|
THE HOVIND $250,000 CHALLENGE
|
The following is an analysis of previous terms and conditions of the Kent Hovind's $250 000 Challenge circa 2000/1. For some strange reason Hovind spread the terms and conditions of 'the Challenge' over two web pages. The text of Hovind was quoted from Article 1 [not available] and FAQ250000 [not available] and has been edited for clarity purposes.
Analysis of the latest version is available here.
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 has some unique definitions of evolution, then as you will see, changes his mind about his definitions.
Straw man Empirical evidence does not constitute "scientific proof" because nothing in science in proven, only understood based upon known evidence.
There are at lease [sic] six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution" as used in science textbooks from FAQ250000
1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang
No one claims with any dogmatic certainty the origin of the Big Bang. No one is declaring the Big Bang eliminates any deity. The Big Bang model is supported by mathematical modeling and physical observations, is falsifiable, plus has made accurate predictions of future observations.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Chemical evolution (the formation of elements) is not speculation because it is supported by both theoretical and physical observations of nucleosynthesis within stars.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
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
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Organic evolution is another unique label. The more common name is abiogenesis.
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)
5. Macro-evolution- Origin of major kinds.
See 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
6. Micro-evolution- Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.
Macro and micro evolution is where Hovind gets very slippery. Notice he has invoked the word "kind"? He has even used the term "major kind". Since the word "kind" has never been scientifically defined by any creationist, how does one go about defining a "major kind"? 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 therefor 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.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution below [sic] have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as decent with modification) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious.
False The theories which explain these phenomena are based upon observations of the Universe and the properties of the Universe. Some, like planterary formation and production of elements with nucleosynthesis have been directly observed.
Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth "after their kind" in Genesis 1.
Straw man Each of these forms of "evolution" exist independently. Astronomy does not double check with biology. Geology does not ask cosmology for approval before advancing.
Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word "kind". The Bible defines "kind" as those that are able to "bring forth" or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now.
Circular reasoning Notice how vague the definition is? Once upon a time there were these "kinds" of animals that could interbreed. Some can not now interbreed but are still "kinds" because according to the definition of kind they were once able to interbreed. In fact, the Biblical definition (according to Hovind) looks suspiciously like that of species. Simply, a species is a reproductively isolated population of organisms. However, a Creationist wont accept that definition for two reasons. First, this would mean more animals on Noah's Ark than even a Creationist would consider logical. Second, the formation of new species has been observed, both in the wild and in the lab, which is the proper definition of macro evolution.
For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same "kind" of animal (they are currently classed as different "species" yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of "species"?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different "kinds" of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor.
Contradiction Hovind has just admitted that one of the criteria for 'the Challenge', that of showing change of one 'kind' to another 'kind' can not actually be 'proven' because even Hovind doesn't know what a 'kind' is.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
The definitions of "evolution" above, taken on face value, are the only forms of scientific explanations which fit the available evidence, are falsifiable, and are usable for further research.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that: from Article 1
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.)
Contradiction Notice that previously Hovind called this "stellar or planetary evolution". This field is covered by astronomy and the evidence and mechanisms for planetary formation etc is supported by observations and modeling. Protoplanetary Disks in the Orian Nebula
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from non living matter (chemical evolution).
Contradiction Hovind previously called this "organic evolution". There is not a single part of any living organism that is not made from "non living matter".
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Contradiction This definition was not in the first set of criteria from above.
Its almost tautologically obvious that organisms that wouldn't reproduce would not survive and those that do reproduce will survive. An organism that doesn't reproduce itself is the very definition of "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.
Contradiction Hovind previously called this "macro evolution" He was so careful to establish imaginary barriers between macro and micro evolution but now he is recognizing that "macro" and "micro" are two forms of the same process. See What is macro evolution? or Macro evolution in the 21st Century for further details.
To summarize Hovind's definitions of evolution; evolution is anything which contradicts a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 ..... [below] , under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.
Yet another impossible criteria to meet. Hovind is implying that everything scientific must be based upon pure observation. However, much in science, especially when dealing with big issues like the origin of the universe can not (for obvious reasons) be repeated at will in the laboratory. However this does not mean these questions are beyond the scientific method.
What Science Isn't
The
Scientific Method
Introduction
to the Scientific Method
The Scientific Method and
Evidence for Evolution
A Philosophy Of Science
Perspective Of Quasi-Experimentation
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.
This process is identical to that which all science must pass prior to publication to the world at large. Why would Hovind's panel reach a conclusion different to what the scientific community has been doing for at least the last century?
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God. [I assume Hovind isn't implying
any particular religion here]
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
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 if there is even one unknown within their explanation.
You will notice that Hovind has used 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.
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
1. The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
A genuine offer would not require secrecy. However, secrecy is the first
sign of a scam. I'm not claiming Hovind is intentionally trying to con
anyone, its just that he isn't doing what would be reasonably expected to avoid
this impression.
2. The members of the committee of scientists that will
judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as
well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a
zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and
biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy
people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to
waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to
do than ask silly questions when they really don't want answers (so far this
has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for
this reason.
Some of these "silly" questions could include; how many are on the committee? [Note that in email exchanges with others Hovind has said there are ten members] Why does only Hovind (who has a vested interest in the outcome) choose who is on the committee? How will the committee vote; will it be majority decision or unanimous? Will members being able to pass judgment on evidence outside their qualifications? Will the provider of the prize money be on the panel?
Why would a qualified scientist not be already be aware of the evidence for a such a challenge being in existence in their respective field? If these qualified scientists believe there is no evidence for any forms of "evolution" that Hovind describes above why aren't these scientists presenting there anti evolution opinions in the appropriate peer reviewed science publications? The fact that these practicing scientists don't acknowledge the evidence for the forms of "evolution" described above is an indication they may in fact be Young Earth Creationists. Of course we will never know because Hovind picks the panel himself and the panel is under no obligation to make their identity known. The fact that Hovind selects the panel is also a good indicator there is unlikely to be anyone on that panel who is pro evolution. If Hovind wanted to make sure the panel was unbiased he would allow the challenger input into the selection process to ensure the panel was acceptable to both parties.
Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Hovind has put in another loop hole with the criteria of "any legitimate evidence". This evidence will be screened prior to judgment by a person who has a vested interest in the outcome i.e. Kent Hovind himself. Notice, even after the evidence is presented, the challenger is still not granted access to the identity of the panel.
3. Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. [Note the use of the undefined word "kind"] For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new "species" is not evidence for macro-evolution as the offer calls for.
[.....]
4. The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Contradiction Like, for example, when the majority of Western World scholars in the 18th century thought the Earth was only 6000 years old? Hovind uses appeal to popularity to justify many things in his sermons.
5. Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Contradiction That's a fair request. Why then are the members of Hovind's panel allowed to remain anonymous? The condition the challenger must be named contradicts Hovind's own argument for the anonymity of his panel; "[t]he merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who [the panel] are"
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like "is", etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don't beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.
Many have offered evidence of micro-evolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected.
Straw man Biologic processes is what evolution theory applies to. It is Hovind's straw man argument that leads him to the conclusions that "challengers" aren't offering evidence for his unique definitions of evolution.
They don't seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science.
To keep with Hovind's legal case analogy, Hovind is the prosecutor, he chooses who is on the jury and decides what evidence can be presented. This is the very definition of a rigged trial.
Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: "Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?" This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: "Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?" Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.
I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.
Contradiction Notice Hovind doesn't have time for email debates yet has time for personal phone calls. Hovind will happily speak to a live audience but will not enter into a written debate even in a widely read forum. The reason, as I hope this web site shows, is that there are so many inaccuracies in Hovind's arguments that it requires time and careful analysis to unravel the web of confusion. That type of analysis is not possible in a spoken debate. It is likely that Hovind is aware of this which is why he will go out of his way to avoid putting his arguments to the test of a written debate.
