Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

You are about to witness is Hovind commit the logical fallacy of cum hoc, ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation. In other words, thinking that because two things occur consecutively, one must have caused the other.

Within this same presentation you will see Hovind commit another logical fallacy - appeal to popularity.  This fallacy is based upon the erroneous assumption that because lots of people support a position then the position must be correct simply by weight of numbers.

Hovind is quoted from Transcript 1a available at his drdino.com  The citations I have added to Hovind's dialogue are according to the slide show version of this presentation.

......

They want you to think you cannot talk about Creation in the classroom, yes you certainly can talk about creation in the public school.  But if a teacher does teach evolution, if some teacher teaches the kids we started off like a slime and slowly turned into a human, you do not need to be a genius to figure out that is going to ruin some kid's faith in the Bible.

What Evolution has done for America

But you know, it has not always been this way.  Back in the 1930’s or 50’s, the average textbook only had two to three thousand words about evolution.  It was not mentioned much.  In 1963, it jumped up to 33,000 words [Source: Education Research Analysts http://www.members.aol.com/txtbkrevws/ ]

The slide show graph (labelled Indoctrination in Evolution, Before and after Federal Funding) clearly shows the sudden uptrend begins in 1960. The spike peaks in 1963. Hovind's own slide indicates that the number of words then decrease over the next 20 years. However, text on the slide suggests the overall percentage hasn't changed. Graph stops at 1980 and the most recent 20 years are unaccounted for.

The reason for this increase in science is two fold.  First, due to the advancement in scientific knowledge during the last half of this century there is a lot more material to be covered regarding the Theory of Evolution.

Second, there was a revision of US science teaching was the Russians launched Sputnik.  The US government realized the Russians were beating them in the space race so a review and emphasis on teaching more science was undertaken.  As Evolution Theory is probably the most important and pivotal concept in biology the emphasis is obviously necessary.

1963 is when prayer and Bible reading was taken out of the American school system.  Anybody remember that?  A few got out, brought evolution in, same time.

State enforced prayer and compulsory Bible reading outside of religious subjects was removed in line with the US Constitution disallowing the establishment of a religion by the State.

Contradiction Hovind just contradicted himself, first saying there was Evolution Theory in textbooks then saying Evolution Theory wasn't introduced until 1963.

Is Kent Hovind suggesting that students should be kept ignorant of the advancements in science practiced by professional biologists?

1963 is when sexually transmitted diseases began to climb; this is for kids 10 to 14 years of age.
[Source: Centre for Disease Control and Department of Human Resources]

The evidence provided is only for gonorrhoea.  Trend begins at early as the 1950's.  The rate increase from about 15 to about 50 per 100,000 in the 1970's.  There is a spike in the 1980's up to 60 per 100,000 before showing a down trend towards 1970 levels.  Graph stops at 1985.

According to the Centre for Disease Control the 1997 rate for gonorrhoea in 10 - 14 year olds was less than 15 per 100,000  which is back to 1950 levels!

1963 is when divorce rates began to go up.

Hovind's graph shows something very interesting, there is an increase starting around 1960 which then peaks and stabilizes in 1970.  The rate increased from about 2.5 to 5 per 1000.  Remember this is during the feminist movement and great social change in the role and expectations of women  Graph stops at 1990

1963 is when violent crimes began to increase, you know there has been almost a 1000% increase in violent crimes since ‘63? [Source: Statistical Abstracts of the United States and the Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau]

Hovind's number is based upon total offences and is not calibrated for population growth. ie reported as incidents per 1000 citizens for example. Nor does Hovind explore other variables such as the distribution of wealth, influence of drug dependency etc.

..... Unwed birth rates for girls 10 to 14 years of age have increased 100%.

As opposed to the birth rate of married 10 to 14 year old girls?  Hovind's graph shows an increasing trend dating back to at least 1950.  The graph stops at 1980.

The pregnancies are up 550%; most of them are being aborted - murdered.

Straw man Evolution Theory says nothing about promiscuous sex nor about abortion.

(from slide show) SAT scores have dropped off incredibly since 1963 [Source: Chicago Tribune, SATs get Dumber [sic], April 9, 1995]

Hovind does not offer any evidence that this supposed slide happened to the time scale he claimed.

Contradiction  If Hovind wants to say Evolution Theory has been used as the guide for society surely higher intelligence would have been encouraged not discouraged.

Contradiction If the students are not learning how can they have been indoctrinated with the evils of Evolution Theory?

Unmarried couples living together in adultery has increased 725%. [Source: Statistical Abstracts of the United States]

Data is not calibrated to population growth. The graph clearly states that the data was only collected every 10 years prior to 1977. How did Hovind align his data to show 1963 was the turning point?

Non sequitur What has this to do with Evolution Theory?

(from slide show) Teen suicide rate has gone crazy [Source: National Centre for Health Statistics]

Graph stops at 1990. Trend clearly begins prior to 1960.

What happened?  We are teaching the kids they are an animal, there is no right and wrong now.  What do you expect?

If Hovind's suggestion that teaching evolution theory in science is causing all these social changes the effects of such teaching would take up 12 years to fully manifest in the data because the children would not have yet entered into open society. Hovind seems to be suggesting that censoring astronomy, biology, cosmology, geology, physics etc will result in lower premarital sex, happier kids (ignorance is bliss?), less crime, happier marriages.

Straw man Evolution Theory does not claim that humans are the same as other animals. As a side note, many animals in fact behave with social structures that match what would be considered human 'moral behaviour'; life long pair bonding, altruistic defence of offspring, cooperative organization and planning.  Evolution Theory says no more or less about "right and wrong" than, say, Quantum Mechanics.

If Evolution Theory does not take a moral position what then is the causal link between these social changes and Evolution Theory?  What Hovind has to do is show a statistically robust correlation between exposure to modern biology, astronomy, etc and these social statistics, as well as eliminating the possibility of other influencing factors. Hovind also hasn't presented evidence of any of these "evils of evolution" existing anywhere outside the USA. Bad science.

The Many Failures of Science

Most Americans though do not believe the earth is billions of years old.  The last survey showed 61% of the population said the earth is less than ten thousand years old and God made it pretty much like it is today.  Only 4% of the people surveyed said the earth - there's no God involved and it's pure evolution that brought us here over billions of years.

Appeal from popularity  So American popular opinion should now decide what is science?  Joe Q Public, who may have never completed high school, is now able to decide if, say, the Theory of Relativity is valid just because he personally holds an alternative view?  Such a scenario would mean that science knowledge amongst the general public would decrease to the average, then the average of the new population, then the average of that and so on. In other words, science by the lowest common denominator.  Is that the direction a global industrial and scientific superpower should be taking?

LIE!  Not only is Hovind appealing to popularity but he is misrepresenting the data. In the US the level of belief of a literal 10,000 year old Earth was about 45% in the general American population but only 5% amongst professional scientists (from all fields). See http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm for a good overview of the statistics of this issue.

Contradiction  Even after all this indoctrination the United States still likely has the highest percentage of Biblical literalists in the Western World.  So why does American society have all these social ills if so few of the population accept evolution?

You say, “wait a minute now Brother Hovind, most scientists think the earth is billions of years old.”  Well, I do not know if you can prove that or not.  A lot of scientists think the earth is billions of years old, but that does not make it billions of years old.  You do not change facts by majority opinion.

Contradiction This quote is follows almost immediately after the previous one.  One moment Hovind says popular opinion is important in deciding school curriculum when the untrained masses agree with him.  Then he goes on to state within seconds "[Y]ou do not change facts by majority opinion" when the sample consists of professionals trained in the appropriate fields.  Seems Hovind is prepared to accept Appeal to Popularity but only when it goes in his favour.

A lot of scientists at one time thought all the planets go in little epicycles around the earth.  Not true. That is what they all thought.  They used to teach big rocks fall faster than little rocks.  That was taught for 2000 years!  Not true!  They used to teach if you were sick you have bad blood.  Take out your blood, you'll get better.  That is how George Washington died; the guys that killed George were not stupid, they were very intelligent, highly trained, they were trying to help, and they were wrong in what they believed.

Contradiction Does this apply to Kent Hovind or is Creation Science and anyone who preaches it exempt from this rule? Biblical literalism used to be the accepted view about 300 years ago but was abandoned with the discovery of new evidence and knowledge. Hovind's "science has been wrong in the past" argument also contradicts the argument he used here