Kelly Hollowell, columnist for the WorldNutDaily and head of Science Ministries (there's two words that don't belong together), has come in for a good bit of bashing here at Dispatches. She's a virtual fountain of stupidity, whether she's writing about the founding fathers or evolution. But not only is she a young earth creationist (YEC), she's not even smart enough to avoid the mind-numbing stupidity of the good "doctor", Kent Hovind. She even reprints his Questions for Evolutionists on her webpage. Given the fact that Hovind's "doctorate" is a complete fraud not worth the paper it's printed on, it makes me wonder whether Hollowell got her J.D. and Ph.D. from Patriot "University" too. By the way, her webpage introduces Hovind's questions with this amusing bit of claptrap:
The test of any theory is whether it provides answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory -- it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
Don't you love how "pagan" has replaced "secular humanist" as the favorite buzzword for "those evil people we don't like"?
- Log in to post comments
I thought evolutionists believed in no gods? Now we're polytheists? I'm confused with what direction the diatribe is heading. Pretty soon they're going to run out of dirty words to call us and confront the theory, and that's not going to be a pretty day.
It hasn't replaced it. Pagan, 'secular humanist'- these are all terms in the creationist vocabulary for 'people who don't believe exactly what we believe and are therefore evil'. Though it is amusing when they try to say evolution isn't science- evolution is the archtype of science.
Speaking of "Dr." Hovind, someone at the Skeptical Inquirer took a tour of Hovind's creationist theme park in Florida and wrote a review of it.
See Stupid Dino Tricks: A Visit to Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land
Dumb Dr. Hollowell.
Of the Origin of the Species or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is my favorite book.
You can't get more scientific than Darwinian Evolution. How can people like her have a problem with it scientifically except where microbiology has shown what a quack he was and where it violates the basic scientific laws of thermodiamics?
Does she not know "evolution" has moved from just a theory to scientific fact based on all the verifiable transitional life forms in the fossil record just as Darwin had predicted? NOT!
O.K! Just because we want it to! (and we control what is taught in public schools baby. Who's YOUR daddy?)
Whatever, it still relieves us from moral responsibility and that is what matters most. Just ask Hitler! All hail the master race.
Zeig Heil!
To a Christian, "pagan" simply means "non-Christian" and nothing more than that. The pejorative light has been added by you and your "disciples".
Before you start ridiculing a person who holds both a Doctor of Jurisprudence AND a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular pharmacology from the University of Miami, Florida simply because they refuse to buy into the LIES of Darwinism you might try explaining in accurate and exhaustive detail how Darwinism and Natural Selection can account for the rotary engine tail assemblies of a myriad of species of bacteria; the multiple obstacles of irreduceable complexity presented by the mammalian gestation processes; etc. In fact, why not just restrict yourself to, oh, say......any cell. But since Dr. Hollowell is the one with the doctorate in that area, I think you might want to back down, if only just a tad, because you're making yourself look like an idiot.
Billsey at August 30, 2005 03:01 AM
Just to remind you, pharmacology is not biology. She's a pharmacist. A drug store operator.
Her bio page is http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/k_hollowell.asp
No Bill, pagans were/are real people. Europe was mostly pagan prior to the christian takeover. It does have negative connotations when used as "non-christian" because that's not what it really means.
Bill, there are billions of complex processes in biology, claiming that because scientists have not sit down and figured out the evolutionary development of each and everyone of them, that this is proof that they indeed cannot evolve is ridiculously absurd.
Please feel free to explain how the creator of your choice did it. And give empirical evidence while you're at it.
Billsey wrote:
Is there anything funnier than a creationist, of all people, making an appeal to authority? They claim that 99.9% of all PhD scientists in all of the relevant fields are completely wrong, then use appeals to authority to avoid answering specific criticisms of the few credentialed creationists they can find. And all without recognizing the absurdity of doing so. And yet another irony meter bites the dust...they really should make those things stronger.
As far as Behe goes, his notion of irreducible complexity has already been thoroughly discredited. Every system he claims is IC and would not function at all without a single component in place turns out to be false. That's why he has had to change the definition several times, pushing the goalposts back further and further.