Recapitulation v Homology
In order to understand this lie it is necessary to establish two important definitions;
Recapitulation Theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) - States that stages in the evolution of the species are reproduced during the developmental stages of the individual (Chambers 1990). For example, a human embryo would start out as a "fish" embryo then work it's way through its evolutionary ancestry till reaching a full human stage. Promoted by Ernst Haeckel in the late19th century. This idea has been debunked for decades and is no longer in use.
Embryo homology (comparative embryology, developmental homology) - closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development (Campbell 1993). Embryonic structures can be adapted to different ultimate uses, for example, pharyngeal arches ("gill slits"). Or structures may be removed, for example, the tail of a human embryo.
The difference between these two ideas is subtle but very significant. However, Kent Hovind has never recognized the difference. He always mixes embryo homology with Recapitulation Theory.
Perhaps Hovind has never been exposed to the difference and is simply blissfully unaware? Unfortunately this is not the case. During a debate at Winona State University with Dr Robyn Richardson the following exchange took place [1]. The date of this exchange is not specified, but Hovind does mention his "$10,000 Challenge" (as opposed to the now $250,000 Challenge) which puts the timeframe in the early 1990's.
Dr Richardson: The ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny [Recapitulation Theory] has been disproven. We do not pass through our ancestral stages but this has nothing to do with our continuing to show these vestigial organs because we are not subject to natural selection as strongly in the womb as when we come out of the womb. @1:10:45
Hovind: Dr Richardson, in her opening comments, was giving the sciences that support Evolution and she said, "Developmental biology supports Evolution because of vestigial organs including gill slits and tails while the baby is in the mother's womb." So she is using ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny [Recapitulation Theory]. We've got it on tape. @1:14:00
What we have on tape is Dr Richardson denying Recapitulation and attempting to explain homology. In the time it takes to cook an egg Hovind still confused the concepts of Recapitulation and homology. To top it off, Hovind misrepresents his opponent's position. Is this exchange simply from an obscure debate long forgotten in history? No, ten years later you can download the entire debate or buy the DVD for $9.95 from Hovind's website [August 2003]
Let's give Hovind the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he simply made an error but later updated his material? Again, this is not the case. Hovind has continued to mix his definitions. In fact, I have never heard or read Hovind mention embryo homology (by any name). It's Recapitulation Theory all the way according to Hovind;
But guess what? Haeckel's fake drawings are still used today in textbooks - in your town - as evidence for Evolution. You bring me your biology textbook and I'll show it to you. They're still teaching the kids, "We've got evidence for Evolution from embryology." Even though its proven wrong in 1874. Here's a textbook [.....] - a '98 textbook - the class of '99 was taught, "Evidence for Evolution comes from embryos." That was only proven wrong 125 years ago. [2]
Did you notice the subtle deception? Hovind has even had the nerve to write (circa 2000);
If your textbook shows the so-called "gill-slits" on various embryos as evidence for evolution, you can be sure the author is either ignorant or deliberately lying to promote his religion of evolution. (Hovind)
No Mr. Hovind, it is you who has been caught in the act of deception. From the early '90's to at least 2003 Hovind has consistently misrepresented the science behind the issue. Apparently nothing, not even a public explanation, has had any effect on this misrepresentation.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
[1] Debate 06 - Winona State University (early '90s) [August 2003]
[2] MP3 Audio - Lies in the Textbooks Part 2 [August 2003]
Campbell, Neil A. (1993) Biology 3rd Edition The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. Redwood City, California
Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary (1991) W & R Chambers Ltd, Edinburgh.
Hovind, K. (circa 2000) Are you Being Brainwashed? Propaganda in Science Textbooks Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, Florida.