Mr Hovind and the Professor
The anecdote of Hovind's meeting with an unnamed Professor is told as part of the "Lies in Our Textbooks" sermon. The original source was Hovind's own transcript (www.drdino.com). Hovind's words are in bold.
What you are about to read begins as a nice
folksy anecdote but upon closer inspection begins to have the appearance of a
work of fiction. This story is then used to spring board into a total
misrepresentation of the Big Bang model. I should emphasize the current scientific
opinion of the age of the universe is 14 billion years rather than the
20 buhillion years which Hovind repeats ad nauseam.
Links explaining the principles of the Big Bang model;
It should also be explained that Hovind is arguing against out dated cosmological models. Theoretical physicists are now discussing concepts such as M Theory, String Theory and mathematical concepts based upon eleven dimensions.
[....]
How many have ever heard of the Big Bang Theory before? I was on an airplane years ago, flying from Dallas to San Francisco (the land of the fruits and the flakes), and I happened to sit right next to a professor from Berkeley University. I do not know if you folks here in Florida have ever heard of Berkeley or not, but Berkeley is not a Bible college by any stretch of the imagination.
Anonymous authority Who is the Professor? What was his area of study, cosmology or maybe economics? Berkeley has more than 130 academic departments and programs.[*] Expertise in one field does not equate with expertise of everything.
"Berkeley" refers to the University of California, Berkeley.
So, here I was sitting by this professor on the airplane and we started talking about Creation and Evolution. Seems like everybody I sit by on the plane wants to talk about that, so I talk about it with them. He said he believed in Evolution, I said, “Yes sir, I figured that, you have to to teach at Berkeley.”
Loaded statement Belief (small 'b') in a concept of science is not the same as Belief (big 'B') in a theological position.
I said, “Tell me sir, if you believe in
Evolution, how did the world get here?”
He said, “Well, it came from the Big Bang.”
Straw man There were a lot of steps after that though.
I said, “Really, I’d like to hear about
the Big Bang.”
He said, “You're a science teacher and you have never heard of the Big
Bang?”
I said, “Oh, yes sir, I have heard a lot about the Big Bang, and I believe
in the Big Bang, but my Big Bang is a lot different than yours. You tell
me about your Big Bang and then I will tell you about my Big Bang.”
The Big Bang Defined
And so he proceeded to give me a textbook perfect answer. He said, “Well, I believe it all started about 18 to 20 billion years ago (that is a long time folks): all the matter in the universe (that is a lot of stuff) was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page.” All the matter in the universe was squished into a dot smaller than a period on a page? That is one crowded dot, folks, and heavy, too: man, who held that thing up? Wow!
Straw man The 'dot' was no heavier than the present Universe. The 'dot' has no more size or weight problems than the present Universe. One wonders if the 'Professor' actually used those words because those words are almost exactly what appears in Prentice Hall General Science 1992 p 61 (as used in Hovind's slide show)
Hey, and it aint the first time it happened, or the last. This textbook tells them, ...
Hovind is no longer recalling his conversation with the Professor.
“Boys and girls, someday all the matter and energy will once again be packed into a small area. No bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then another Big Bang will occur. It happens every 80 to 100 billion years.”
Hovind's slide show indicates use of selected sections from two different text books (Prentice Hall General Science 1992 p61 and Prentice Hall Earth Science 1991 p 36-37).
The recycling universe is just one possible scenario.
Look at this one. I could not believe how smart this author was. He said, Boys and girls, “nothing really means nothing.” You got to be at least that smart to write a textbook. He said, “Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time; however, physicists theorize that from the state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion.” What? Nothing exploded, and here we are? Explain that to me, would you please?
Contradiction Hovind's textbook source for this was HBJ General Science 1989 p362. In the slide show version of Hovind's seminar you can clearly see two sentences at the end of the paragraph which Hovind ignores.
For Hovind to acknowledge this would show his attack upon the Big Bang model is not based upon its actual usage within the scientific community."The Big Bang does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed".
They even put it in major science journals. Here is Scientific American. Look what this guy said. “The observable universe (that is us) could have evolved from an infinitesimal region.” (In the Greek, that means a dot.) He said, “It's then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.” They call that science and put it in a science book?
Straw man See links for detailed explanations of how inaccurate this representation is is
I would call that a fairy tale and put it in the garbage. ‘Yes, boys and girls, we all came from a dot and the dot came from nothing.’ That is ridiculous! But, that is what they believe. They do not have another choice except, “God created the heaven and the earth.”
False dichotomy Why wouldn't a deity use the Big Bang method?
So what method does Hovind suggest formed the universe? Did the universe suddenly appear fully formed? What is the modelling for this concept? This is where Creation Science runs into another problem. Creation Science never puts forward any robust alternatives. Which is a pity because it would then be possible to discuss Creation Science within science journals rather than on the internet and the school board.
So I asked the professor on the plane, ....
Now we are back to the Professor of unknown qualifications.
I said, “Sir, hold on just a minute. Where did this dot come from and what happened to it?” He said, “Well, all the matter, all the dirt in the universe, was drawn into this dot and it was spinning, it spun faster and faster and faster. Finally it exploded! Big bang, and the pieces flew off and became the galaxies, sun, moon, stars, and finally you know, people - here we are.”
Straw man In the slide show version, the slide Hovind uses here is from Prentice Hall, General Science, 1992 p69. The slide clearly shows the selected text is describing how nebula (clouds of material in space) form into stars, not the formation of the Universe. There is even a picture clearly showing a cloud of stellar matter against a back drop of stars. Suspicions are heightened that Hovind is putting words into the Professor's mouth because he has highlighted sections of text, - "the nebula begins to rotate" , "it spun faster and faster". Strangely, the concluding sentence says, "a star - our sun - was born" - which is also highlighted. One must wonder how closely Hovind reads his own material.
Straw man "Pieces" did not fly out of the Big Bang. According to the model only space/time expanded. It is also argued that for the first 300,000 years the entire Universe was plasma (ionised atomic particles)
Perplexing Questions
“Sir, could I ask you a few questions
please?”
He said, “Sure what would you like to know?”
I said, “Well, first of all, you told me 20 billion years ago, all the dirt
in the universe got into the big dot, for the big squish, in the big spin, in
the big bang. Where did all the dirt come from?”
He said, “Well, we don't, we don't know about that.”
I said, “Okay, now hold on sir, just a minute, if I tell you that I believe
about 6000 years ago, God created the heaven and the earth, you are going to say
‘where did God come from.’ Uh, I don't know. But, you said, ‘20
billion years ago, there was a Big Bang,’ and you don't know where the dirt
came from. So basically, I believe ‘in the beginning God…,’ and you
believe ‘in the beginning dirt!’ Do not tell me my theory is religious
and yours is scientific!
Hovind is accusing the Professor of having a scientifically unknown origin whilst at the same time promoting a view of his own which is scientifically unknowable.
The Big Bang model is based upon present observations (red shift, background radiation etc) and mathematical modeling. Kent Hovind's particular take on Creation Science is based upon what again? (Hint - an interpretation of the Bible). The Big Bang model recognizes its limitations but is not dependent on unknowns. Kent Hovind bases all the details of his creation scenario on scientific unknowables.
Contradiction If Hovind is admitting his claims are religiously based and not scientific why does he label himself a Creation Science Evangelist?
I must emphasize that the Big Bang model, as many a theologian will testify, does not remove any deities. Science is neutral on the issue of supernatural entities because these beings are by definition beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. To quote from the text used in Hovind's own slide show, "The Big Bang does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed" (HBJ General Science 1989 p362.)
[....]
Anyway, the professor said he did not know where the matter came from for the Big Bang. I said, “Well, sir, that makes it a religion, doesn't it?” He said, “No, no, no!” I said, “It looks to me like it does. Something you believe, you believe in matter, like we believe in God. I don't see a difference at all.
What an odd statement. How does explaining the formation of the known universe with natural mechanisms automatically equal atheism? Does explaining the operation of a computer with natural explanations also equal atheism?
Second question sir, where do the laws come from? The universe is governed by laws. Centrifugal force, inertia, gravity, who made the laws? Who is the law giver?”
Begging the question 'Laws' are human concepts used to describe the behavior of the known universe. 'Laws' are descriptive not prescriptive. For example, my Law of Yellow Cars states that all yellow cars will remain yellow unless acted upon by an external agent. Silly, I know, but the characteristics of the universe have much the same simplicity.
What Hovind is pushing for is why the characteristics of the Universe turned out the way they did. Who knows? How many different possibilities are there? Its very risky to draw conclusions from a statistical sample of only one subject after the event. Besides, how does the Big Bang model exclude a "law giver"?
He said, “Well we don’t - we don't know
that either.” I said, “Well, sir, where did the energy come from?
Doesn't it take energy to make something move?”
He said, “Oh, yes!”
I said, “Well, who bought the gas to run this machine anyway? Where
did the energy come from?”
He said, “Well, I don't know about that.” He said, “But, I know
that it happened, because we're here!”
Wow, what brilliant logic, it had to happen that way, because here we are you
know. Who could ask for anything more?
Berkeley's Merry-Go-Round
I said, “Sir, could I ask you another
question?”
He said, “Sure, what else would you like to know?”
I thought, “Else? Else? You haven't told me nothing yet!” I
said, “Does Berkeley, where you teach have a merry-go-round?”
..... He said, “No we don't have a merry-go-round at Berkeley
University.”
I said, “You ought to get one. Man, you could learn some good science
off a merry-go-round.”
If you put 6 fourth graders on a merry-go-round, ..... We are going to put some fourth graders on the merry-go-round and we are going to get the high school football team out there to get it spinning clockwise as fast as it will possibly go. ..... the kids begin to fly off the merry-go-round. Now, when this happens you will notice an interesting phenomena of physics. If the merry-go-round is going clockwise when the kid flies off, the kid will be spinning clockwise until he encounters resistance like a tree or telephone pole. That is because of a law in physics called the conservation of angular momentum.
Just to clarify, I do hope that Hovind isn't saying the projectile is also traveling in an arc around the merry go round. The kid will be traveling in a straight line.
See, if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (which the Big Bang would have been all the matter in the one dot), a spinning object breaking apart in a frictionless environment will send all the pieces off spinning the same direction because the outer part is moving faster than the inner part. Simple physics. I mean it is father around the outside than it is the inside of the circle and so it maintains the same direction of spin.
Straw man Hovind is now trying to show how his originally confused idea that the universe was spinning somehow disproves the Big Bang model. Hovind has, maybe mistakenly, constructed an incorrect version of the Big Bang model and is now attacking that straw man with vigor
Straw man The "spinning object" did not break apart. The universe, space time itself, expanded. There were no pieces of universe moving outside of what already existed at t=0.
UPDATE [April 2003] Hovind has clarified his claim on the issue of angular momentum. He confirmed the illustration he used in his sermons showing the child traveling in an arc was incorrect, passing the blame onto his illustrator
The professor said, “Yes, Mr. Hovind, I understand about the conservation of angular momentum.” I said, “Well, good, sir. Would you answer me a question then please? If the whole universe started like a swirling dot, [then there was a] Big Bang, shouldn't everything be spinning the same way?” He said, “Well, yes!” I said, “Well, it's not. We have two planets for sure; Venus and Uranus and possibly Pluto, but two for sure spin backwards. Why do two planets spin backwards?” He said, “That's interesting!” “No sir that's more than interesting, that's pretty hard on your Big Bang Theory. Not only that, some of the moons spin backwards and some travel backwards. Why?” He said, “I don't know, why do you think they are going backwards?”
Straw man That scenario is absolutely hilarious. Clearly this anonymous Professor didn't know a thing about cosmology or astronomy. The planets of our solar system were not formed until billions of years after the Big Bang. Even stars were not immediately formed. Hovind's argument here is the very definition of a straw man argument.
I was hoping he would ask that. I said, “Sir I believe it is very simple. I believe in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [sic], and God did it that way on purpose just to make the Big Bang Theory look stupid.” And it is stupid, [and] it certainly is not science.
The Biblical Big Bang
Now I do believe in the Big Bang, folks. I mean the Bible teaches the Big Bang. II Peter 3 says, “The heavens shall pass away with a great noise.” In the original Greek, that is big bang. So there is going to be a big bang, but it did not happen yet. So kids if you go to school and some teacher says, “Do you believe in the Big Bang?” You could say, “Yes I do, and you better get saved and get ready for it! The Big Bang is coming soon!”
I'm a little disappointed. I was expecting Hovind to present a robust alternative scientific model. Oh, well.