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).

[dpa5923]

self-ping

[caprock]

Those bacterial cultures are easy to manipulate.

Please note the KEY OPERATIVE, manipulate, in your statement. Leave those bacterial cultures to themselves and reproduce another unsuccessful evolution THEORY validation attempt!

All proponents of evolution that have replied in this thread have missed the point . . . as usual. The intent of the $250,000 offer is not to prove or disprove a particular world-view. The individual offering the money is in no jeopardy of losing a single dime. Also, anyone offering money for the proof of Biblical Creation would likewise assume no risk. The offer is a means of coercing those espousing evolution theory to admit their conviction is based upon a belief system and not true science.

[foolish-one]

Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

One heck of an assumption. If you let me make the rules, define the terms, state as a fact the very postulate I'm attempting to prove and slander anyone who disagrees, I can 'prove' anything. Got anything a little less presumptuous and more authoritative and sientific?

[Paradox]

Those bacterial cultures are easy to manipulate.

Please note the KEY OPERATIVE, manipulate, in your statement.

Nonetheless, evolution in action. Like I said, he had better clarify himself if he doesn't want to go bankrupt. However, I see from some other posters that he is something of a fraud anyways.. oh well.

[general_re]

Yeah, I always liked the Mad Revisionist. It started out as a response to the Holocaust-deniers, but as you can see, Hovind's game is exactly the same - the only difference is in the details ;)

[rucrazee]

The only thing that has been proven is that which is observable. MICROEVOLUTION or changes and variations within a species has been proven. MACROEVOLUTION such as fish becoming reptiles or apes becoming humans has NEVER been proven. Although scientists have HANDFUL of what they say are transitional fossils, there is not one PROVEN transitional fossils to support it's claim that one species has changed into another. The evolutionists have been playing with a stacked deck in the fossil record for years now and unfortunately for them, they are now being called on it. One of my favorites in the fossil record is "Nebraska Man." The constructed an entire ape/man charicature of him around a tooth they found. It turns out that it was the tooth of a pig. What is really amazing is that many evolution text books still list this as a transitional fossil. I really can go on for those who want to know more, but I will save it. The theory of evolution is taught as if it were the theory of gravity. We have solid support for gravity. It has been observed, measured and documented. MICROEVOLUTION has met that test also. MACROEVOLUTION does not meet the test, nor can it ever. There is really no way to ever construct a proper model because everything must be done based on assumptions that can never be empirically proven. Creationism is a belief and Evolution is a belief. Science itself came into being out of philosophical roots. Speaking philosophically, I believe creationism makes the most sense. If MACROEVOLUTION is true, there is no moral reason for our existence and no moral consequences. That in itself is very attractive becasue it's gives us freedom to live any way we want to without repercussions. We are really no better than the cockroaches we step on. We need not worry about laws or hurting one another, or helping one another because after all, it is survival of the fittest isn't it? We mustn't lose our edge. I believe that our existence has purpose, just as life itself has purpose. It is much more than blind chance and the collision of molecules. I applaud science, but I think sometimes people really need to do some DEEP thinking. How can one not look around and notice intelligent design. Now going back, you really expect me to believe that a few clueless molecules collided by chance and then later mixed up a pot of primordial soup and brought life into existence? Soup is GOOD food ;). When we break it down to basics and use a bit of simple reasoning, Creationism looks much more attractive.

[liberte]

"Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing." That is the definition of Creation not Evolution! Evolution takes in account the laws of physics; one of those laws say matter can be neither destroyed nor created it has always existed

Umm, I do believe a supernatural God would be able to perform acts that supersede physical laws. A "purely scientific" theory that seeks to exclude supernatural occurrences must explain how this occurred in violation of said laws.

[JediGirl]

When we break it down to basics and use a bit of simple reasoning, Creationism looks much more attractive.

Of course it does. It makes you feel special. It's why many people are into religion. It's attractive. You find a niche. However, ,just because it is a nice sounding belief doesn't make it true. In fact, just the opposite. By the way, what are you breaking down into the basics? What simple reasoning are you using?

[Poohbah]

Even Darwin refuted his theory (on his deathbed).

First off, he didn't. Second, the validity of a scientific theory is not dependent on whether or not its first proponent supports it.

[JediGirl]

I believe that our existence has purpose, just as life itself has purpose. It is much more than blind chance and the collision of molecules. I applaud science, but I think sometimes people really need to do some DEEP thinking. How can one not look around and notice intelligent design.

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

[JediGirl]

Well-known creationist Kent Hovind touts his unsatisfied $250,000 challenge to anyone who can "prove" evolution as evidence for creationism. The challenge is rigged, of course. For example, since the Big Bang is part of evolution, Hovind argues, you will have to produce an actual Big Bang to get the award. Hovind also tours the country preaching creationism to large crowds, and is constantly challenging "evolutionists" to debate at these evangelism sessions.

Kent Hovind has been challenged to a REAL debate - a scientific debate - in the pages of this newsletter, and on the World Wide Web. Hovind has refused this debate. Details of this exchange follow.

 

The saga begins with the printing of the January 2000 NMSR Reports, specifically the Best and Worst of 1999 Awards. These were also posted on the NMSR website at http://www.nmsr.org .

Kent Hovind's Award read as follows:

• The P. T. Barnum "One Born Every Minute" Award goes to "Dr. Dino" himself, creationist speaker Kent Hovind, who on May 7th, 1999, in a packed room in Philadelphia, urged his audience to study convincing new evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. Hovind's evidence, a web site at http://www.darwindisproved.com/Archive.html *, turned out to be the annual NMSR April Fool's prank.

* Site has moved to http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html . See also http://www.nmsr.org/onyatemn.htm .

 

On January 7, 2000, I sent the following message to Kent Hovind:

Congratulations Dr. Dino!

You have received an award from New Mexicans for Science and Reason, in the annual "Best and Worst of the Year" category.

Your award can be seen on the web at http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr_hot.htm

Check out our home page at http://www.nmsr.org/

Enjoy!

Dave Thomas, NMSR

 

On Jan. 16, 2000, I received an e-mail correspondence from Kent Hovind. In his short letter, he challenged me to find "some evolutionists brave enough to defend their religion against me in a public debate." Hovind also offered to "come at my expense and debate your best 3 or 4 at a time in a university setting. Call me to schedule a time."

 

My reply to Hovind, sent on Jan. 18th, 2000:

 

Dear Dr. Dino,

We're not interested in helping you to recruit "clowns" for your creationist circuses. If it's a real debate you want, we'll be happy to debate you, point-by-point, on the pages of our monthly newsletter (and also our web-site).

Simply send an essay of 750 words or less to me at <det@rt66.com>, and we'll print it verbatim and unaltered for our constituents (NM and national scientists, media, etc.), along with a 750-word response. We can go for as many months as it takes.

Do you have the guts to defend your religion in print?

A word about the reason for your award - you received the P.T. Barnum "One Born Every Minute" Award because you were hoodwinked by a sleazy pro-evolution April Fool's prank. And you endorsed our prank in public. (We have witnesses)

The scientific community noticed, though. It even made the cover of NCSE Reports! Thanks for your help in making Onyate Man a smashing success!

Looking forward to your first 750-word installment of the written debate. Be sure to send a snail-mail address where I can send the hard-copy editions of NMSR Reports.

 

Best regards,

Dave Thomas

 

On Jan. 22, 2000, Hovind replied. He said simply "Are the presidential candidates 'clowns'? Public open debate is healthy and if you are secure in the knowledge of your evolution religion. [sic]"

 

I sent the following to Hovind on Jan. 22, 2000:

Dear Kent Hovind :

If the presidential debates were rigged like your creationism evangelism shows, then they would indeed be circuses, and some candidates would indeed be stuck in the role of the "clowns."

But I agree with you that open public debate is healthy. The main difference between what you propose (a "live" debate) and what I propose (a written debate published in our newsletter, and posted on the web) is that many more people would have the chance to read the debaters' remarks, and ponder them at their leisure.

Is that what you're afraid of? Letting the people have time to think about and research your remarks?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to report to our readers that Kent Hovind has refused our very fair offer of a written debate.

You could change all that, just by submitting your first 750-word essay, which we'll print and post verbatim and unaltered, along with our 750-word-or-less response. What could be fairer than that?

Well, one thing WOULD be fairer, and that would be for YOU to publish both yours and our essays on YOUR web site and newsletter as well. But we're not demanding that.

What'll it be, Dr. Dino? If I don't hear from you by Jan. 31, 2000, I will have to report to our readers that Kent Hovind has no stomach for a fair debate with real scientists.

Sincerely,

Dave Thomas

President, New Mexicans for Science and Reason

http://www.nmsr.org

 

On Jan. 24th, 2000, Hovind replied, stating simply "I'm not the least bit afraid but I don't have time. Read Neh. 6:3."

 

On Jan. 25th, 2000, I replied:

 

You have "time" to run all over the country staging creationist circuses, but you don't have "time" to write a little 750-word essay on why evolution is not scientific?

I don't believe it for a second. I think you are afraid of a formal, written scientific exchange of ideas.

But it doesn't matter what I think, right? What does God say?

(See Proverbs 19:5, and especially Jeremiah 23:32.)

 

Regards,

Dave Thomas

 

On Jan. 26th, 2000, Hovind cut off the exchange, stating

"My original offer is always open. Schedule a time for a debate when you work up the courage."

 

I sent the following on Jan. 25th, 2000:

 

Dear Dr. Dino:

If you want to go around the country holding evangelist revival meetings, that's fine. But do not interpret our reluctance to assist you in setting up these circus meetings as a lack of "courage."

On the other hand, you could demonstrate "courage" simply by presenting your arguments to the people in print, without benefit of razzle-dazzle debate tricks to cover up your total lack of supporting data.

If you ever gain enough confidence in your beliefs to actually put them down in writing, please feel free to submit your first 750-word essay to NMSR at that time.

 

Regards,

 

Dave Thomas

President, NMSR

 

See ALSO:

• Hovind Antidote Site #1
• Hovind Antidote Site #2
• Hovind Antidote Site #3
• Hovind Antidote Site #4
• Hovind Antidote Site #5

 

Biblical Citations:

Nehemiah 6:3 And I sent messengers unto them, saying, I [am] doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?

Proverbs 19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and *he that* speaketh lies shall not escape.

Jeremiah 23:32 Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

[liberte]

But alas, even today in 2002, we are no closer to finding "the missing links", in fact ALL WE HAVE are a few links

FALSE! You have obviously never studied Trilobite fossiles. There are so many "missing links", it can be down right difficult sorting them all out. Heck, there are so many "missing links", that you can even trace how a species changes as it matures to an adult.

Downright difficult sorting them all out? That would be news to most paleontologists, including Stephen Jay Gould, who have formulated a number of explanations for the relative dearth of trasitional fossils. I think the larger point being missed here is that a lot of what gets passed off as "science" in the world of evolutionary theory is really interpretation and filling in the blanks, much like historical or archaeological research.

Evolutionists see themselves as the biologic version of a Fermi or Feynman, when they actually have more in common with Toynbee.

[Hunble]

Micro-evolution is like measuring the distance between each step I take (2 1/2 feet) and it can be well documented.

A scientist can use a video recorder and watch me as I walk to the grocery store a few block away. He is able to document that my movement of 2.5 feet per step is able to get me to my local grocery store.

To prove his theory, he takes a few still images. One is at my home at 5:23 PM and another is taken at 6:01 PM when I arrived at the store. He knows the distance between my house and the store, and using my walking speed, can easily demonstrate that I can walk that distance in that period of time.

Now this same scientist has spend time to research my history. 10 years ago, I lived in New Mexico but today, I am living in Minnesota.

This scientist does not know how I moved between New Mexico and Minnesota, but he has a theory of how it was done.

He can compute that in 10 years, it was very possible that I could have walked the 1,000 miles between the different locations. Actually, I drove the distance in only 2 days, but he has no idea about my car.

A scientist will evaluate the facts presented to him and present a theory that can explain the known information. As he learns more information, his theories will change to adapt to the new information.

If this scientist learns that I had a car at the time, and it can move at the speed of 55 mph (ok, 70 mph when no cops around), he will adjust his theories about how I traveled between New Mexico and Minnesota.

What are the facts in this simple example?

1) I can walk at the rate of 2.5 feet per step.

2) Still images demonstrate that I do move between locations.

3) I moved from New Mexico to Minnesota. The actual dates are not recorded, but we have pictures taken 10 years apart showing the change in locations.

Even if the current theory of evolution is wrong, scientists are working with the facts provided to them.

My hypothetical scientist may conclude that I actually walked the 1,000 miles between New Mexico and Minnesota. He would be in error, but his analysis was based upon factual information.

Now you may think that this demonstrates how stupid scientists are. On the contrary, a good scientist will adapt their theories as new facts are learned. Eventually, a good scientist will get so close to the truth, that the differences are trivial.

And with luck, no scientist will tell the cops my exact driving speed!

Micro-evolution + time = Macro-evolution.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

Using my example of a walking speed of 2.5 feet per step, it can be very well documented that white males can walk between locations around New York city.

In 1849, a huge number of white males showed up in California during the gold rush.

Using the rate of 2.5 feet per step, is it possible that these white males actually walked between New York and California?

And with my example of a car, the scientist may not know about ships transporting people between New York and California.

Micro-evolution + time = Macro-evolution!

[Richard Axtell]

The above set of requirements and stipulations that make up this challenge are so designed and constructed as to be impossible to satisfy, thus removing any threat to the challenger's bank account. For instance, the various requirements that evolutionist theory proponents prove that evolution is responsible for the existence of matter, energy, and physical reality itself is way off topic. "Biological Evolution or Darwinian Evolution" versus "the Creation theory of the origins of life" are the subjects of the debate. The challenge in effect denies and defies the sum of western scientific empirical thought in the areas of astrophysics, cosmology, physics, particle physics, organic chemistry, genetics, and the history of biology, or "evolution." The idea here is to make some form of Creation theory generally accepted by default. The challenger's intent here is to make his "Evolution Proof" challenge unassailable, and therefore to give basis for the challenger to say, "Since no one dares to take up the challenge, evolution cannot be scientifically proven, and therefore is merely a 'belief' and not a fact." In other words, "control the debate by defining its limits", in this case almost none, and thus you ensure your victory in said debate, by pushing the goal posts to the limits of the universe and beyond. I contend that the basic requirements of proof are neither valid nor consistent with the real debate in question, i.e. the "origins" of life and the mechanisms for it's change, the vast diversity of species, the survival of certain species, and the the extinction of others. The author's challenge would be realistic and could be taken seriously if it were limited to this debate.

There is a basic list of proofs of evolution that those who have seriously studied paleontology, biology, zoology, botany, genetics, etc. should be familiar with. As I remember them, there are four basic areas of evidence; 1.) The evidence of the fossil record of life on earth. 2.) The existence of vestigial organs and structures in living creatures. 3.) "Ontogeny recapitulates Philogeny" 4.) Shared genetic heritage between different species. By far the most controversy and time spent in argument regards the first, what the fossil record tell us. This aspect is worth a series of essays in and of itself, and perhaps I will try and deal with it at some other time.

I've seen attempts at refutation, or rather simple denial, of the others, but without logical explanation as to why such facts exist as 2.) Whales have vestigial hipbones with no function, 3.) most but not all embryonic forms of animals show aspects of ancestral forms during growth or "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny", 4.) the fact that Chimpanzees share 98% of the genetic code of Homo Sapiens. For instance in 3.), certain species of salamander retain their gills in the adult stage of life, organs that are lost and replaced with lungs in other salamander species. This shows that a dogmatic or hard and fast interpretation of this fact misses aspects of the development of life that must be taken into account, and so still gives us indications or clues to evolution, but in no way disproves that evolution has taken place in the history of species that exhibit these exceptions. I have not seen any credible evidence, or logical explanation offering an alternative to evolution theory to explain either vestigial structures or shared genetic heritage. I would dismiss emotional arguments that are based on blanket assumptions, and which deny the proofs established by allied sciences, such as organic chemistry, radiation physics, and even fundamental logic.

These "proofs" of evolution are factual clues towards an understanding of what has actually occurred during the history of life on earth. Their interpretation as to what these facts collectively show should be the crux of the evolution vs. creationism debate. Unless this debate presented without the distortion and dilution of unrelated arguments, nothing will be resolved. This is the seeming goal of this "challenge" in my opinion, is to obfuscate and cloud the argument, frustrating those who wish to promote objective inquiry, and the future of biological science. I see no attempt here to find a valid alternative theory or explanation for the purpose of expanding the understanding of the subject. But I do see a narrow politically based argument, mainly designed to limit real thought and investigation by denying the scientific basis for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. This argument is largely based on semantic hair splitting, and relying on the general public's lack of depth of scientific understanding. I hope we can get beyond this, or essentially, the debate will be at an impasse that will remain without a chance of resolution.

[tortoise]

The request for "proof of evolution" is a specious one. Mathematically, evolution has been proven (to be valid and optimal for stupid dynamic systems, that is). Scientifically, speciation through evolution can no more be proven than creationism can, though there is plenty of evidence that evolution is a reasonable mechanism in theory.

But what I would really like to know is where I can find an example of Creationism. Has anyone ever seen spontaneous emergence of unrelated species? What is this process, and how do I study it? Creationism itself isn't such a big deal; humans with enough tech could do it. But where are the scientific examples of "natural" creationism?

[foolish-one]

Of course it does. It makes you feel special. It's why many people are into [pseudoscience]. It's attractive. You find a niche. However, just because it is a nice sounding belief doesn't make it true. In fact, just the opposite.

Very well put. I agree with your premise.

[Hunble]

Has anyone ever seen spontaneous emergence of unrelated species?

Now you focused upon the key element of this debate. Can anyone show me a video tape of a spontaneous emergence of a new species?

Is God dead?

[jlogajan]

Prove God Exists!

[Corin Stormhands]

1) You can't prove it.
2) They can't print enough money to make me try.

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot, Martyred Missionary

[Registered]

Prove creationism.

Show me the money ;-)