Entertain me. Please. (The Hovind Evolution Challenge)

Great Debates
21

Izzy,

Circular reasoning?

I thought I knew what circular reasoning was, but apparently you have a definition that I’m unaware of.

Where was I being circular?

Gould is a Harvard professor not known for being a liar. Hovind has credentials that are highly suspect, a proven history of distorting the truth, and making claims that science is a conspiracy.

There’s no debate here. I have an opinion. You have an opinion.

We’re not likely to change our minds.

I only stated that Gould is much more credible, in my opinion, than Hovind. If Gould says he never heard of him, I’m inclined to believe him.

And I’m done here, before someone comes in and calls me a liar for calling Hovind a liar.

22

Um, that doesn’t really demonstrate evolution. At best, it demonstrates a phenomenon which could possibly be explained by evolution. Besides, there’s a considerable difference between proof and demonstration.

I’m not throwing my support behind Hovind, mind you. I have objections to his teachings and to Stephen Jay Gould’s. However, I do think we should be careful about what we present as “proof” or “demonstration” of either sie’s claims.

23

Completely off topic, and I apologize for it, but I was compelled to return here and comment on your screen name, Jubilation.

I wonder how many people get the reference to Li’l Abner?

I suddenly feel old.

24

Maybe you’re not following the thread too closely.

David B is attempting to demonstrate that Hovind is a liar from this particular incident. As such, the proof cannot rely on the prior assumption that Hovind is liar.

(BTW, i have no opinion on Hovind, who I only know through this board, as mentioned).

25

Just popping in to say “hi” to Jenkinsfan, and to say that I’ve never heard of Hovind before, either. I went to the website and I have to say, “golly.” :rolleyes:

Going on record here as a “modified Creationist”, by which I mean that I believe that evolution happened, but not by chance, that God made it happen, I am bemused and puzzled by Hovind. When there’s such a comfortable middle ground available, why stick to your guns like that?

My “buzzword” alarm went off as soon as I saw the first sentence:

Um, okay, no false pretenses there. Right off the bat, he’s going online only to confirm Creationists in what they already believe, not to shed any light on the subject of Creationism.

And I found this clause rather odd, for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on:

It’s just an odd juxtaposition of terms: Can you have “faith in evolution”? I thought “evolution” WAS “science”. If “science” is going to challenge your “faith”, then doesn’t that mean that they must be opposing terms? But can’t you have “faith” in “science”? “Science” brings me cough medicine–don’t I have “faith” that the cough medicine is Good Stuff?

I thought “science” already proved “evolution”, so does he have some OTHER kind of “science” that disproves “evolution”? Yes, I know, that’s what he’s calling Creation Science, but I don’t see how to get him to explain it without sending him $78 for a set of tapes.

This is more heavy thinking than I had in mind for my lunch hour…

Also, all my consumer alarms started going off when I discovered that there’s really no way (unless I missed something) to see an outline of his full position without sending away for his books and videos. I see someone who is first of all in the business of selling things (including replicas of dinosaur bones–huh?), and only secondly interested in spreading the Gospel of Creationism.

I couldn’t find anything offhand on the Home Page about his “wager”, but I was just skimming quickly. If it really isn’t on his Home Page, then that would set off my “Flim-flam” alarm, the one that detects non-serious offers, like those guarantees that appear in tiny, tiny print at the bottom of things. “We don’t really expect anyone to take us up on this, we’re just printing this here 'cause the FTC says we have to…”

All in all, a fit candidate for my “Mom’s WEIRD Stuff” Favorites folder.

26

Note to mods: it’s a reasonable assumption, IMO, that Hovind wants his challenge published far and wide. But if you believe you need to edit for copyright reasons, go ahead.

Without further ado, the Hovind Challenge:

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.

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.

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.
  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.)
  3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
  4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
  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).

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.

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).
  2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
  3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
  4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

Note that Hovind:

  1. Equates empirical evidence with scientific proof. (Big oops.)
  2. His five-point definition of evolution has at least three points (the first three) that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
  3. In order to collect the $250K, one must, among other things, “Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way” the universe “could have come into existence.” Since the theory of evolution doesn’t cover cosmology, his money is safe. Which “the only possible way” also renders safe: after all, it’s quite possible that God created the Universe, and let natural processes (including, eventually, evolution) take over from there.

So this whole thing is a pile of ignorant horseshit. Surprised?

27

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone *
**

Is it your position that bacteria acquiring a resistance to antibiotics should NOT be considered evidence supporting evolution? Help me to understand just exactly what it is you are saying.

28

I realize that creationists don’t accept evolution…but couldn’t they at least try to understand it before they complain?

This is one of the dumber arguments vs. evolution. You know, contemporary American English is fundamentally different from the Old English that Beowulf was written in. And no, we don’t have someone who’s been alive for a good millennium-plus that saw it all happen who can sit back and say, “you know, in my day, we pronounced it ‘hoose’ instead of ‘howse’…” But that doesn’t mean that American English didn’t evolve from Old English.

29

Don’t insult my intelligence, Izzy.

And don’t talk down to me. You made a stupid statement by insunuating that is was Gould that may have been the liar, and then you accussed me of circular reasoning.

I am well able to follow a thread, and I still think you don’t know what circular reasoning means.

Have a nice day.

30

I’ve been contemplating this thread for some time, and hadn’t figured out what to comment. Certainly “creation science” needs no debunking from me, with the competent science buffs running around this board. But I felt there were some points I needed to make.

RT made most of them.

Let’s examine the premises here. First, it would appear that by “creationism” Hovind is asserting the entire package of Genesis 1, since as Rufus points out, the idea of a creation no more contradicts evolution than the Big Bang does punctuated equilibrium. Against this he places the package deal of “the world as science conceives her” including the Big Bang, implicitly sans any action by God and (presumably Darwinian) evolution.

What evidence is available to support these?
> The “Materialist” theory (only what is visible is acceptable data) adheres to the latter package, though RT and I are good examples, with a number of others, that that worldview is not incompatible with a religious faith, and a Christian one to boot. Virtually all observations related to limits-of-universe astronomy and cosmology, all geological and paleontological finds and consequent theories, either support or are neutral (failing to contradict) to the Big Bang/evolution concept.
> The Bible is claimed by Creationists as inerrant, or effectively so, by the act of God. It is therefore the bottom line indisputable source of accurate data under their theory.
> The problem, of course, is that the basic data sets of the two systems contradict each other. The Biblical creation is set at a specific date about 25 centuries before the Exodus, which is supposedly 480 years before the reign of King David of Israel, historically very likely to be 1000 BC. This does not leave room for the numerous phenomena which appear to have happened under the other theory.

However, the authority of the Bible, as asserted by its strongest defenders, rests on its containing the written Word of God. And it suggests that the Word of God, a metaphor for His creative principle, took on human form about 20 centuries ago. So in resolving this problem we may reasonably examine what characteristics are attributed to the Word of God so conceived. And we find that he was an inveterate storyteller, one who made up analogical situations to make the points his teaching called for.

The style of Genesis 1 is that of a creation myth. Accepting this statement does not assert anything about its truth value; typically a history book targeted at elementary-school children will tell accurate history in the form of myth or legend, for its ease of clear communication. One may assume that the author of Genesis 1 chose that literary style for the same reason.

However, the point to a myth is that it does not have to be historically accurate to be “true.” Things ranging from the Parable of the Good Samaritan to The Lion King are fictionalizations with an underlying truth value that transcends any question of whether Elieser bar Shallum of Samaria happened in “real life” to find Levi bar Zadduk of Bethany beside the road from Jerusalem to Jericho one day.

The largest problem I have with Creationism as a worldview is in its misplacement of absolute certitude. Where one places one’s axiomatic assumptions, where one finds certitude, is key to one’s inner self. David B., for example, has “faith” in this non-religious sense in the laws of nature. His rejection of miracle accounts is not founded on a hatred for religious faith, but on his presumption that no casual event supersedes the operation of the natural laws that appear to prove themselves out as valid at all times and places. Note that this is his assumption, his given certitude, his “faith” in this metaphysically neutral sense. If a given statement of such a law proves to be invalid on the basis of new evidence, it does not shake his certitude in the functionality of the entire system; it merely means that the formulation of that particular law was faulty and requires revision to make it fit the newly discovered data. For a sincere Christian, certitude is to be found in the hesed, the lovingkindness and providence, of God. This view is spelled out in the Bible, but that book is secondary to the allegiance to God which it calls for.

For a Creationist fundamentalist of the Hovind stripe, it becomes absolutely central to his worldview, to his “faith,” that the Bible be literally true. He places his faith in the book, not in Who it claims gave it.

This, at rock bottom, is the problem. And this is why Jenkinsfan and other good conservative Christians, who may regard themselves as fundamentalist, feel so uncomfortable with the creation science demagogues. They may themselves believe in the literalness of Genesis 1, or accept a very modified scientific worldview that allows for God’s hand at work in what science shows and theorizes, but their certitude is in God, not in the Bible.

31

Clairmont

Oh, OK, how’s this?

I thought one could not derive a conclusion by assuming it, but apparently you have a new logic that I don’t understand.

Fit your style?

32

Evolution requires inheritance and natural selection.

Er,um, farmers breed cattle and people breed dogs don’t they ?, thats there selection.

Natural selection is when a girl says ‘no, go away i fancy that other guy’ or when you say ‘mm, we better not have any more kids because we can’t afford it’

Rich and pretty people are more likely to have kids than poor and ugly people, no ?
BTW believing in evolution doesn’t mean you don’t have to stop believing in god, science tells us HOW, only god knows WHY.

You can go all the way to the big bang and still leave lots of room for god.

Newton believed god existed but only intervened now and then, he was a clever guy, think about this and it fits i.e. the catholic church say a miracle is when god suspends the normal laws of science, which he does, sometimes.

33

Well,Izzy,

I don’t think you’re much interested in debating.

You said a stupid thing (maybe Gould is the liar, and not Holvind) and I called you on it it.

My posts have been civilized, and I believe that I have stated my opinion with clarity and politeness.

Do not tell me to follow the thread closely. I know how to read.

And I read that your pedandantic, overbearing, self-righteous indignitation strikes a false note.

It’s also boring.

And you still don’t know what circular reasoning is.

Have a wonderful day.

34

Clairmont

I had a very nice response written up, but decided to spike it. Have a nice day yourself, I’m actually doing pretty well. I shall wait to see if anyone else can do better with my question. (David B?)

35

toadspittle sed:

As a matter of fact, Robert Pennock spends large portions of his recent book making just such a comparison. In Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, Pennock proposes linguistics as both a parallel to evolution and an avenue of refutation of creationism. Highly recommended.

Izzy, in context Gould had no reason to lie. At the time of the “challenge” he’d shown no hesitation to debate with any creationists, and has since shown no hesitation in going up against Hovind and his followers. In sum, there was nothing for Gould to gain by lying–and everything for Hovind to gain with his . . . er, misstatements.

36

Izzy, I think your question has been answered.

Hovind is a proven liar. Stephen Jay Gould is not.

I understand that you want to fight ignorance and question unsubstantied claims, but this is too much.

So, I’ll ask you now: Who do you think is more likely to to tell the truth? Holvind or Gould?

It’s a simple question, and I hope that honesty will compel you to give a simple answer.

37

Poly, you’re taking my breath away. I haven’t been in many threads with you lately, and I’d forgotten the way you can write with your intellect and your heart at the same time. Whew. :slight_smile:

38

Actually, it does demonstrate evolution. Evolution is merely the change in frequency of alleles (sp?) in a population over time.

Speaking of penicillin, Hovind claimed to me that since penicillin was discovered on or in some fossils (or some sort of remains; I forget the exact detail) that those remains could not be any older than the date that penicillin was invented.

He became speechless for a full 5 or 6 seconds when I told him that penicillin was discovered. (That’s an eternity for him.)

As to the OP:
I’ve had the chance to meet “Dr.” Hovind. I went to two of his presentations when he was in my hometown. As I expected, his presentations were heavy on the Bible and very light on the science, although he claimed the opposite.

He claims (or did at the time) to have been an earth science teacher for about eight years. Yet, he didn’t acknowledge that there were forces that pushed mountains up until I asked him bluntly, “Aren’t there forces that push mountains up and create new mountains?” Up until that point, he had avoided the issue like the plague. (One of his arguments was: Since mountains are continually worn down, if the earth was billions of years old there would be no mountains left.)

His presentation was full of assertions that he did not even try to back up. The large majority of the audience swallowed them whole anyway. When I finally did get a chance to ask a few questions, he tried everything in his power to avoid answering my questions directly. I had to re-ask one question at least three times, wording it exactly the same way each time, and pointing out why what he had just said did not come close to addressing the question. He’s slippery.

His challenge is about as unreasonable as a challenge can get. He already has judges in mind, and refuses to divulge their names or any information about them. He frequently (and I can’t stress this enough) uses the word evolution to refer to things that no scientist would ever use the word evolution to refer to. (Such as the Big Bang.)

He is either the most dishonest person I have ever met, or he is delusional.

39

Izzy, your original question is silly, and you must know it. You’re not stupid. You said something stupid. There’s a difference.

I just know that there will come a time when I will say something similar.

I’d like to think that I’ll have the courage and grace to admit it, quickly and emphatically.

40

Perhaps I can give you what you desire.

When determining the veracity of conflicting statements given by opposing parties, it is often necessary to determine the credibility of each person. Gould has an established standing in the marketplace of ideas. Kent Hovind has been spouting tripe for as long as I can remember. The following are just a few examples:

Hovind: “Evolution is a religion: nothing more, nothing less! Evolution is just something people prefer to believe because of their life style.”

Hovind: “We are slowly losing the moon a couple of inches a year…A couple of thousand years ago that wouldnt make a big difference…If you bring the moon back in a couple of million years ago, the tides would have been so high that it would have drowned everything on earth twice a day.”

Hovind: “In 1880, Belgium took over the Congo in Africa, which included this big swamp, known as the Belgium Congo.”

Hovind: “In 1572, an Italian scientist, Ulysses Aldravondus, documented the entire account of the killing of a dinosaur. He even had the dead body mounted for a museum…It was apparently a small tanystropheus dinosaur.”

Hovind: “Americas leading systematic taxonomists list the number of species to be 3,500 mammals, 8,600 birds, 5,500 reptiles and amphibians, and 25,500 worms”

Hovind: “…Niagara Falls causes rocks to break off the edge and it moves back…At 5 feet a year, you can move about 12 miles in about 10,000 years…If the world is millions of years old, why hasnt Niagara Falls eroded all the way back up into Lake Erie…?”

Hovind: “For 30 or 40 years now our public school textbooks have been teaching our kids nothing other than that they are an animal”

Hovind: “Before the 1800s, almost everybody believed that the world was only six or seven thousand years old. They held to the creationist or the Christian world view of history.”

Hovind: “Mutations are harmful or fatal.”

Hovind: “By the way, in the movie Jurassic Park, the whole plot was dinosaurs turning into birds.”

Hovind on archaeopteryx: “Only six of them have been found…All of them come from the same place in Germany. There is also a very strong indication that all six of them are deliberate frauds. It is possible that they are super-imposed fossils.”

Hovind: “What is punctuated equilibrium? The evolutionists are saying: Maybe a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched out, and that is why we cannot find any transitional fossils. Evolution happened in jumps.”

Hovind: “For instance, the human has two bones in their wrist, the radius and the ulna.”

Hovind: "The woman that started Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger…is a strong believer in abortion. Most folks dont realize that she was also a racist. She wanted to wipe out the Spanish, the Blacks, and the Jews. She hated them.

Hovind: “Charles Darwin was a racist to the extreme.”

You may wish to categorize these statements as “errors in fact” instead of lies. Whatever. He continues to repeat this garbage even after his misstatements have been brought to his attention. To compare this man’s credibility with Gould’s is simply ludicrous. Forgive me if I choose to believe Gould’s account of the events instead of Hovind’s.