More Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid — Kent Hovind

Well, it is an honor to be here at the Compass Conference once again. How many have been to one of my previous sessions before or seen one of my videotapes? Okay, how many never have? And how many do not understand the questions so far?

All right, we're good. Well, as he said, my name's Kent Hovind, I taught high school science for 15 years. Brother Bill, I guess I don't understand this apologetics stuff, okay? I don't apologize at all.

I believe the Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate, and I think the evolution theory that's being taught in our schools is one of the dumbest and most dangerous religions on planet Earth, okay?

So, with that said, let's get started. This is not my wife. That's just a picture of her. Last summer was our 31st anniversary, and we sat down and figured out how much money we've spent since we got married.

We have spent all of it, and praise God, she's with me here out at the table this week. You get to see my wife. She doesn't get to travel much. She's real involved in music at our church, and so we stopped in and see her.

We live in Pensacola, Florida, been there for 16 years, and we have three kids, one of each. And I got all my kids married off, and the dog died, so I made it. I'm home free. It's wonderful. And we've got three and a half grandkids, and for those who don't know, grandkids are God's reward for not killing your own kids when you thought about it.

Hang in there. It'll be worth it all, amen. All right. And all three of my kids and their spouses work in our ministry, and I'll live right around us. God's given us amazing staff. We've got Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land.

We have an awesome time down there, a museum, theme park, and science center based on creation instead of evolution. I wish there were thousands of those across the country. So at Bill's request, we're covering today more reasons why evolution is stupid.

Now let me define some terms and some positions. I believe the Bible teaches very clearly, and I believe the scientific evidence points very clearly to this earth being instantly created in six days, about 6 ,000 years ago, and a great big flood about 4 ,400 years ago that completely destroyed the world and dropped everybody's property value to zero.

And then Jesus came 2 ,000 years ago, and so that's the top timeline, and that's the position I take, and I believe that's true and defensible scientifically. The evolution theory says 20 billion years ago, there was a big bang where nothing exploded and made everything, and then 4 .6 billion years ago, the earth cooled down and developed a hard, rocky crust, and it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup, and the soup came alive about 3 billion years ago.

And that first life form found somebody to marry, and that's a good trick, of course, and something to eat, and slowly evolved into everything we see today. I think the evolution theory is not defensible scientifically.

Let's define some more terms here. Stupid. Lacking normal intelligence. Foolish. Silly. A stupid idea. Now, I was taught by my mommy, don't use the word stupid, okay? So when Bill said, preach on why evolution is stupid, I said, that's going to be easy to do, but it's going to be hard because it's been entrained in me since I was a little bitty.

You know, you don't use that word. So I don't want to belittle anybody who believes in evolution here today, and I'm sure there are quite a few. That's fine. It's just not a common sense idea. It doesn't make sense.

The things about evolution just simply are lacking normal intelligence, and we want to fix that today. Now, I collect science books. I taught science 15 years. I happen to love the subject. Richard Dawkins said, it's absolutely safe to say, if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane, or wicked.

Folks, there is a battle going on, okay? Whether you realize it or not, whether you understand it or not, there's a war going on in our culture, and there are two basic sides. One side says, God made this world.

He owns it. He makes the rules. The other side said, nobody makes this world. There are no rules. It's a real war going on, and I'm right smack in the middle of it and helping to stir it up occasionally.

Okay. So let's define some more terms here. The word evolution has at least six different meanings. First, we'd have to have cosmic evolution, the origin of time, space, matter, the Big Bang, okay? Secondly, we'd have to have chemical evolution.

That's where all of the elements evolve from hydrogen. I think that's silly. We'll talk about that in a minute. Thirdly, there'd have to be stellar evolution. The stars would have to evolve. Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and stellar evolution.

There's a lot of stars out there. The last estimate, in 2003, the most recent estimate is there are enough stars out there right now that we know about that everybody on planet Earth can own 11 trillion of them to yourself.

Those are the ones we know about. We don't know about the ones that we don't know about. Fourthly, there's going to have to be organic evolution. Somewhere, somehow, life has to get started from non-living material.

Okay. Fifthly, there'd have to be macroevolution, where an animal changes into a different kind of animal. And lastly, microevolution. I object to the term, but they use it, so I believe in number six.

That happens. I think variations happen within the kinds, but the first five are purely religious. I think, quite frankly, they're stupid. Okay. Let's cover them here. Look at each of the first five. The textbook says, 18 to 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page.

That's stupid. And then there was a big bang, where this little tiny dot exploded. That's stupid. Okay. They don't tell you where the time came from, where the space came from, where the matter came from, where the energy came from.

They just assume all of that is inherent in this little bitty dot, which came from nothing. Who's ever seen a big bang create order? Big bangs don't create order. That's stupid. Big bangs create big messes.

The Humanist Manifesto says, humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. Well, the second law of thermodynamics tells us everything is falling apart. If you leave something alone for a while, it's going to rot, rust, die, break down, or fall apart.

Nothing gets better by itself. So to say that the universe is self-existing is stupid. Okay. And violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists say, well, yeah, you can add energy, though, and overcome the second law.

And they say the earth is an open system. It receives energy from the sun. I understand. But the universe is a closed system, by definition. Secondly, adding energy is destructive. There has to be something to utilize the energy.

Adding energy is going to make it worse, okay? The Japanese added all kinds of energy to Pearl Harbor one day. They didn't organize nothing for us. A couple of years later, we returned the favor and added energy to a few of their cities, didn't we?

Yeah. Adding energy is destructive. So the sun's energy is going to destroy the roof on your house. It'll destroy your entire house. The sun's energy will destroy the roof on your car. It'll destroy the paint job on your car.

Adding energy is not the solution. You have to have intelligently directed and harnessed energy. So to say that you can overcome the second law by adding energy is stupid. It's just not that simple. Evolutionists assume that if you give enough time, things get better.

That's silly, okay? You give things time, they get worse. Here's Sue at 20. Here she is at 90. They don't get better. The next book says, nothing really means nothing. That's stupid. 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. Yes, boys and girls, you see, one day, nothing exploded. And here we are. There's no kind way to say it, okay?

That's stupid. That's lacking normal intelligence, all right? Here's Discover Magazine a couple years ago. Where did everything come from, boys and girls? The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing, zero, nada.

As it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. That's real stupid. The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region, this guy said. But it's then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

It all came from a dot. That's stupid. I'm sorry. It just is, okay? So the Bible says, in the beginning, which is a reference to time, which by the way has three dimensions, past, present, future, a trinity, and you can't escape time.

God created the heaven, that's space, which has three dimensions linked with height. You can't escape space. Where can you be where you're not in space or in time? You can't escape them. It permeates everything.

And God created earth. You know, matter comes in three dimensions, solid, liquid, gas. We have a trinity of trinities in ten words. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, time, space, matter.

All three have to come into existence at the same instant. If you had matter but had no space, where would you put it? If you had matter but had no time, when would you put it? You have to have all three simultaneously.

People say, what did God do for millions of years before the creation? Well, your question assumes that God is stuck in time, space, matter. We are the ones stuck in time, space, matter. He's not stuck in those.

See, if God was limited by time, he's not God. This is not 2004 in heaven. There is no time in heaven. And before the creation, there was no time. So once upon a time, there was a time when there was no time.

Think about that. So when the textbook says nothing really means nothing, that's stupid, okay? It's just not common sense. None of these things can create themselves. Time, space, and matter cannot create themselves.

They have to have an outside force, like an all-wise, all-powerful, all-mighty, infinite God to create those things. Then the textbook says this little tiny dot was spinning. It spun faster and faster.

Yes, boys and girls, and one day it exploded. Big bang. Well, if you take a merry-go-round, put some kids on there, get the merry-go-round going clockwise as fast as it'll go, the kids will go through distinct phases.

In phase one, they're screaming at the football players, come on, let's go, faster, faster. You get up around, you know, 30 miles an hour, they go to phase two, where they stop screaming. Then you get going faster, and you get around 60 miles an hour, they start screaming again, but now they're screaming, stop, stop, please, slow down.

When you get up around 100 miles an hour, you enter phase four, where the kids begin to fly off the merry-go-round. Now, when the kid flies off, you notice something interesting. As the kid is flying off the merry-go-round, if the merry-go-round is going clockwise, the kid, even after he leaves, is spinning clockwise, until he encounters resistance, like a three-year telephone pole.

That's because of a law known as the conservation of angular momentum. A spinning object that breaks apart will send all the fragments off, spinning in the same direction. People say, well, what if they collide?

They can't collide. The farther, the longer you wait, the further apart they get. It's like spokes on a wheel, they're getting farther apart. If a hand grenade explodes, can the fragments ever hit each other out in the field someplace?

No. It doesn't happen, okay? Conservation of angular momentum says spinning objects break apart, and the fragments fly the same direction, spin in the same direction. So when they tell you that it all came from a spinning dot, it's silly, it violates common sense laws.

Two planets, Venus and Uranus, are spinning backwards, eight of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards. Three planets have moons going both directions at the same time. Some whole galaxies are spinning backwards.

CNN, goofy galaxy spins wrong direction. The Big Bang theory is stupid, okay? In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. So when they tell you it spun faster and faster, and one day it exploded, that's simply stupid, okay?

That's not the way it happened. So we have cosmic evolution, which I think is silly. Then we have, the textbook says, as the earth formed, the surface was hot and there were large pools of bubbling lava.

Was the earth ever a hot molten mass, like the textbook says? Bible says the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters. Bible says God created it cold, not hot. See, everything about the evolution theory is backwards to the Bible.

Don't try to compromise those two, okay? Like trying to ride two horses going different directions at the same time, okay? Robert Gentry's got a great book on the radio polonium halos. Gentry's a brilliant man.

I think he's spoken at the conference, has he? I've spoken with him at a couple of conferences. I don't know if it's stealing the mind or not, but a brilliant man lives in near Knoxville, Tennessee. He's done lots of study on the granites around the world.

Well, the granites all contain these radio polonium halos, which have an extremely short half-life, proving they were never a hot molten mass. But these radio polonium halos tell us absolutely positively the earth was never a hot molten mass.

And if you melt granite and let it cool back down, it doesn't form into granites again. Nobody knows for sure how granite was made. So when the textbook says the earth was a hot molten mass, I'm sorry, that's stupid.

It's not true. It's lacking a normal intelligence. It didn't happen that way. Secondly, we'd have to have what's called, thirdly, chemical evolution. All the elements forming from hydrogen, they think it all came from a big bang.

Atoms of hydrogen in the proto-sun were fused together to form helium. Okay, I'll agree that can happen, but it's stupid to think that's going to form all the elements. They say, well, yeah, you can fuse and get, you know, hydrogen fuses to helium.

I agree. And you can't fuse past iron though. It won't go past iron. How do you, you tell me you got uranium from hydrogen? I'd like to see that, please. It's not, it's lacking normal intelligence. It just doesn't happen.

Chemically, it's not possible. Thirdly, there'd have to be what's called stellar evolution. The stars would have to evolve. The Bible says God made the stars. Plain and simple. That's just what it says.

The textbook says 18 to 20 billion years ago was the big bang, which caused the formation of galaxies. Well, we've got a real serious problem here. Big bang theory says nothing got together and exploded while it was spinning and formed all these galaxies.

Well, problems are multitude for this theory, okay? Some think the big bang theory made nice, neat, orderly galaxies. That's stupid, okay? These galaxies are really incredibly designed. Even at the galaxy level, there's design in the universe.

All the way down to the molecular level. We see a star blow up about every 30 years. A star explodes. It's called a nova or a supernova. If supernova, if the universe is billions of years old, why are there less than 300 supernova rings ever discovered?

That's only a few thousand years worth. I mean, if a star is blowing up every 30 years, there ought to be millions of these supernova rings if the universe were millions of years old. Don't tell me it's millions of years old.

I don't believe you. That's just not common sense. They say, well, yeah, new stars are forming. They say, this textbook says new stars are constantly being born in clouds of gas and dust. First of all, that's not ever observed, okay?

The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is we do not know how even a single one of these stars manage to form. You can't get dust and squeeze it together and make a star. There are common sense laws that overcome that, like Boyle's gas law.

You try to squeeze the gas together, the pressure builds up, and it drives it back apart. Nobody ever sees gases form into solids by their own internal gravitational force. So if stars evolve, star births should at least equal star deaths.

And we're seeing one die every 30 years, and we're never seeing one form. One guy said, oh, we're seeing a star form right now in Crab Nebula. I said, no, you're not. He said, yeah, we are. I said, no.

You're seeing a spot getting brighter. You see a spot, and it's getting brighter, and you're assuming a star is forming. Well, duh, it could be a dust cloud is clearing in front of it. It could be another big bang going on, I mean, a supernova going off out there.

All you're seeing is a spot getting brighter. You're assuming it's making a new star. Nobody's ever seen a new star form. Some people think if we lose stars every 30 years and never replace them, this will eventually lead to having 76 trillion stars.

Yeah, you keep spending money, pretty soon you'll be rich. That's stupid, OK? It just is stupid, OK? Some of these planets are cooling off. They're constantly losing their heat, OK? And the textbooks are telling us they're millions of years old, billions of years old.

You can't just keep cooling off and cooling off. Pretty soon it's cooled off. I mean, if you walked into a room and found a cup of coffee sitting on the table, and I said, don't touch the coffee, that's hot.

And you said, well, whose is it? I said, I don't know, it's been sitting there for 400 years. That's stupid, OK? Jupiter has a moon called Ganymede, which has a very strong magnetic field. Scientists are kind of perplexed by this, because the magnetic field indicates a hot molten core, and yet Ganymede should have cooled off billions of years ago.

Why does Ganymede still have a hot molten core and a strong magnetic field? To say it's billions of years old is stupid. It's just lacking common intelligence. Saturn has rings around it, but the rings are constantly expanding.

They're moving away from the planet. To say they're billions of years old is stupid. They can't be billions of years old. They would have been dissipated by now. They're not billions of years old. The moon is going farther away from the Earth every year.

We're slowly losing the moon. Now, this is going to be complicated, so listen carefully. As the moon goes around the Earth, it's gradually getting farther away, spiraling out about three inches a year.

So that means that it used to be closer. Well, if you bring the moon in closer, you start to create a problem, you see, because the moon causes the tides. Now, you folks here in Denver probably don't worry about the tides.

But in Pensacola, you worry about the tides, okay? Well, if you brought the moon in closer, you'd create a serious problem, because there's a law called the inverse square law. If you bring the moon into one-third the distance, you take the one-third, inverse it, square it, it's nine times the gravitational pull.

If you run all the math on this, you'll find 1 .2 billion years ago, the moon was risen around just above the surface of the Earth. That explains what happened to the tall dinosaur. They got moon. So, to teach us the Earth and the moon is billions of years old while it's constantly moving away, and nobody knows of any factors that would reverse that situation, that's just stupid, okay?

It can't be true. Organic evolution is the fourth stage. That's where life gets started from non-living material. The Bible says God created the living creatures, and there are folks who simply don't want God telling them what to do, bottom line.

God, leave me alone, stay out of my life, okay. So, they got to figure out a way how life got here without involving a supernatural intelligence creating it. The Bible says God created it. This textbook says the history of life on Earth began approximately three and a half billion years ago.

How this occurred and has been and will continue to be a topic for inquiry. Let me give you the Hoban translation. It's okay to inquire how life evolved. It is not okay to inquire whether it evolved. That's stupid.

Is this education or indoctrination? Hey, kids, we know life evolved. Now, you got to try to figure out how it happened. How about if we even question did it evolve? Oh, no, you can't question that. You cannot question that.

We know it evolved. Now, just figure out how it happened. That's not education. That's indoctrination. Uriah Miller in the 1950s wanted to know how the Earth and solar system had come to be. At the bottom it says he never proved how life originated.

He did add evidence to the theory that life could have started by itself. Life started by itself. That's stupid, okay? Life cannot start by itself. This textbook says 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. That's stupid. Can you believe they cut down a tree to print that book? Where's Al Gore when you need him? Here we have four major magazines in news media, Scientific American, CNN, New Scientist.

They're all saying life sprang from clay. Yes, a piece of clay created life. That's stupid. I think God could take clay and create life, okay, but the clay can't create life from itself. Major difference here, okay?

Textbook says students are taught that life evolved from non-living materials, like this one. Many important events occurred during the Archean era, most important of which was the evolution of life.

Progress from complex molecules to even the simplest living organism was a very long process. Yes, boys and girls, you see, long ago and far away. They hide it in antiquity. Well, if you just imagine, you go back far enough, it happened.

Oh, yeah, it must have. This one says between 4 and 3 billion, 3 .8 billion years ago, living cells emerged. There's no record of the event. That's stupid, okay? First self-replicating systems must have emerged in this organic soup.

Yep, they all came from soup. Now, that's stupid. I'm sorry, just lacks common sense. Ernst Haeckel said he knew that spontaneous generation must be true, not because it had been proven in the laboratory, but because otherwise it would be necessary to believe in a creator.

Ah, now we're getting to the truth. Well, I'm sorry, Ernst, that's a stupid way to look at life, okay? Have scientists really produced life in the laboratory? Well, they want you to think they have. What they did, they took a series of glass tubes and beakers and flasks and hooked them all together and made four gases go through there, methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen.

Notice, there's no oxygen. They didn't want oxygen in there. They excluded oxygen. They said, well, maybe the early Earth had what's called a reducing atmosphere, no oxygen present. Well, then they said at the bottom of the flask, it collected stuff that was rich in amino acids.

That's stupid. It was not rich in amino acids by a long shot. What they did, they took four gases, excluding oxygen. Major problem, because they had to leave oxygen out, because if anything tried to get together, it would oxidize.

You know, you cut a banana open, lay it on the table, it turns brown, it oxidizes. You don't paint your car, it rusts, it oxidizes. So, they took oxygen out. The problem is, you've got to have oxygen.

See, ozone is made from oxygen, and ozone blocks UV light. So, if you take away the oxygen, now the UV light destroys your ammonia, and that's one of the other gases you're trying to use. So, you cannot get life to evolve without oxygen, and you cannot get life to evolve with oxygen.

And the Earth has always had oxygen. All the experiments are showing that there's no proof of this reducing atmosphere. There's far more oxygen in the past than anybody ever imagined. We find, in general, no evidence that the Earth had an oxygen-free atmosphere.

That's what all the scientific experiments have shown. So, life cannot evolve with oxygen, life cannot evolve without oxygen, and yet they're teaching us life evolved from non-living matter. I'm sorry, that's just stupid.

It had to be designed, created, by a really smart designer. This textbook says, there was 0 oxygen on the Earth, but the rocks absorbed it. That's stupid. They filtered out the product in this experiment.

Miller and Urey, in their experiments, had the stuff going through this series of tubes, and when it got to the bottom, they drained it off, because they didn't want it to go through the electric spark chamber again, because the spark would tear it apart.

They said it's like 100 ,000 times more likely to destroy it than it was to create it. So, they had to protect the goo that they created at the bottom. That's not realistic for nature. I mean, if they're saying life evolved in some warm little pond from lightning strikes, that's just not common sense.

Because the lightning strikes are 100 ,000 times more likely to tear it apart than it is to put it together. Go check out your little pond after lightning strikes. See how many frogs are surviving. What he actually made was 85 tar, 13 carboxylic acid.

Now, both of those are toxic to life. He made 2 amino acids, and only 2 of the amino acids were made. There are 20 different amino acids. It's like making 2 letters of the alphabet accidentally by dropping toothpicks and saying, wow, look at this.

Nobody writes books. Here's how they're formed. Duh. These amino acids bond with tar and acid much more quickly than with each other. Amino acids are like letters of the alphabet. They're building blocks to make words, and you've got to have words to make paragraphs and paragraphs to make books.

What he actually made in the experiment was the equivalent of a couple of letters. Two of the letters. And half of them were backwards. Now you've really got a problem, because the smallest proteins have 70 to 100 of these amino acids in precise order, and they're all left-handed.

What's the chances of dropping toothpicks out of an airplane and creating letters on the ground, 70 letters in a row, all facing the right way, all spelled correctly, just to make one paragraph? The chances are zero.

It's not going to happen. Now, if you believe it will, that's great. I admire your faith, but don't call it science. Don't make me pay to put that in the schools like it's part of science. You go start yourself a private school and teach that junk to anybody that wants to pay and come learn it.

This is America, the land of the fee and the home of the slave. Or whatever. Now, DNA and RNA are all right-handed molecules, and hundreds of these have to combine in the right order, and they unbond in water much faster than they bond.

And as far as I'm concerned, folks, the oceans are completely full of water. Brownian motion is going to drive them apart. It is not common sense to say scientists have made life in the laboratory. It's just stupid.

They haven't even come close. I was in a debate one time, and this one student in the Q &A time said, Hovind, what are you going to say if scientists ever make life in the laboratory? What are you going to say then?

I said, well, first of all, I would like to point out there are long ways from it. They're nowhere close to creating life. They can't even get just a couple of these amino acids to combine. They can't even make a protein.

He said, well, you're right. I said, now, to answer your question, I guess I'd have to say, if a bunch of intelligent scientists get together and create life in the laboratory, that would prove it takes intelligence to make life, which is what I've been saying all along.

Life came from rocks. That's just stupid. It's not common sense, okay? Macroevolution tells us that it can change from one kind of animal into another. The textbook says, yes, boys and girls, bacteria slowly evolve to humans.

This one says, all the animals have a common ancestor, early reptile. That's just stupid, okay? Nobody's ever seen a dog produce a non-dog, all right? Even Mary Leakey said those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors is a lot of nonsense.

Stephen Gould at Harvard University said, the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are not the evidence of fossils. We don't have any proof of these trees at all. They make it up. They say the mammals and the birds and the crocodiles have a common ancestor.

Everything inside that circle is just pure religious speculation. They're guessing. Nobody's ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. You may get a big dog or a little dog, but you get a dog every time. This Irish textbook calls it divergent evolution.

Oh, come on, look it. You got five dogs coming from a wolf. Don't give it a fancy name. It's still a dog, okay? That's not evolution. That's stupid to say that's evolution. It's a variety of dog. This Mexican textbook says the horse and the zebra have a common ancestor.

I agree. And it looked like a horse. Four-wheel drive, genuine leather upholstery. I mean, all the standard equipment, okay? There's a lot of kinds of cows in the world. Probably 15 different major varieties of cows.

And they might have had a common ancestor. A cow. There's a magazine where you can order chickens. Okay, boys and girls, let's order some chickens. Do you want to get cinnamon queens, white red rocks, white rocks, cherry eggers, brown leghorns, golden comets?

But then the magazine says, Jungle fowl are the original bird from which all varieties and strains of domesticated chickens are derived. Did you know all the chickens had a common ancestor? It was a chicken?

Some say, well, that's evolution. No, I'm sorry, that's stupid, okay? It's a variety of chicken. There are eight kinds of bears in the world, and they might have had a common ancestor. A bear. So to take these observations we see, like dogs and wolves having a common ancestor, and saying that is the conclusion that we all have a common ancestor?

I'm sorry, that's just stupid. It lacks common intelligence, right? The textbook says the horse evolved from a four-toed horse. What they don't tell you about this is the first one had 18 pairs of ribs.

It's a meat-eating animal still alive today in East Africa and Turkey. It's about smaller than a fox. It's not a horse. It's not even related. The next one had 15 pairs of ribs. The next one has 19. They just picked these animals and arranged them in order, okay?

The horse evolution series is stupid. It's never observed today. There's a huge variety of horses today. We've got big horses and little horses right now. And the horse evolution series was proven wrong in 1950.

Even G .G. Simpson, who believed very strongly in evolution, says, look folks, it's not true, it's wrong. Take this out of the textbooks. It never happened in nature. But they still keep this in the textbooks.

And they know it hasn't held up to examination, but they don't have any replacement evidence. Othniel Marsh made up this entire horse evolution idea in 1874. He made it up. He picked animals from all over the world.

Modern horses are found in layers with the so-called ancient horses. The ancient horse, the Hyraclotherm, is not even a horse. It's just like a hyrax, still alive today in Turkey and East Africa. We can go all day about the differences between horses and the hyrax.

Tulsa Zoo finally took down their display because 2 ,000 people signed a petition saying, get this lie out of our zoo. They took it down for six months and then put it back up when nobody was watching.

Peabody Museum still has the horse evolution on display. Now it's only been proven wrong for 55 years. I know it takes a while to get displays up to date in your museum. But 55 years is long enough in my book.

Leaving that thing in the zoo is stupid. Or in a university, it's not true. I was in a debate one time and this one professor, I was going through lies in the textbooks. I said, get that out of the textbooks.

It's not true. He said, well, fine. He said, well, what are you going to replace all this stuff with? Now that's stupid. I said, are you telling me we can't take a lie out of the textbooks unless we got a replacement?

What you're trying to say is, folks, we want the kids to believe this theory. We've got to give them some evidence, and this is all we've got, and you're taking away our evidence. Now you've got to find some more.

Look, I didn't pick the dumb theory to begin with, okay? I don't believe it. Pick a new theory. That's the way science works. If you don't have any evidence for your theory, you get a new theory. The problem is, all the evidence for evolution has been proven wrong, but they don't want to take it out because there's no replacement.

I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks. I just want the lies out of the textbooks. Evolution will automatically go with it because there's nothing left to support it. The Bible says God formed the eye.

Eyeballs are unbelievably complex. Charlie Darwin said to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection. Absurd. Then he goes for four chapters after that and says how he thinks it happened anyway.

The back of your eyeball is one square inch called the retina. It contains 137 million light-sensitive cells all wired to the brain. My daddy started me off when I was about seven building a ham radio.

I've done a lot of electrical wiring in my life. Built nine houses. I've done all kinds of electrical wiring. My dad was an electrical engineer at Caterpillar Tractor Company. I cannot imagine hooking up 137 million connections in one square inch.

My Heavenly Father did it. He's pretty smart. I debated a guy named Ed Buckner who's an atheist in Buffalo, New York. He said the human eye is an example of poor design. I said, why would you say that, Ed?

He said, well, the eye is wired backwards. I said, what do you mean? He said, well, the blood vessels are in front of the retina. I said, yes, I know that. I taught biology and anatomy. He said, well, the octopus has a much better eye because their blood vessels are behind the retina.

I said, well, Ed, let me explain something to you. We live in the air. Air is a very poor insulator for UV light. So your eyeball has the blood vessels in front of the retina because that's your body's last defense against ultraviolet light.

Now, octopuses live in the water. Now, water blocks UV light. See, we have eyes designed for living in air, and they have eyes designed for living in water. Now, if you want to swap eyes with an octopus, you just enjoy yourself, but that's stupid.