or not you know who Eric Hovind is is irrelevant, but regardless of how well
you think you know Eric Hovind, you should be honest enough with yourself to admit that he is
a con artist with no background in science. His Creation Today organization appears to hold a
Question Evolution Day annually, but I am unsure of the days frequency. At any rate, Eric
Hovind is in no place to question evolution, let alone teach other people how to question
evolution. Do not misread what I have written, or typed; everyone should question evolution.
Do not just take the word of some person as fact; if you are able then you should perform the
experiment or do the research yourself. Mr. Hovind, however, does not and will not perform and
research on the topic of evolution, except perhaps getting information straight from other
creationist sources such as Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, his father Kent Hovind, or some other
creationism aficionado.
I will do my best to take apart the Mr. Hovind arguments that are a little more advanced
than an elementary school level education. Let us begin with his idea of deoxyribonucleic acid
information. More commonly known as DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid is thought to be the
blue print of the body and for good reason. DNA is made of nucleotides known as adenine,
cytosine, guanine, and thymine, which form codons that tell the cell to perform specific
functions. The codons make the DNA polymerase, an enzyme that unzips DNA, read parts of
the DNA as keep going or stop. The cell then reads the codons and performs the functions
that result in all the different functions of the body. Mr. Hovind, however, believes that DNA
intrinsically holds information, which it does not. There is no adenine for brown hair or thymine
for longevity, but the collections of nucleotides read as functions. Why does this matter? Well,
Mr. Hovind believes that DNA has inherent information, and thus he believes that organisms
cannot evolve because that requires an addition of genetic information. This is really a seventh
grade life science problem because ninth and tenth grade biology students have realized that
DNA does not inherently hold information. He referred to the addition of genetic information as
a computer CD magically gaining Microsoft Office without putting the CD into a computer. In
reality genetic information is subject to additional information; it is not subject to the laws of
mathematics that declare the spontaneous generation of new information as impossible. Why?
Because DNA does not inherently hold information, it cannot be subjected to such laws.
Mutations then allow the spontaneous generation of new genetic information, which everyone,
unless one is a single-celled organism born from perfect asexual mitosis, receives from his or her
parents. So yes, genetic information is added easily every new generation, and these generations
of genetic information add up eventually to form completely new species of organisms.
Next, let us hit the second law of thermodynamics again; I say again because I covered
this topic in The Separation of Church and Science, which can be viewed under jacksonwarrier
(I recognize that it is spelled wrong) on Scribd. Anyway, back to the second law of
thermodynamics. There are essentially four laws of thermodynamics, the zeroth law states that
a=b=c, but I doubt that Mr. Hovind knows this. His favorite law, although ironically a law that
he does not understand, is the second law of thermodynamics. As a veteran of thermodynamics
in chemistry class, I have had to learn the laws, and I do understand the laws. The second law of
thermodynamics states that entropy, not disorder, always decreases or evolves toward absolute
zero in a closed system. This means that the entire universe is getting colder and will eventually
reach thermodynamic equilibrium, which is when it reaches absolute zero, 0K, or -273C. Until
then Mr. Hovind will continue to depress our brain functions with a prefrontal lobotomy of

gibberish. Mr. Hovind has interpreted, if he has read about the law (though I am doubtful), the
law to mean that everything moves toward disorder, which has no meaning, over time. For
instance he thinks that organisms can never evolve in complexity because the universe is getting
colder, but there is something about the law that he missed: in a closed system. That means that
energy never enters or leaves the system, as in our Earth, and things will evolve toward less
complexity and less heat energy. That might be true if our Earth were not constantly bombarded
by a barrage of heat energy in the form of ultraviolet light from our sun and geothermal heat
from Earths core. But worry not; Mr. Hovind has taken this into consideration! He claims that
if a dead leaf were to just sit on the sidewalk for years then it would never evolve. CorrectI
guess First, I do not know where we even get the dead leaf; I assume it just magically puffed
into existence. Second, of course it would never evolve! Evolution is the process of biologic
change over time in populations! How is that a difficult concept? A single DEAD leaf would
not evolve mainly because, first, DEAD ORGANISMS DO NOT EVOLVE, and, second, a
single leaf is not a population.
His final claims that I would like to explore, aside from claiming that he ever went to
school, come from the time he said we are cousins of bananas and humans evolved from
rocks. His former quote is slightly humorous because Young Earth Creationist Ray Comfort
claimed that bananas, due to their curved shape, are evidence of Yahwehs existence. He made
the statement minutes before someone informed him that bananas are genetically modified to be
easier to hold. Returning to Mr. Hovind, I guess by cousins he means we share a common
ancestor and is attempting to ridicule the idea. Even though I think, if given the choice, most
organisms would choose to opt out of his phylogenetic family. I personally find being related to
sharks, stegosaurs, and, yes, bananas as intriguing because the story of where we came from is
perhaps the most important story we can know. Cosmology and evolutionary biology have made
good progress on our origins, but there is still very much to learn. Claiming that science knows
everything is demonstrably fallacious, but so is claiming that science knows nothing. Science
certainly knows more about the world than religion, especially creationism. His latter quote is
commonly phrased by creationists, anti-evolutionists, and other people who try to make
arguments against evolution but have no idea what they are talking about. Ken Hams Answers
in Genesis paraphrases as molecules to man, which is just a ploy to discredit evolution. To
anyone who has a seventh grade understanding of evolution, Mr. Hovinds latter quote displays
his complete lack of knowledge in the field of biology (other than, Must produce more
Hovinds!). Humans did not evolve from rocks, and the very notion is indicative of his
incomprehension of the field he tries so desperately to disprove. Organism evolution may have
begun with nucleic acids coalescing into phospholipid bubbles that, through mutations, evolved
into mitosis-breeding prokaryotes then eukaryotes then macroscopic invertebrates then fish then
amphibians then reptiles then mammals (all over the course of about four billion years).
There, you have three debunked arguments from Eric Hovind: new genetic information,
thermodynamics, and the disaccreditation of science. While he fails to put up arguments against
evolution and instead puts up a faade of words, you are not barred from questioning evolution.
Please, question evolutionary biology, cosmology, and all the other sects of science because
knowledge moves by questioning what we do not know about the world. Please do not just take
someones word for something, and especially not Mr. Hovinds, because you should do the
research for yourself. You should trust scientists and doctors, yes, and do not take what I have
said to mean that you should not use vaccines or technology until you have verified that they
work. They do work because they have been tested and retested by men and women who spend

their entire lives working on a single sliver of scientific knowledge, while creationists such as
Mr. Hovind mock the diligent work of scientists in an effort to make people stop asking
questions. Mr. Hovind is neither a scientist nor a carrier of any scientific knowledge and should
never be considered a reliable source. I would debate him on his ideas to expose his inanity if I
could.