Entertain me. Please. (The Hovind Evolution Challenge)

Dr. Kent Hovind

This guy has an offer of $250,000 for anyone who can reasonably prove evolution. I would like to see one of you win it. Anyone care to try? I would certainly enjoy watching.

BTW, although I do agree with Creation I don’t actually endorse this guy and I do think he’ll probably lose his money someday. So, please debate him and beat him.

Haven’t we been through this with you already?

Or was that FriendofGod?

Ah well, I guess I’ll have to go search for those old threads again. Of course, you might have considered doing that before posting this as if it was news to all of us…

(Were your ears ringing? Duck Duck Goose was just talking about you.)

A typical high school student can demonstrate evolution occurring with a petri dish and some penicillin already. I get the feeling this guy’s going to be doing the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing “La la la I can’t hear you” to anything people present to him.

Wasn’t me. Sorry for not checking old threas first. I just discovered him and I falsely assumed he might be new to all of you as well. So did someone beat him and win the money? He seems awfully arrogant.

No, my ears weren’t burning, but what did Duck Duck Goose say?

By the time put this info into a message, I’m sure others will have posted, but here goes.

First, here is something that I post whenever Hovind’s name comes up. It’s not so much for you (as you’ve indicated that you’re not endorsing Hovind, per se), but for anybody else who hasn’t heard about this liar:

The Peoria Journal Star (June 25, 1993) had an article about Kent Hovind, (who at that time was offering $10,000). The article stated that Hovind was scheduled to debate “paleontologist Steven (sic) Jay Gould, a Harvard University professor.” Hovind went on to state, “I suspect Gould will back out.”

Hovind apparently had good reason to expect that Gould won’t be there. Gould responded to this claim by saying, “I have never heard of the man and therefore cannot have agreed to anything with him.” Gould went on to comment about “the obvious phony tactic of claiming that he challenged me to a debate when he didn’t, and then claiming that I backed out when I didn’t appear.”

And that’s just the most easily documented of his lies. He has all sorts of tall tales in his video series – and either he is lying about science in them or he is quite ignorant. I’m not sure which is worse.

You can also find Hovind on the list of suspicious creationist credentials here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

You can read an extensive debunking of many of Hovind’s claims here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html

OK, now on to all the earlier threads. By searching on his name, I found 10 old threads (plus one nonrelated one where his name is mentioned in disdain). Several deal with this specific topic.

For example, there is Anyone want $250,000.00?? from about a year ago (admittedly a bit hard to read, since it was converted from the old UBB format, but still contains a lot about this very topic).

There is some discussion of him starting on page 2 ofEvolution vs. Creation, also from the UBB days.

I’ll save you the trouble of checking this next thread, and just quote the part that I wrote about Hovind:

Just believing - got a problem with that?

Kaylasdad asked me to share the anecdote my creationist friend mentioned. Actually, there are several, most of which came from Kent Hovind videos (they watched the whole set – yippee). One dealt with Hovind’s daughter’s supposed trip to a museum, in which she (according to him) caught a scientist in circular logic, claiming that they know how old fossils are 'cus of the age of the geological strata they’re found in, and later saying they know how old the strata are because of the fossils in them. His daughter allegedly pointed that out and the scientist said, “Gee, you’re right.” My friend thought this was hysterical. I think it just goes right along with Hovind’s OTHER lies. For one, what is a scientist doing leading tours in a museum? For another, what kind of scientist can’t explain things better than that (since it’s wrong)? Etc. It sounds too much like the urban legend about the Christian student stumping the atheist/evolutionist professor in class.

There’s some info about him in Where’s the evidence against evolution?

jenkinsfan said:

No. And nobody ever will. Why? Because his “mind” is made up and will never be changed. And he has no actual interest in science.

For a change, I agree completely with you! :wink:

She brought you up here:Question for Fundamental Creationists and said she “thought [you] sounded kinda burned out.” (Among other things dealing with our previous debates.) Nothing major. Just thought it was funny that you happened to pop back in just now. :slight_smile:

In case anyone doesn’t want to follow links, the short answer is that Hovind is a liar who gives honest charlatans a bad name.

His “Debate Challenge” is impossible to win. He demands an unreasonable level of “proof” for several concepts in cosmology, chemistry, and biology. He will not even reveal the identities of the judges for this “debate”; the critreia for entering is to send him your arguments and then he will tell you if you had convinced him. This is not a debate, and has nothing to do with determining how closely an idea matches with observed reality.

Thanks for the links guys. Sorry to bring up a dead topic. For the first time in my life I would actually like to see a Creationist lose. I just don’t like his attitude.

Duck Duck Goose, I’m somewhat flattered. It almost sounded like you missed me. :slight_smile: I’ve sorta been burned out, but it was with life in general and it wasn’t anyone’s fault here. I’ve got some strange crap going on and I don’t know how to deal with it. Oh well. Thanks for remembering me. :slight_smile:

Here’s a little suggestion. If you make the thread title actually reflect the contents of the thread, you might get more and/or better responses.

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Funny you should say that. I was just going to change it so it’s more obvious.

(For those just tuning in, the original title was “Entertain me. Please.”)

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

Thank you, David B. :slight_smile:

Scientifically, I don’t think that evolution can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt… at least not for another few million years.

All science can do is disprove things, right?

Science can do neither. We have no way to “prove” that you’re not just a head in a jar in a laboratory somewhere, with all your experiences being fed to you by evil scientists. Or maybe the universe was created last Thursday.

What science can do is demonstrate certain things to high degrees of certainty. Evolution and common descent are as strongly supported as just about anything in all of science.

(See http://pages.hotbot.com/gene/zthibault/images/MacroProofs.pdf for the wealth of evidence in favor of evolution)

Finally, if Hovind has $250,000, the IRS would likely get it before any challenge applicant, seeing how the good “Doctor” doesn’t like paying his income taxes.

What really, really bothers me is the amount of attention that this Hovind moron receives.

I’ve seen his name dropped at various sites that I frequent, and it bugs the hell out of me.

Instead of attacking him, which he believes strengthens his case, (sheesh, what case?) we should be ignoring him.

I for one, promise to never mention this cretin’s name again.

Well, perhaps if I don’t have a thesaurus handy and require a an apt synonym for stupidity…

His money is safe. No one will “prove” evolution, just as no one can “prove” that the universe exists.

While, at first blush, ignoring him sounds like a good idea, it doesn’t work.

Indeed, too many scientists have been ignoring creationists for too long. They figure that they just give them attention if they respond to their arguments. So what happens? We get situations like Kansas. Or we have creationists hitting the media without good scientists to tear down their arguments.

People like Hovind cannot be ignored. He will not just go away. His claims must be exposed as the falsehoods they are at every opportunity.

You make an excellent point, David. And I agree.

But it’s very frustrating, because we simply can’t make any headway with these people.

They demand proof. When we give them observational evidence, accumulated over many decades, they say it’s not good enough.

When we ask them for evidence of creation, they respond that it’s all explained clearly in the Bible.

When we show that the Bible is riddled with contradictions, half truths and outright lies, they say we’re not reading it correctly, and that we’re blind to the truth because we have not allowed Jesus into our hearts.

How do you win a war on ignorance with that kind of mindset?

I admire you for trying, though, David.

All the more so, because you know you can’t win.

A quick question: Why is this a documented lie by Hovind? Maybe Gould is lying. (Do you think it is likely that Gould has “never heard of” Hovind. I find this very hard to believe).

A quick question: Why is this a documented lie by Hovind? Maybe Gould is lying. (Do you think it is likely that Gould has “never heard of” Hovind. I find this very hard to believe). **

Oh, please. Now you’re reaching. I find it not only easy to believe, but highly likely.

It may interest you to know that Hovind, and others like him, are not exactly famous in the intellectual world that Gould inhabits.

Gould is a respected Harvard professor with no reputation for lying.

Hovind, on the other hand…


I’m not reaching too far. I have never heard of Kent Hovind (or any other creationist after GM Price) anywhere other than on this message board. But he is a constant presence here, and if he is indeed one of the leading creationists around, one would think that a foremost evolution scholar would at least have heard of him. But maybe not. Or else, maybe Hovind is a minor creationist figure and the evolutionists here have seized on him as a convenient bogeyman.

Beyond this, your post is a classic example of circular reasoning.

And here I told myself I would stay away from evolution…:frowning:

Check out this extraordinary attack by Tooby and Cosmides on Gould. They say inter alia:

I don’t necessarily agree with this – it seems to me that the contingency/ pan-adaptionist “debate” is rather overcooked on both sides, but it is worth posting to show that Gould is not quite the figure he is sometimes imagined to be.