The Hovind $250,000 Challenge
The following is an analysis of Kent Hovind's $250 000 Challenge. The text of Hovind is quoted from "$250,000 offer" Hovind's words are in bold. Seasoned Hovind watchers may notice he has removed references to some of the more controversial aspects of the Challenge. I will, however, be highlighting where Hovind has been less than explicit in his terms.
A list of past and present challengers is included at the end of this article.
Here is the analysis of a previous version of the Hovind Challenge.
Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer formerly $10,000, offered since 1990
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Notice the little star? Hovind is working with a very broad definition of "evolution". While most people would have thought his "Challenge" was in regards to biological evolution, this would be a misconception. Hovind is attacking every conclusion of science which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.
Straw man Empirical evidence does not constitute "scientific proof" because nothing in science in proven, only understood based upon known evidence.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety
of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known
as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Straw man Hovind has ignored further options. Amongst others, these could be;
4. The Universe was created by a team of deities.
5. The Universe was created, by a deity or deities using naturalistic
methods (theistic evolution)
6. The Universe is actually a manifestation of a deity
7. The Universe is the offshoot of another Universe
8. The Universe is perpetual
9. The Universe is the science project of an alien teenager.
The length of this list is only limited by our imagination.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Straw man Hovind makes the erroneous
claim that the Universe originated from pure nothing numerous times.
See The Professor
and Mr. Hovind
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Stellar and planetary formation which has been photographed at least four times by the Hubble Space Telescope. See Protoplanetary Disks in the Orian Nebula See also Detailed Image of the Disk around Beta Pictoris
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Contradiction While present knowledge of molecular biology has not solved this riddle, it is interesting Hovind said the following on the issue of accepting such a discovery as evidence for "evolution";
I was at a university to speak to a group of hostile students who all believed in evolution. One of the students said, "What would you say if they could make life in the laboratory? How about it, what would you say then?" I said, "Well, that would prove that it takes a lot of intelligence to create life. Wouldn't it?" It would take a lot of design and intelligence. I'm not going to say that they are not ever going to be able to do it, but if they did, it certainly would not prove evolution. It would prove creation. (source)
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in
reproducing themselves.
Straw man It's almost tautologically obvious that organisms that wouldn't reproduce would not survive and those that do reproduce will survive. A population of organisms that doesn't reproduce itself very quickly becomes "non living"
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
Straw man Whenever there is replication of DNA there are errors. Sexual reproduction also adds further combinations of variety. It is upon this variations in populations that natural selection operates. The process is elegantly simple.
What Hovind is playing with here is the macro/micro loophole. In a footnote, Hovind states "When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (micro evolution)" There is no definition of minor variation given. The loophole Hovind has used in the past is the imaginary classification "kind". Since the word "kind" has never been scientifically defined by any creationist, this leaves a huge loop hole that any type of evolution can be made to disappear into. Lets say a new dog species formed, as different as a fox is to a hyena. Now, the creationist can say well this is just a dog kind. Lets say this new species was so different it couldn't even be called a dog kind. No worries, it's likely still a mammal so therefore it's still a mammal kind. No evidence for evolution there. That is the advantage of having a rubbery definition of the word "kind".
Lenny Flank has written a short essay on the issue of "kinds" and the usage of the term by creationists.
From the footnotes we read a more explicit definition: [caused] major changes .... between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
See Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") 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.
So what the challenger has to do is provide evidence for Option 3 "the universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes so there is no appeal to the supernatural needed". Notice Hovind is expecting evidence that eliminates all other possibilities. The challenger is being expected to prove a universal negative. The challenger is expected to prove that an undefined, unlimited deity was not involved in the formation of the Universe as we know it today. This would mean Hovind has the another loop hole to reject the challenger.
Hovind uses a lot of definitions of "evolution", yet when it comes down to actually describing the challenge none of these definitions are relevant. The challenge effectively is to prove that a supernatural deity was not involved in the history of the Universe. As the supernatural is beyond the realm of the scientific method no argument for or against said deity can be made by science. Science is neutral on the existence of the supernatural due to the criteria of the scientific method.
What Hovind is not telling you
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
False See the demolition of every "Young Earth Proof" Kent Hovind has ever suggested.
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
Straw man No definition of
"kind" has ever been given by Hovind. Plus, Hovind seems
ignorant of the
fossil record
on this issue.
Contradiction Hovind has admitted he does not know what a "kind" is.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
This is true depending on the definition of "life" used.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
Straw man See The Professor and Mr. Hovind
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations
found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the
general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place
without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish
changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to
birds or mammals).
Contradiction Hovind has implied the above events did occur but simply with the aid of "God". In short, he has just presented the case for theistic evolution (which Hovind does not support).
See also a previous version of terms and conditions of the Hovind Challenge
Additional opinion can be found at Kent and Scott's Bogus Challenge
Here are some links to those who have tried to take up Hovind's Challenge.
KC Caldwell made an attempt for the prize - as yet - without success.
Thomas Artiss is a theistic evolutionist with a Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology who took up the Hovind Challenge (see second half of page). Hovind said he would submit the material to "the committee". There has been no reply from "the committee".
Ron Rayborne [on site] used polar bears to illustrate beneficial mutations and change beyond 'kind' barriers. What is even more interesting than the polar bear is the reactions of Kent Hovind.
John D Callahan [on site] of Faith Reason Ministries put his hat in the ring and offered to discuss the issue further. Zero response from Hovind.
Lenny Flank's field of knowledge is reptiles, so he approached Hovind's Challenge from this angle. Of course Lenny had to first know what a "kind" was so he could met Hovind's Challenge of change within "major kinds".
Kevin R. Henke made some inquiries about the terms and conditions and got some interesting results.
Dr Barend Vlaardingerbroek Senior Lecturer in Science Education at the University of Botswana together with a colleague asked for clarification of the terms and conditions, particularly regarding the composition of "the panel".
Ian Wood (Buddika) tested the waters, both with inaccuracies in Hovind's presentations, and the submission process for the Hovind Challenge.
