Prove Evolution: Win $250,000!

Creation Science Evangelism ^ | N/A | Dr. Ken Hovind

[handk]

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.

 

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.

 

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).

[jlogajan]

The explanations may, in fact, exist but they are not known or even suspected at this time, so Creation and an Intelligent Designer seems the most plausible explanation.

Is this what passes for logic in religionist circles?

[foolish-one]

At least the theory of evolution has actual evidence backing it up.

So does the Bible. Actual evidence: the foundation of the tower of Babel, the walls and ruins of the city of Jericho, the non-jewish writings that support biblical places, events and persons.

There is evidence available for anyone who wishes to weigh and decide - or trivialize and ignore. You choose.

[jlogajan]

"At least the theory of evolution has actual evidence backing it up."

So does the Bible. Actual evidence: the foundation of the tower of Babel, the walls and ruins of the city of Jericho, the non-jewish writings that support biblical places, events and persons.

There is evidence available for anyone who wishes to weigh and decide - or trivialize and ignore. You choose.

Well, you can pick up a lot of fiction books, crime novels, for instance, that go into great detail describing real cities, buildings, cultural events, etc. But never the less the characters are fictitious or at least involved in fictitious activities. Finding that the environment describe in the fiction really exist doesn't prove that all crime novels are true stories.

Why indeed would a religion in the process of being created not allude to contemporaneous places, people, and events. All religious tomes are like that. Even Athena worshippers used existing places and things in their descriptions of her.

Is Athena proven as real because of this?

[Diamond]

OK, I don't know whether there is one or not...

First let me say that I appreciate the intellectual honesty of your acknowledgment of your uncertainty regarding knowledge beyond that which you may currently possess. That type of honesty is often scarce around here. Man, that takes guts. I admire that.

...but so far I haven't seen any compelling evidence that suggests one.

In other words, what you are saying is that there may be a universal purpose but you just haven't seen what you regard as compelling evidence for one.

Ok, fair enough. My next statements will probably offend you, but they are not offered in that spirit nor are they intended for that purpose.

I venture to say that the evidence is all around you. There is enough of it that any certain characterization of the world which asserts that there is not enough evidence to be certain is also unjustified. There is enough to hold us accountable. Assuming that you don't believe in God, I venture to say that the only reason that you do not find the evidence for Him compelling, when you get right down to it, is because of your prior commitment to yourself autonomously as the final arbiter of truth independently from anything the Creator might have to say about the matter. Isn't that true?

You might say, "well I don't believe in your God or any god". I understand that, but that denial also evidences my assertion that when it comes to truth, your allegiance is totally and finally only to yourself apart from anything God might have to say about the subject. In other words, from my perspective, you exclude the possibility of God and anything God might have to say about what is true simply because of your apriori desire to remain independent from God. That prior commitment to your independence from God is what causes you admit or reject whatever evidence comes before you. You epistemologically filter all evidence through your allegiance to yourself so that you will admit no fact that threatens your independence from God.

Cordially,

[foolish-one]

As I said, the evidence is there for anyone to see. The wise thing would be to consider, then make a rational decision based on the best available evidence (isn't that science?). The foolish - whether religious, political or just plain stupid - disregard any evidence contrary to what they want to believe.

If there is enough evidence to convince you that Athena is real, I say you should believe in her. Don't you?

Besides, RadioAstronomer was strongly suggesting - no, explicitly stating - that there was no evidence to support anything in the Bible. I was just pointing out some of the evidence he chose to ignore, not providing a comprehensive list that proves the Bible. Again, if you look at the evidence and it still doesn't convince you (or him), fine. At least your conclusions would be reached intellectually and honestly.

[jlogajan]

"OK, I don't know whether there is one or not..."

First let me say that I appreciate the intellectual honesty of your acknowledgment of your uncertainty regarding knowledge beyond that which you may currently possess. That type of honesty is often scarce around here. Man, that takes guts. I admire that.

So religionists hold dual standards -- Atheist's are intellectually dishonest for their "certainty", agnostics are "honest" for their uncertainty, and religionists are "honest" for their certainty. Huh?

[Diamond]

Well, you can pick up a lot of fiction books, crime novels, for instance, that go into great detail describing real cities, buildings, cultural events, etc. But never the less the characters are fictitious or at least involved in fictitious activities. Finding that the environment describe in the fiction really exist doesn't prove that all crime novels are true stories.

Why indeed would a religion in the process of being created not allude to contemporaneous places, people, and events. All religious tomes are like that. Even Athena worshippers used existing places and things in their descriptions of her.

Be careful what you're admitting there, jlogajan:-) You are admitting that the accounts are relatively contemporaneous and relatively accurate regarding places, people and events. The sceptics used to intone the constsant mantra that Biblical accounts were not contemporanous or accurate regarding people, places and things. For decades they said that Biblical accounts were nothing but fables, myths and legends with no basis in fact or history.

Now if you can show that ancient Biblical writers sat around and wrote fiction in the modern entertainment sense that we think of when we think of Agatha Cristie, movie scripts or other types of fiction, have at it.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

So religionists hold dual standards -- Atheist's are intellectually dishonest for their "certainty", agnostics are "honest" for their uncertainty, and religionists are "honest" for their certainty. Huh?

Re-read my post. I didn't say that agnostics are 'honest' for their uncertainty. Agnostics, to the extent that they make characterizations about the world to the effect that there is not enough evidence to be certain, are essentially being self contradictory in that they are certain of their uncertainty; they are certain that there is not enough evidence to be certain. But of course there is no way that they can possibly be certain of that.

And by the way, I don't think all 'religionists' are honest for their certainty. If the law of non-contradiction is valid, then some religionists are most certainly wrong in their certainty.

Cordially,

[jlogajan]

You are admitting that the accounts are relatively contemporaneous and relatively accurate regarding places, people and events.

Actually, I didn't. I said, by analogy, that even if they were, it wouldn't prove anything about any other claim in the book.

[jlogajan]

Agnostics, to the extent that they make characterizations about the world to the effect that there is not enough evidence to be certain, are essentially being self contradictory in that they are certain of their uncertainty; they are certain that there is not enough evidence to be certain. But of course there is no way that they can possibly be certain of that.

You play with words.

[handk]

So. there are people out there who have devoted their lives to proving that; the House of Windsor are drug-running alien lizards; that Con-Ed is keeping Tesla's bounty from the public; that a tightly controlled conspiracy of several thousand individuals (including Jackie) killed JFK; and much else besides.

All idiots.

Come again? I couldn't quite make out what you're saying "Ostrich Boy" (oh, sorry, Oztrich Boy, or did you get the spelling wrong because you're dumbed down?). Head stuck in the sand? Pull your head out of the sand and maybe I can make out what you're saying.

As any lawyer would inform you, you're arguing the "left side" of the issue, and you're wholly "off-point."

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[daniel boob]

How has evolution been proven?

[handk]

I'll never understand all the clamoring done by those who prefer creationism to evolution.

That's because you are spritually blind. "None are so blind as those that cannot see."

You act as if someone is trying to hide this theory from you and your children.

Please, by all means, have your kids learn all about creationism -- in the proper place -- Sunday school.

Now leave the rest of us out of it.

Well, "Motherhood IS a career", thank God I wasn't born to a cold, paganistic, empty-soul carcass like you. I pity your children. I have no pity for you though, you've sealed your fate with a double-riveted steel door.

[Iota]

Evolution does not exclude purpose...That's ignorance perpetuated by Creationists.

None other than high priest Richard Dawkins says that we live in a universe in which there is "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

"Richard Dawkins" does not equal "evolution". The fact that he excludes purpose is not the same as evolution doing so.

[longshadow]

space-time place-momentmarker

[JediGirl]

Well, "Motherhood IS a career", thank God I wasn't born to a cold, paganistic, empty-soul carcass like you. I pity your children. I have no pity for you though, you've sealed your fate with a double-riveted steel door.

Yet another example of a hauty arrogant religionist bashing someone with common sense. Just because someone isn't Christian doesn't make them a bad parent. Just because someone wants their children to have a good education in the science classroom does not make them an "empty-soul carcass". BTW, what fate has she sealed?

[JediGirl]

Come again? I couldn't quite make out what you're saying "Ostrich Boy" (oh, sorry, Oztrich Boy, or did you get the spelling wrong because you're dumbed down?). Head stuck in the sand? Pull your head out of the sand and maybe I can make out what you're saying.

What a pathetic personal attack.

[handk]

You can't prove a theory, when you do it's no longer a theory, it's a fact.

Nor is it a "religion" that requires "faith".

How about a million to prove creation?

There are no scientifically provable facts to support the theory of evolution. There is no proof of any kind that supports evolution. The theory of evolution is based upon a sea of lies, distortions, misinformation, and out-right deception.

For the past 100 years, the theory of evolution has been pushed, sustained, and held up for "useful idiots" like you for the sole purpose and agenda of "plausible denial." Plausible denial that you are a child of God. Plausible denial so that you can comfortably live a life of delusional hedonism, guilt-free.

Proof of creationism? Look in the mirror, smell a rose, watch a sunset, eat a good meal.

[Destructor]

That's easy! Mike Tyson is the missing link. When can I expect that check!?!