Hume (with studied nochalance): Welcome back! Now as you know, Kent Hovind has already condemned himself to the many times over - but we're all enjoying this so much we're just going to keep him at it. So we've decided to offer him 3 lifelines - convert the audience, phone a deity or go to a 50/50 probability. So Kent - over to you!

Hovind: How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Hume: Which evolutionists ever said that THAT was how evolution happened?
Try these -

<Kira pulls the yellow lever again, depositing hardback editions of all Dawkins's other books onto his head>

Hume: The correct analogy, of course, is for turning an English book letter by letter into another English book by scrambling the letters and keeping those which happen to be right, scrambling the remainder and keeping whichever of THOSE are ritgh and so on. Doesn't take long to get the new text!

Hovind: Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Hume: Possible is not the same as 'true', Kent; the question is not 'is it possible', but 'is it more likely than the alternatives'?

Audience: No! No! No! What time is it? Give us a banana!

Hovind: Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Hume: Interesting assumption there - "it tends only to keep a species stable". So what about all the observed instances of speciation?

Hovind: When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?

Hume: There goes the nominalist again, folks!

<Audience> SMACK THE NOMINALIST! SMACK THE NOMINALIST!

Hume: Of course, whenever we find an animal or plant we haven't met before - either alive or as a fossil - we tend to give it a name as a new species rather than as an intermediate form per se. Hovind seems to be suggesting that the 'intermediate' form is something like a morphed photo which is of neither one thing or the next. In reality, of course, species evolve and NOT individuals. The question of 'how intermediate forms live' is just badly phrased - if our descendants evolve further, then WE will appear in the fossil record as 'intermediate forms'!

Hovind: When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Hume: And Hovind gets an extra dollop of for asking questions which have already been thoroughly answered elsewhere (try www.talkorigins.org), and trying to make it seem as if they are killer questions which have never been addressed.

Hovind: Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?

Hume: Again, Hovind feigns incredulity that complex systems can evolve, ignoring the point that systems are parts of organisms. They do NOT evolve in isolation from the rest of the creature, nor does any evolutionist say that they do! If anyone writes in after the show, we can answer all of these at lenght, but for now, on with the game...

Hovind: There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Hume: Because a) they DON'T defy evolutionary explanations, and b) because it's true! Evolution is not the only explanation, but it's sure as hell the only one backed up by the facts!

<Audience laugh, shriek and evolve spontaneously on cue>

Hovind: How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

Hume: So you're offering us a choice of a) chance, b) intelligent choice, or c) design. Let's ask the audience....

<dramatic music plays while audience press their buttons with fingers, stone tools or twigs>

Hume: And the audience came up with answer.... d) natural selection! And that's the RIGHT ANSWER!

Audience: ! ! !

Hovind: When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Hume: Wrong again! Evolution applies as much to behaviours as it does to organs. How about this?

<Kira pulls the yellow lever and deposits a copy of Stephen Pinker's 'How the mind works' on Hovind>

Hume: And furthermore, I take it that you evidence-phobic fundies hold that these feelings are only to be found in humans? Denying the evidence that they are a common feature of social mammals? Does that mean that wolves, horses and dolphins have souls? You're in a bit of a pickle there, aren't you?

Hovind: *How did photosynthesis evolve?
* How did thought evolve?

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

Hume: Anyone who doesn't know the answers can look at 'talkorigins' later - suffice it to say that the answers are known and have been published. Hovind doesn't know them because - a) he's too lazy to look it up, b) he's too stupid to understand the answers, c) he's scared that the truth may challenge his religion, d) he knows the answer but is 'lying for Jesus'. Vote now!

<audience throw voting devices, banana skins, chimpanzee excrement, knapped flints and bits of bark at Hovind>

Hovind: *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

Hume: Well gosh! Evolutionists can't agree! That settles it - I'm going to join the united church of the Jehovah's Witness Baptist Catholic Unitarian Muslim Buddhist Pagan Wiccan Shinto Judaist Anglican Mormon Bahai Taoist Methodists adn enjoy unity of belief!

<audience laugh in tongues>

Hovind: What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

Hume: I would have assumed it was a slang sexual reference

Hovind: *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Hume: Yes, all of them.

Hovind: *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

Hume: BURN THE STRAWMAN! BURN THE STRAWMAN! Now c'mon Kent, who said that it did?

<audience, especially the australopithecines and neanderthals, take Hovind's question as a personal insult and start trowing wildebeest bones at him>

Hume: And in any case, what's so scientific about the idea of a handful of clay becoming human?

<audience cheers, jumps up and down and becomes extinct>

Hovind: *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

Hume: Do you honestly believe that the universe needs a creator but god doesn't? Hello Mr Logic? In any case, I am more inclined to 'believe' in a cyclical universe in which the question of ultimate origins disappears up its own quantum uncertainty.

Audience: Yes! That makes sense! Would that Hovind disappeared up HIS! I thought we were extinct?

Hovind: After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Hume: We have a moral duty to accept the explanations which fit the facts best. Your explanations are so totally whacko they're going straight into the bin.

Hovind: Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Hume: My answers show no "faith" at all, merely a willingness to 'sit down as a little child before the fact'.

Hovind: Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Hume: As always, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you can provide good evidence of the creator, and can dismiss all other claims including unknown natural cause, your case may be considered. Until then... enjoy the !

Hovind: Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Hume: Yes, in the same way as it is wise and fair to present gravity or the earth being round.

Hovind: What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Hume: A rejection of the stranglehold factless god-botherers have over morals. A more humanistic morality in which problems can be dealt with without a smothering carapace of guilt and recrimination. An acceptance of our true, humble place in the universe. A more responsible attitude to the environment than that shown by religion. An end to making things 'holy mysteries' by dissolving them in the light of scientific inquiry. Responsible control over our own destiny as a species and as a biosphere.
And you having to get a real job.

Audience: Yes indeedy! Scrub that floor, Mr mail-order grad!

Hovind: Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

a. It is all they have been taught.
b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

Hume: 'People' covers a lot of ground. I cannot answer for everybody. I accept it because the facts show that it is correct. With a little modification, your reasons can cover all religious believers, thus:

People believe in god because:
a. It is all they have been taught.
b. They like the freedom from real moral responsibility (well it's OK to do wrong as long as you say sorry to god afterwards, who'll make it OK so that you needn't worry)
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
e. Theism is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

I think we can all see how much more common THESE have been over history than any 'belief' in evolution!

Hovind: Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

Hume: No. And your mixing of perfectly good evidence with disputed interpretations with downright hoaxes indicates that you are throwing dust into people's eyes!

Hovind: Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

Hume: Only if you allow a simialr opt-out for flat-earthers, UFOlogists et al.

Hovind: What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

Hume: Show me that I am wrong, using real evidence, and I will consider the question.

Hovind: Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Hume: Creationism should not be presented in science lessons because it is no more scientific than flat-earth theory. Evolution is not a religion, but a scientific theory!

Hovind: Aren't you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true?

Hume: Aren't you? God CANNOT logically exist - at least, not the one YOU preach. Evolution is a demonstrably correct theory that fits the facts. How many times do we have to say this to you bloody people?

Audience: Ooh! Queeny fit! Calm down, man!

<Kira soothes the host for a moment>

Hovind: Wouldn't it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

Hume: No, because I would have a lot of complaints for him about the sub-optimal design of the universe!

Hovind: Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.

Hume: Bible, schmible! I'll call you alright - I'll call you 'Kent Hovind, a man covered in !"

<Hume pulls the lever and deposits Hovind into the to wild cheers>