And the Funniest Anti-Evolutionist of the Week Award goes to...

` Oooooh, I just love applying skepticism. I also love evolution. No, really. Studying the evolution of a system - biological or not - makes life so much more worthwhile.
` I've written a quite bit about this stuff, here, though that only makes up half of this post: Following that is a wide variety of overly-blatant general ignorance quoted from the Anti-Evolutionist in question. It is really worth looking at if you want to skip what I have to say and have a good laugh.
` Yes, if you ask him, single-celled organisms need to find mates of the opposite sex in order to reproduce, sound vibrations are a type of light, rocks are made of hydrogen, and the sun is made of fire! And he's supposed to be a science teacher!
` He also hates democracies.
` However, many anti-evolutionists are not nearly as clueless about the universe as Hovind, and may indeed understand some areas of knowledge better than I do! The main reason I tend to find them hilarious is... well, in this post, I explain just how their arguments work:

` A creationist (or other anti-evolution proponent) will often say that most scientists who deal with evolution actually believe some ridiculous statement, though the scientists in question actually do not! Because of this, the scientists in question look very stupid unless you already know it isn't true.

` This is called 'character assassination!'

` Similarly, such creationists have been known to garble and misrepresent valid scientific data and theories - including the very nature of science! - so that these look just as silly as the fake allegations!
` And why do all that? The creationists - as well as the main Intelligent Design proponents - complain that scientists are threatening their faith by claiming that God did not create life on earth. (If that is their interpretation of the Bible, then fine, but scientists are not interested in disproving religions!)
` Erroneously, they go even further by saying that scientists actually claim that God does not exist! [Note: It is true that a few scienists have had the personal interest to say this, but this is definitely not the object of scientific thinking.] That seems to be the main motivation for attempting to ruin the reputations of many important scientific minds.
` By doing this, such anti-evolutionists insult botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, paleo-anthropologists, bio-geographers, developmental biologists, cosmologists, geologists, social biologists, bio-physicists, bio-chemists, geneticists, and in fact, all honest scientists by lying about not only findings and scientists' interpretations of those findings, but the scientific way itself!


` After that, I went on to demonstrate exactly what I'd just said by picking apart some articles I ran into from Creation magazine. In fact, I continue to do so in the subsequent post.
` Here's my favorite anti-bird-evolution excerpt (on the similarities between feathers and 'reptillian scales'), which will show very clearly what I mean:


` Ed. note: after this Creation magazine article was written, we came across evidence that even this similarity may not be as great as supposed. Feather proteins (f-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (a-keratins). An evolutionary feather expert, Alan Brush, concludes;
` 'At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.' A.H. Brush, 'On the origin of feathers', Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9: 131-142, 1996.'

` Not only is that not a secret, but that was completely taken out of context! Another very common creationist trick!! Now, see, if you've read my DatD series, you'd already know that reptillian scales (also called reticulae), which birds have on the very bottoms of their feet, really are that different than feathers.
` However, scutes, which are scales that crocodiles and birds also have, are chemically about the same [as feathers], and are known to trace their roots from the same part of the DNA as feathers.
` Developmentally, they are similar, and it is the scutes and scutellae which can develop into feathers through simple genetic manipulation. [In other words, biologists think that scutes, not 'reptillian scales', are the structures that feathers are related to.]
` Of course, dinosaurs are also known for having scutes and scutellae, including the Maniraptora, which is one of the 'steps' that birds are contained in.


` These types of distortions are all I see, really, whenever I look at creationist/ID material. I actually don't get angry, though: I tend to giggle girlishly - or perhaps cackle maniacally - at what I see. It is kinda funny when all I see are political tricks and pointless thought experiments. Sometimes, there's also plenty of gibberish.
` The evangelist, Kent Hovind's words from this article are no exception.


Though the debate sometimes resembled two ships passing in the night [as anti-evolutionists and biologists are generally on two completely different levels], Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism, and Franz-Peter Griesmaier, a UW philosophy professor, butted heads on key issues.

Hovind believes that evolution is closer to a religion that creationism because it is not based in science. He has repeatedly offered $250,000 to anyone who can offer proof of evolution, and is mad because he believes evolution is taught as fact in public schools and universities.


` Proof, eh? When it comes to scientific theories, neutrality is the key, and words like proof don't really have much usefulness.
` Nevertheless, in the skeptical method of finding what is most likely true through a meticulous process of elimination (in other words, science), darwinism is a sensible and, most importantly, practical explanation (also known as a scientific theory) for all biological, geological, etc. observations, and with utmost objectivity, there are no known facts which oppose it. Therefore, nothing has disproven evolution, though scientists have stringently been trying to do so for over a hundred years!
` The object is not to prove, but to disprove and develop ideas that have not been disproven. It is only through dismissing the negative that reality can come into relief.
` That is the way all scientific theories function. If you are not familiar with this line of thinking, please see this post, in which I attempt to explain what the skeptical/scientific method is and what the differences are between the phrases: "I believe so" "I believe not" and "I don't believe", and why skeptics practice the third one.
` However, because the easily-practiced (and therefore working) successful explanation of the fact of common descent (which is precisely what Darwin's theory of evolution is) has never run into anything in the real world that has come close to invalidating it (though such things do exist in people's perceptions), I'd say that this is proof enough that it's true.
` Hovind disagrees:

“Public schools aren’t giving kids a choice about whether to believe evolution, they just provide one false theory,” said Hovind. “Peer pressure is what causes evolution to remain dominant at universities. If professors started to question the theory, they would lose their jobs. I gave a lecture in Russia to a group of professors and one of them started to cry during my presentation. I asked the translator what was the matter and he told me that the man had never been exposed to creationism before.”


` Bwaaa-hahaha! Sounds like another one of those soppy stories they tell. As unlikely as it is, I'd be willing to bet that if it had indeed happened, the professor may have actually been sick with disbelief. Well, how could you possibly work at explaining the origins of life for your entire career and yet never hear of or think of these things?


For his part, Griesmaier offered $250,000 to anyone who could prove there are not any giant, invisible kangaroos orbiting Mars, preparing to invade. But he is the one who decides what is acceptable proof.


` Why do that? You cannot demonstrate that something does not exist if the world doesn't tell you that it could exist in the first place.
` The world tells us that we have a long fossil record behind us. Developmental stages show the order in which many things could have come about, also consistent with the fossil record. DNA shows the relative distances between different species, and these are also consistent with the fossil record.

The core of Griesmaier’s argument is simple: creationism is not a theory. [i.e. explanation!] Therefore, creationism will never do a better job of explaining scientific phenomena than evolution because it cannot predict anything.


` Yes, science is all about practicality. About the most important thing a scientific theory can do is predict that, following the pattern of the theory, something can be expected. A structure in cells - such as DNA - or a particular type of fossil species - for example, primitive whales with legs - are but two types of things that have been both predicted and found by darwin's theory.
` Experiments that hinge on, say, what may or may not be found in a gene pool at a certain time are also fairly good at predicting what can happen in the near future under certain conditions.


Griesmaier admits that some of science is based on unproven assumptions, much like religion. But religion is grounded in faith, which is not revisable, while science is composed of working hypotheses, which can be revised. This means much of science is based on the best guess humans can infer, when a better theory comes along, science can adapt what it teaches.

` In other words, reality dictates what scientists think - they are to bow down to whatever they find, and to try to understand why their predictions don't always hold up. That is science in a nutshell.
` And in any theory, there are basic, underlying principles, which act as guidelines. As far as details go, however, these are often revised or at least slightly changed because they need to be as specific as reality will permit.
` In any successful theory, however, the basic guidelines will not need to be abandoned, as the predicting ability is quite efficient. Though other theories of evolution have failed miserably in this way, Darwin's ideas have barely needed to be modified throughout all the decades of biological discovery since his time!
` Few scientific explanations have even come close to such success in all of history! All this time, and Darwin was more spot-on than he could have ever hoped for! (Why, he even predicted our very genes, which weren't discovered until way after his death!)
` So how can Mr. Evangelist complain about that?

Hovind believes that if you teach schoolchildren that they evolved from apes, they will start acting like them. He thinks drug use, sexually transmitted diseases and an increased crime rate among teens is partly based on the exclusive teaching of evolution. When Griesmaier countered that European countries have a lower violent crime rate and a lower rate of church attendance than the United States, Hovind took issue with the countries (which included England, France, and the Netherlands) in his opponent’s example.

“Those decreased murder rates were all from countries with socialistic governments and total gun control,” said Hovind. “I’ll take my gun, thank you.”

` Can anyone not see through this tactic? Also... when's the last time you saw a gorilla with a crack pipe?

Hovind’s final argument was that one can prove the existence of God by thinking about the opposite: how is it possible that no intelligent being created us?

“Did you come from a rock?” Hovind implored the audience. “Stop and think about it.”

` Oh, yes, I came from a rock!! In fact, I remember when they used to call it rock-o-lution! Hey, that must make creationism dust-o-lution! Seriously, though...
` How could I not be created intelligently? Well, how do we know there were no weapons of mass-destruction? That's called proving a negative, and it cannot work in real life.
` However, we do know a great deal about the ways in which biological systems change over time, all by themselves. In fact, the evolution of new species has been witnessed and documented.
` It's easy enough to see how some species, structures, systems, etc. can evolve from others, even very drastic-looking ones! These relatively simple mechanisms show how, while organisms are always riddled with flaws, they are still just good enough to survive.


Hovind made several common sense arguments of his own, pointing out that humans don’t observe dogs give birth to anything other than dogs. He added that he thought creationism was a theory, based on what he knows from the Bible. He posited that the theory of creationism believes the universe shows signs of intelligent design, there is a purpose to life, there is an afterlife, there are varieties in kinds with limits, and prehistoric man had huge eyebrow ridges because when you chew more, it enlarges those bones.

But Hovind didn’t predict any of these things, he just listed things the audience already knows or want to believe in, said Griesmaier.


` Well, yes, appealing to followers and would-be followers is about all anti-evolutionists have done. In fact...


Hovind, who calls himself Dr. Dino and has a dinosaur amusement park in Pensacola, Fla., “where dinosaurs and the Bible meet,” conceded that he believes in one of the five kinds of evolution: microevolution, which he describes as variations within the kinds. But organic and macro-evolution and the big-bang theory make him bristle, with the idea that humans evolved from some type of “primordial soup.”


` Yes, appealing to the public is really the only way such people have gotten so many followers. But what's even more annoying (and damaging) is the way any dishonest thing can be treated in the mass media - potentially equally to something that is honest. Why? It's a free country, which is being used as the justification of this mentality:
` 'People can believe what they want! Let's not tell them what we know is true and what isn't, because they'll accuse us of being biased! Let's just pretend there's two sides to everything (even if there's actually one or three or seven!) and then we act like each side is equal!'
` This is generally mistaken for actual objective journalism.
` It's a common political tactic, and it runs rampant in the mass media, in case you have somehow failed to notice. (In fact, this tactic alone probably provides most of the material for The Daily Show.)
` I recently came across a relevant book review by David Brin - The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. Brin talks about this (though he adds that Republicans are not the only ones to do this...)


Mooney disapproves the mass media’s obsession with gladiatorial opposition when covering contentious issues like Creationism and global climate change. Countless news stories seek entertaining “balance” by portraying both sides as evenly matched, equally vehement. This appeals to viewers’ sense of fair play, sometimes even cheering underdogs vs. snooty, scientific authority figures. But such “balance” can also empower fringe groups to stay in the fray forever, magnifying uncertainty indefinitely, preventing any conclusion from being reached.

Unlike past dogmas, science claims not to fear uncertainty. Young scientists are taught to nurse some residual doubt toward even the strongest theory. (And yes, even a widely held “consensus” can sometimes be wrong. Graduate students look for rare “faulty paradigms” which, if toppled, can make a reputation.) This healthy skepticism accompanies — but does not generally undermine — the collaborative process of building ever-better and increasingly valid models of the world, models that have risen, like our cities, after centuries of steady improvement. Opponents of science try to turn this strength into a weakness by exaggerating doubts, portraying all theories as equal, or even calling “scientific consensus” a meaningless phrase. (A related irony: politicians who claim “mandates” after slim electoral wins, then dismiss far greater majorities of expert opinion as “uncertain.”)

` Anyway, these points of logic I have gone over will probably wind up as recurring themes in my blog more often in the future. Why?
` Because they're the kinds of things that allow me to make fun of the general wackmobiles of the world - pseudoscientists, quacks, cult leaders, religious fanatics, and other swindlers and extremists.
` Such people are the various punchlines of a joke about humanity that goes: "What happens when you become both selfish and self-righteous?"
` Sad, yes, but I might as well be amused at what I see while I don't have anything better to do.


“God made this world, and he makes the rules,” said Hovind. “We will all be punished.”


` Oh, that sounds so threatening coming from a man who also said all of this... ah, this:

I'm a heliocentric [earth-goes-around-the-sun] believer - but there are some folks who are still geocentric and give a very convincing position for that.

` Convincing? That the earth is in the center of the universe? Very telling of your standards, Mr. Hovind!

There is not an ozone problem that man has created. [.....] Man has done almost nothing to the ozone. In fact, my understanding is that the last time scientists measured the ozone layer, it was thicker than it was the first time they measured it.

` Of course! That must have been some other layer that's thinning!

I think cancer is a deficiency disease, it is a lack of Vitamin B17, and some of you are going to die of cancer and you are going to get to heaven early and you are going to say, God, I prayed, why did you not heal me?

` ...and this has nothing to do with certain mutations that cause cells to replicate out of control?
` Oh yeah... B-17 is a WWII aircraft, not another name for this "Laetrile" quackery cure-all!

Dinosaurs were just big reptiles that lived with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. You can buy these at the pet store right now; it has got three horns on his face, what would he look like at about 10 tons? Some kind of triceratops?

` I think he's talking about a chameleon. You know, the color-changing lizard with a prehensile tail and feet that shoots its tongue out to grab insects and has eyes that can look independently in different directions?
` Yeah, that would turn into the dinosaur equivalent of a rhinoceros if you just made it really big!

I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it.

` So... they were borrowing it?

Did you know 200 Americans died in the Gulf War? 26,000 died afterwards of Gulf War Syndrome from the vaccines they were given.

` Oh, how horrible... but wait;

Did you know during the Gulf War, less than 300 Americans died in battle? There have been 30,000 that have died since then of Gulf War illness.

` What? Now you're saying even more of them have died from vaccinations? Oh no, Mr. Hovind! We must abolish them!

Satan is seeing to it that well meaning parents are destroying their children's immune system by putting over 22 viruses into their system before they are two.

` Only twenty-two viruses? Everyone is exposed to a lot more than 22 viruses before they're one day old! By gum, we must punish the inanimate matter responsible for all this evil!

Water or ice, it might have been ice because ice at low temperatures becomes magnetic and you can actually suspend it in the magnetic field of the earth. It is called the Mysner [sic] Effect.

` Now here, I'm stumped; I just can't imagine what orifice he's pulled that idea from.

The ancient horse is not a horse at all; its a hyrax. Still alive today in South America. The size of a fox. Its a meat eating animal.
` Or...
The ancient horse is a Hyracotherium, which was originally called the hyrax, is still alive today in Turkey and in East Africa.

` That's pretty funny, considering what I know about the subject. To clear things up; a Hyracotherium ("hyrax-like beast" = Eohippus), was a small, hoofed animal somewhat resembling a cross between a miniature horse and a capybara. It lived in North America and Europe and ate mainly soft plants, as evidenced by the shape and condition of its teeth.
` Seriously, Hovind needs to go over to the Florida Natural History Museum, which also has an online fossil horse cybermuseum.
` On the other hand, a hyrax could be one of many small groundhog-like relatives of elephants, having long, sharp tusks and suction-cupped foot pads suited to climbing rocks and trees.
` More than forty million years ago, many primitive hyracoids were actually the size of deer, though they lived in Africa, far away from the primitive horses.
` Unfortunately, the early types of African, cattle-like animals became better as dominant, midsize grazers and managed to replace the hyracoids in the grasslands, shunting them to other niches.
` Today, there are about eleven remaining species of hyracoid - the hyraxes - which resemble pikas to some extent. They are plant-eaters, and they need to huddle together and bask in the sun to help regulate their body temperature. Hyraxes live in parts of Africa and the Middle East, though not South America!!

[…..] a change of only three [DNA] nucleotides is fatal to an animal. There is no possibility of change.

` Because fifty percent of genetic recombination is required to reproduce, the fact that extensive mutations happen all the time, and because individual cells mutate within each individual during one's lifetime, we must all be exinct and not know it!

As far as cloning goes, it is defiantly [sic] not being done, and probably would be an impossibility.

` Gee, those poor, misguided scientists, saying they've cloned mice and fish and sheep... when are they just going to realize that you're right and their experiments are deluding them?

Therefore, there may not be any other stars in the solar system that have planets around them.

` For once, he's right! There aren't! The sun is the only star in this solar system!!!

See, the Sun puts off a lot of stuff besides light. It puts off X rays, gamma rays, beta rays - and all them ray boys come down here and they're pretty hard on your carcass. How many have ever had an X ray before? [....] Long-term exposure to X rays is dangerous but here we are getting X rayed every day of our life. And your poor skin feels the full force of the X rays. [....] After about 70 or 80 years, your skin begins to lose the battle and it can't keep up with the damage being caused. And your skin begins to wrinkle up. [....] Well, if you don't want to get wrinkled [....] carry a lead or concrete umbrella over your head at all times - don't ever get exposed to X rays.

` Heee! So, your skin ages because we're not adapted for our hard, X-ray-filled habitat! Say, if we're getting X-rayed all the time, then why can't we take X-ray pictures without an X-ray emitter? Why do X-ray telescopes have to be mounted on satellites in order to work?
` It just so happens that there's a little thing called an atmosphere in the way!

The globalist, the Council of the Committee of Three Hundred, has as one of their goals to reduce the world population from six billion to one-half billion people. There are too many people here that cannot be controlled; so get rid of them. That's why AIDS was purposefully developed in a Maryland laboratory to wipe out population.

` Oh, so the whole thing with chimpanzees giving SIDS to us just never happened, right?

Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock.

` Wow! So the hydrogen gas all around us is actually boiling rock?

Before the flood, there was no cold climates in the world. It was seventy-five degrees from pole-to-pole. The temperature was perfect everywhere.

` Oh, the poor polar bears and wooly mammoths!

Mammoths do not have any sweat glands. They were not designed for cold climates.

` Gee, I wonder if mammoths really didn't have sweat glands? Even so... they couldn't make themselves cooler because they lived in a warm climate? Why, how insightful!

If Evolution is true, there is no Creator, so laws come from mans opinion. That is called a democracy, which is a terrible form of government. Democracies always degenerate into dictatorships. In America, it is sad to say, has become a democracy.

` How tragic, but wasn't that the point of America?

A lot of things - like allergies - are directly related to problems in the back and neck. A chiropractor can fix a lot of them.

` Oh, sure, by adjusting your vertebrae, you can stop your immune system from being hyperactive!

They banned DDT, not because it was necessarily bad, but because it was a great way to help the population control [by banning it].

` Can we safely assume that this man is paranoid and anti-government?

Typically, what they do is they see a star wobble. It appears to wobble back and forth and they assume there is a large planet going around in orbit tugging on it. Most of the evidence for planets in other solar systems is based on, I think, wild imagination. Or the base of their telescope is loose causing the wobble. Or the Earth itself is wobbling while they look at it [the star] - the Earth does have a wobble - causing them to think the star has a wobble.

` Oh yes, such grievous oversights can cause one star to wobble relative to other stars!

The only study I know about is when they were cutting down a massive section of rainforest in Brazil, or someplace like that. [....] And they found out as they burn wood they produce carbon dioxide which all the trees around it love. They thrive on CO2. So they absorb CO2 right away out of the atmosphere and they grew faster. So here you've got trees that produce x number of cubit feet of wood per year now producing more cubic feet of wood per year all around the part that was burned. And it was absolutely zero effect on the planet. [....] I don't think you could alter [the atmosphere] unless you set everything on fire at the same time.

` So, if you burn half the trees in the world, the rest of the trees would suddenly gain as much mass as the dead trees... I wonder how long it took him to come up with that?

To claim that cyanide is always poisonous is simply not logical. […..] The cyanide found in fruit seeds is good for you. I eat apricot seeds all the time and have never had a problem.

` There's not enough of it in apricot seeds, you stooge!

[....] Let me point out to you that it is possible to spray a stream of water through the middle of a fire an come out the other side, okay. It is true some of the water on the edge gets vaporised. What happens is in the middle of scalding hot fire you end up with a cold stream going through it if you get enough water going the same direction - it takes too long to heat it. So I think an ice meteor coming in toward the Earth - fragments of this ice would make it through - probably pulverised it would develop its own cold channel. What was that movie - The Day After Tomorrow [....] - they said there is a vortex coming down from the stratosphere, you know, going to be pulling down air that's going to be super cold. Okay, here you've got the same phenomenon - it's possible to have super cold air pulled down to the surface of the Earth. [.....] If it doesn't answer your question, call in. Or if it does - call in - say, "Thanks Mr Hovind for rescuing me from this dumb idea".

` Okay, so we're referencing a movie for our science, are we? A piece of ice, go through a huge mass of rock under such massive gravitational pressure that the core of it has liquified?
` It probably couldn't even make it to the liquified part, let alone go through it without having enough mass and energy to destroy the entire planet!

The electromagnetic spectrum contains all the different wavelengths. Radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, radar, sonar, including a small piece in the middle called light.

` Somebody shoot me before I tear myself apart with laughter... sonar! No, ya dolt, that's sound, not light! But I don't think he understands that there's a difference between pressure waves and photons/electromagnetic waves, anyway:

Suppose when we get to heaven God [.....] gives you an eyeball that is capable of seeing all the frequencies on the [electromagnetic] spectrum. That means that you would be able to see the radio waves going through the air as a color. Also, you would be able to see the sounds that come from a piano.

` Can you imagine if he tried to explain this to a physicist? Hee hee...

Listener's letter: [.....] It is said the Sun is a burning ball of gas, in other words fire. What is the one thing that fire needs to burn? Oxygen. How come that stars continue to burn if they have no oxygen to keep them burning? [.....]
Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one.

` Oh my! How does the sun burn without oxygen? It doesn't! Stars are fusion reactors powered by the sun's own gravity, Mister Know-It-All!
` I also just love it when he contradicts himself...

They try to minimize [the difference between humans and apes], you know, 5% difference. "Its only 5%" Man, that's millions and millions of differences.

The Neanderthals were perfectly normal humans. Their DNA was well within the span of human DNA today - plus or minus 4%

` Oh, the millions and millions of differences!

I say, you guys have to get two cells to evolve from the [primordial] soup - of the opposite sex, in the same place, at the same time. It's a big world, you know, cells are kind of small - they've got to find each other.

` Single-celled organisms... (which reproduce by fission...) of the opposite sex. To be honest, I haven't heard that one before!

We today put, for instance, a whale and a dolphin in the mammal family but the Bible may consider that a fish. After all, it does live in the water and I don't know that it is or it isn't. But if the Bible does consider a whale in the fish kind that would not mean the Bible is wrong that would mean our current way of dividing animals up is different to the Bible's way of dividing animals up, that's all.

` The mammal family... um. You know, cetaceans have lungs, mammary glands, are warm-blooded, have certain types of skull bones, somewhat different homologous organs as compared with fish, small amounts of hair, etc, etc.
` I wonder if he even knows that? I doubt it would mean anything to him, though.

Sometimes .... people say you are not qualified to talk about a certain subject and then they will use the ad hominem argument "You can not discuss this because you have not been trained". Well, Columbus had no training and yet he proved the world was round.

` 1) Columbus did not prove the world was round - we already knew that! 2) he was also a skilled navigator of the oceans, 3) Hovind is clearly a paranoid, doubletalking, and very disturbed, brainwashed man who obviously knows nothing of what he's ranting about - of course he is not qualified!

[.....] I have an IQ of about 160, I taught science for about fifteen years [.....]

` And I feel sorry for those students, O Unqualified one.

` *Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap...* there you are, folks! Hovind the fanatical evangelist! He gets my vote! Glad you could come. For more hilarious fanatacism, you can check out this website of his compiled insanity. (And yes, it is referenced.)