"Dr" Hovind, "Created Kinds", and his $250,000 "Reward" . . .

 

This is a record of an email conversation I recently (October 1999) had wirh "Dr" Kent Hovind (the doctorate comes from "Patriot University", an unaccredited Bible college) concerning his Internet offer of $250,000 for anyone who can prove that evolution happens. Note that "Dr" Hovind gives me the very same evasiveness, refusal to answer direct questions, going off on irrelevant non sequiteurs, and eventual pleading that he "doesn't have the time" to answer me, that I've come to expect from EVERY creationist I talk with. Note also that "Dr" Hovind isn't any more able to tell us all what a "created kind" is than any other creationist-most likely because there is no such thing as a "created kind".

 

 

*********************************************************************

 

ME:

 

Dear "Dr" Hovind:

 

I'd like to take you up on your offer of $250,000 for anyone who can "prove evolution". I would like to do this using two of the methods you suggest:

 

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 nonlving matter.

4. matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

 

I propose to prove to you that number four of your assertions--"matter cannot make itself out of nothing" is in fact quite wrong. Virtual particles have been observed to from spontaneously out of the quantum vacuum. There is an enormous wealth of observed data from physics labs all over the world to demonstrate this. Please let me know when and where you would like me to submit this in writing so I can collect my check.

 

I would also like to take up your assertion number two: "No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal." I would like some clarification from you first. What, precisely, is a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me. Are horses and donkeys a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? Why or why not? Are humans and chimps a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? Why or why not? Would an animal with lungs be a "fundamentally different kind of animal" than one with gills? Why or why not? Please be as precise and detailed as possible about the boundaries between a "fundamentally different kind of animal". Tell me EXACTLY what you mean by this, so I cna go ahead and demonstrate an example of "changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal". By the way, you use the word "animal"--you are certainly aware that evolution happens in plants too. Can I presume that presenting evidence of a change to a "fundamentally different kind of plant" would qualify as well? Or is it your opinion that plants evolve but animals do not?

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

******************************************************************

 

 

HOVIND:

 

Where did space for the vacuum and the energy to create it come from? Please define species. Since a dog and a wolf are different species why are they inter-fertile? To make it easy and clear to all of average intelligence prove that a dog and a worm have a common ancestor and that a pine tree and a rose do also. There is no question that these are different kinds. I do not believe plants or animals evolve beyond minor adaptations within the preexisting gene pool. Because of my hectic travel schedule I only get to read and respond to e-mail a few times each week. I get too much e-mail to give long answers to each one but I would be glad to talk with you if you need a better answer. The phone is faster for me. I am normally in the office Wed-Fri from 8-4:30 CST at [**phone number deleted so nobody tries to call "Dr" Hovind**]. Some weeks my schedule is different. You can find my itinerary on my web site www.drdino.com or ask my office for one dinorder@drdino.com. I hope this is helpful. Thanks, Kent Hovind

 

*********************************************************************

 

 

ME:

 

>Where did the space for the vacuum and the energy to create it come from?

 

Would you be so kind as to define "from nothing" for me, please?

 

>Please define species.

 

I'm sorry, but how again is this relevant to anything I asked?

 

You neglect to answer my question. No problem--I'll ask it again.

 

What, precisely, is a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me.

 

>There is no question that these are different kinds.

 

How can we tell? How, precisely, can we know when or if a "kind" has changed into another "kind"? What, exactly, is the boundary between "kinds"? What criteria, precisely, can we use to determine to which "kind" any particular organism belongs? And if you can't or won't tell me, of what value is your assertion that one "kind" cnanot change into another? What value is your offer to give $250,000 to anybody who can show "change between kinds" if you can't or won't tell us what precisely a "kind" IS?

 

Or is a "kind" nothing more than whatever you want it to be at the moment? IS there after all no objective or testible definition of a "kind"?

 

>Because of my hectic travel schedule I only get to read and >respond to e-mail a few times each week. I get too much e-mail >to give long answers to each one but I would be glad to >talk with you if you need a better answer. The phone is faster for >me.

 

Thanks but I prefer a written record and would prefer that we communciate by email. I understand you are a busy man and am in no hurry. I've been waiting for 15 years for a creationist to give me an objective testible definition of a "kind". I can wait a little longer.

 

Please email me your definition at your earliest convenience.

 

 

*************************************************************************

 

 

HOVIND:

Sorry for the generic response but the volume of mail and e-mail we receive here prevents individual personalized responses to each one. I do, however, read all mail that comes to me, though it may take me a few days to get to it.

 

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the Offer

 

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site Error! Bookmark not defined..

 

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.

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. I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond to you. 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.

3. Evidence of minor changes within the same kind does not qualify and will not be sent to the committee. 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. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer.

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.

5. Anonymous letters will be ignored.

 

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! 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.

 

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?" Evolution should not be part of science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. Students are deceived into thinking all types of evolution have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. "Evolution" as presented in the textbooks involves several steps, only the last of which is scientific.

 

1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang

2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic evolution. Origin of Life.

5. Origin of major kinds. Macro-evolution.

6. Variations within kinds. Micro-evolution. Only this one has been observed.

 

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 in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, even a panel of evolutionists against just me 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 and remind me what the questions are, please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

 

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to "bring forth after their kind." This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God's mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466.

 

Sincerely,

 

Kent Hovind

 

 

************************************************************************

 

 

ME:

 

Thank you for your long and irrelevent file which didn't answer any of the questions I asked. I'll ask again. And again and again and again, if necessary. Here we go again:

 

 

> What, precisely, is a "fundamentally different kind of animal"?

> Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me.

 

 

> There is no question that these are different

> > kinds.

 

> How can we tell? How, precisely, can we know when or if a "kind" > has changed into another "kind"? What, exactly, is the boundary > between "kinds"? What criteria, precisely, can we use to > determine to which "kind" any particular organism belongs? And if > you can't or won't tell me, of what value is your assertion that one > "kind" cannot change into another? What value is your offer to give > $250,000 to anybody who can show "change between kinds" if you > can't or won't tell us what precisely a "kind" IS?

 

> > Or is a "kind" nothing more than whatever you want it to be at the > moment? IS there after all no objective or testible definition of a > "kind"? >

 

> Please email me your definition at your earliest convenience.

 

I look forward to a responsive response this time.

 

 

***********************************************************************

 

 

HOVIND:

 

The $250,000 offer is not just for kinds, it is for proof of the entire evolution religion. Please re-read my offer. Also, what exactly is a definition of species? Also please define evolution.

 

 

***********************************************************************

 

 

ME:

 

 

> The $250,000 offer is not just for kinds, it is for proof of the entire

> evolution religion.

 

Umm, your offer seems to be getting more and more evasive. Why would THAT be, I wonder . . . .

 

Would not establishing change "between kinds" establish that evolution occurs? Why or why not? That, after all, was YOUR suggested approach.

 

 

Also, what exactly is a

> definition of species? Also please define evolution.

 

Umm, sorry, but once again I fail to see how this is relevant to ANY of the questions I asked you. No problem. I'll just keep right on asking until I get an answer from you.

 

What is a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? What, precisely, is the dividing line between these "kinds"? How, precisely, can we determine whether or not change "between kinds" has or has not occurred?

 

I am of course quite sure that your continuing refusal to answer this simple question, or your efforts to "respond" with nonsequiteurs like "define evolution" is NOT simply a dishonest attempt on your part to avoid answering the question. I am quite sure that you DO have a testible and objective definition of a "created kind", amd am quite sure that you will provide it to me sooner or later if I just keep asking often enough.

 

I look forward to your testible and objective definition.

 

 

**************************************************************************

 

 

ME:

 

Hi, "Dr" Hovind.

 

It's been a while since I've heard from you. Have you had time yet to prepare an objective testible definition of a "fundamentally different kind" for us yet?

 

I'm sure you can understand that we wouldn't want people to get the impression that you are avoiding answering this question.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

***************************************************************************

 

HOVIND:

 

The exact definition of a kind would be a worthy goal for science. They now waste lots of time trying to convince people that we all came from a rock over 4.5 billion years.

 

**************************************************************************

 

 

> The exact definition of a kind would be a worthy goal for science. They now

> waste lots of time trying to convince people that we all came from a rock

> over 4.5 billion years.

>

 

How dreadful. However, since YOU are the one who is stating that evolution cannot occur between "fundamentally different kinds", we may at least presume that you know what a "kind" is. If you do NOT know what a "kind" is, then upon what basis is your statement made that evolution between "kinds" cannot happen?

 

It is beginning to look an awful lot as though you don't really know what a "kind" is, and therefore can't really say that evolution between "kinds" is not possible. I am sure you wouldn't want people to think this.

 

Fortunately, you can dispell any such notions simply by telling me clearly, concisely and cleanly--what is a "kind", and what objective testible criteria can we use to determine to which "kind" any particular organism belongs? How, exactly, can we determine if evolution between "fundamentally different kinds" has or has not occurred? What, exactly, is the borderline between "kinds" than cannot be crossed? And if, as you NOW seem to be saying, there IS NO clear definition of a "kind", then upon what basis do you make the claim that evolution from one "fundamentally different kind" to another is impossible? How, exactly, can we determine if such evolution is or is not possible?

 

I look forward to a responsive response from you.

 

****************************************************************************

 

 

 

I've not received any further response from "Dr" Hovind. I suspect that I won't. But "Dr", if you are out there reading this, please feel free to email me your verifiable and objective definition of a "created kind" any time you like. I'm still waiting.

Return to Creation Science Debunked Home Page