Comment and Opinion

Kent Hovind

Mr Hovind attacks evolution and offers a reward of $250,000 to anyone who can prove that evolution has happened. He keeps changing the rules so that it is impossible to claim the prize. Also, he likes to be called "Dr" because he has a PhD degree, but there seems to be some doubt about the quality of his thesis.

Unbelievable as it may seem, Kent Hovind is regarded by other creationists such as Answers in Genesis to be somewhat rigid in his thinking.

The challenge is bogus, as the $250,000 will only be given to someone who can perform the intellectual miracle of proving that all imaginable ways except one to get to the current state of the universe are false. Little more needs to be done to convince thinking people of the vacuity of Hovind's "challenge" than to quote the words of it, although I can see why creationists might think it means something.

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution [the universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed] is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

There is an anonymous committee to judge the arguments. It would be presumptuous to suggest that this committee might consist of people who, like Hovind, hold to the literal truth of the Biblical account of creation and therefore might be somewhat biased in their judgments, but this presumption has an almost infinitely greater possibility of matching reality than the assumption that the universe is only 6,000 years old. In probability terms, if the probability of the committee being biased and prejudicial is P₁ and the probability of the age of the universe being anything like 6,000 years is P₂, then P₁=P₂ + 1.

Some further information about Mr Hovind and the experiences people have had with his prize offer can be found at http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_challenge.htm.

I think this email relates to Mr Hovind's challenge. I thought it better to hide the writer's details, even though permission was granted for publication.

From: "lazyjc"
Subject: evolution
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:16:19 -0600

First of all my email is xxxxxx@yahoo.com. [This was not the email address in the From: header. PB] You may post this, anyone may email me if they like. I don't understand evolution one bit. Now if evolution isn't the earth being a consequence of a big bang, then what? If it isn't bacteria turning into plant, and animal, then what? So why is his challenge bogus? You can prove microevolution, he believes in microevolution. You can not prove macroevolution, he doesn't believe in it. That is simply scientific. If another person told us milk came from a cow, I think we'd try it first before we believed him unless we saw it done. Now no one saw God make the earth and no one saw it evolve. A cow has never been born with a wing, it is not in her gene pool. What do you propose time does to a gene pool so that it might let a cow produce a wing or some such thing. Think about intelligent design. I don't know about you, but I can not create an animal in my mind without using parts of animals already in existence. Coincidence? Maybe. Get back with me.

Here is a picture of the University which conferred Mr Hovind's doctorate.

The photograph above dates from about 2001. I would like to thank reader Bill Butler for the pictures below, showing the campus in 2006.

Someone wrote to me about this page:

Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:05:28 EDT
Subject: (no subject)

Your comments on Dr. Hovind definitely smack of asshole theatrics. I do not know about the doctor's scentific credibiilty, but if he has a doctoral degree, he is a doctor, and is entitled to doctoral courtesy designation. Doctor is an educational status; a generic designation of what one is; not a job. For example, if Sterling Finemend has a Th.D. from Second Chicken Eaters Church School of Theology, then Dr. Finemind as is as much of a DOCTOR as Fungus Proctohead, M.D., Harvard, of Johns Hopkins, or D.O. from Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine.

Challenge the scientific validity of Dr. Hovind's claims if you wish; but leave off the dung splattering AS IF his doctoral status was improperly assumed. In fact, his own web cite shows exactly where he got his degree.

and

Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:05:59 EDT
Subject: (no subject)

NOt "likes to be called Dr.," is a doctor if he is a Ph.D.

Nobody disputes the fact that Kent Hovind has a PhD. What is in dispute is the quality of the degree and the quality of the institution that issued it. There is no shortage of places on the Internet where you can acquire impressive-looking qualifications. For example, I, like many other people, am an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church (you can see my ordination certificate here). The Church offers a PhD for a tuition fee of $US105. As a long-established organisation like ULC would have even more credibility that the Second Chicken Eaters Church School of Theology, a degree from ULC would certainly entitle me to be called "Doctor". Whether the title would mean much to anyone is what is at issue here.

It would be very unfair to use that old cliche and say that Kent Hovind's degree "is not worth the paper it is printed on". I believe it is definitely worth the paper it is printed on and not a penny less.

More about Dr Hovind's qualification can be found at http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm.