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).

[Motherhood IS a career]

The Muslim world, of which Palestine is part of, hates all none Muslims...So if you want me to mark a distinction, I can't, because they are all birds of a feather.

I can see how you might reach such an oversimplified conclusion. However, I believe that the examples you cite have more to do with politics than they do with Muslim creed. Just as the fact that Christians have been murdering each other in Northern Ireland for years is about politics, and not their religious differences.

Furthermore, the Muslims that are making the news these days are not representative of all Muslims, as you put it. Those so called "Muslims" are, in fact, hypocrites and traitors to their own religion. What they're doing goes against the Muslim belief system.

There have been similar hypocrites throughout history proclaiming themselves Christian, committing atrocities in the name of Christ, and I'm sure you would agree that such hypocrites do not fairly represent Christianity.

I think yours was a racist remark with which I must disagree. Sorry.

[lasereye]

So you can't prove God. Big deal. You aren't supposed to need proof - it's supposed to be a matter of faith.

The evolutionists complain when asked for proof that it can't be proven in the way scientfic hypotheses are normally proven, but there's overwhelming evidence of evolution. I agree that evolution, even if true, probably couldn't be proven.

I would say the same about God as the evolutionists say about evolution. There's overwhelming proof of God's existence. For instance the numerous Biblical prophesies that have come true, the odds of which occuring by chance are overwhelming. You should read Evidence Which Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

There's also massive archaeological confirmation of both old and new testaments. Numerous passages in the Bible which skeptics had claimed were in error were subsequently proven by archaeological discoveries.

That Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time of Jesus' birth around 6 BC, Luke 2:1-3. This was regarded as an error because the only information we had placed Quirinius as governor of Syria in 6 AD. But an ancient inscription found in Antioch confirms that Quirinius was indeed governor of Syria in 7 BC as well.

Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was doubted just a few decades ago.

Archaeological and External Evidence for the Bible

Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

Does the New Testament provide a reliable history of Christ's life?

[MEGoody]

As a mother, I'm sure you'd acknowledge that little children are simply not capable of understanding the rationale behind some of your 'commands' or actions. It seems to me that the relationship between us and God is very similar. We simply are not capable of understanding things on the same level as He, so naturally, there are times when answers to specific questions are, for now, "Because I said so."

[MEGoody]

Oh, I'm not so sure you are right about your claim that no one was ever killed or persecuted in the name of Darwin. Remember Hitler and his whole 'master race' effort? Remember the 'eugenics' movement of the mid-1920s?

[inquest]

So... wanna split it? Of course, after taxes and everthing, it's probably not gonna amount to much. And it'll probably be distributed over several years, so by the time we get most of it, massive inflation will have ensued from all those overseas dollars coming home to roost (yes, I've been spending way too much time on that gold standard/fiat money thread). But still, it's worth a shot, I guess.

[inquest]

It seems to me even an “accidental universe,” if it wanted to generate a general_re, would have had to order itself in a manner at least minimally sufficient to that purpose. Yet general_re implies he “came to be” in the context of an accidental universe (if an accidental universe can be said to have a context).

Hello, bb. Thank you kindly for the ping. There's a lot going on in this discussion, but there's one aspect here that I just want to throw my two little pieces of plastic (otherwise known as "cents") into. At issue seems to be whether or not order can arise from disorder. I would say that it can, and we see instances in nature where that indeed happens. But what needs to be emphasized is that there is most definitely more to life - and particularly sentient life - than "order". Order is certainly an important stepping stone, but more is required. Machines have order, but they are not self-aware. And even a ridiculously complex machine is essentially no different than a simple machine. Adding more gears does nothing but create more noise. If a gear has no self-awareness, ten billion of them aren't going to be self-aware. Ten billion times nothing is still nothing.

So the issue really isn't where our "order" comes from (which science may very well be able to answer), but where our souls come from.

[scripter]

That would be $125,000 each. If paid in a lump sum that's probably nearly 50% in taxes, so we're down near $67,500 each. Buy a new truck and boat, pay 8% sales taxes. Buy gas for your new truck and boat, pay federal taxes on that. Of course you'd have to store both somewhere. If you own a house you pay property taxes. What's left you should spend or give away before death taxes take another 50%. Sheesh, we would pay too much in taxes. Better left alone. :-)

[Diamond]

This is, briefly, how you get around all this stuff about not being able to prove God (Diamond, are you here?) - you stop worrying about it.

So you can't logically prove God's existence. What's the man of faith's proper response? "So what?", of course. "Big deal."

Does God make a habit of revealing Himself directly to men in order to give them proof of His existence? Of course not - if God wanted, He could end all doubt about His existence by revealing Himself tomorrow in flashes of light and and claps of thunder and with all the attendant miracles only possible by God himself. But He doesn't do that.

Why not? Because God makes it clear that we are to take His existence as a matter of faith, not one of proof or evidence, doesn't he? Why would He ask that we take His existence as a matter of faith, and then leave a back door logical proof of His existence? Really now, isn't the fact that no logical proof or disproof of God's existence is available exactly what we should expect from a God who asks us to accept Him as a matter of faith?

In fact, if you were so inclined, you could even take the fact that no proof is available as indirect evidence of the existence of God, don't you think?

So you can't prove God. Big deal. You aren't supposed to need proof - it's supposed to be a matter of faith.

I'm here. I agree with you in part. Of course I believe because of my faith in Christ and His Word. I do not offer ontological arguments to prove the existence of God, but to answer those who assert or imply that it is irrational to so believe. You are right that God makes it clear that we are to take His existence as a matter of faith, However, I must add that while our faith is both directed and validated by the Scripture, by which we understand all evidence in the external world, and the internal evidence within us of God's presence, our faith and the evidence of the external world are not mutally exclusive. We are not making an irrational leap of faith to believe in God in spite of the evidence.

Let me go back to a part of our conversation in #536.

me: What strikes me about what you are saying is that if the rational basis for morality is not objective, but a matter of subjective definition, then there is no rational, objective basis to condemm what Eichmann did. He just made up his own definition of morality, which, if there is no objective morality, is just a legitimate as anybody else's.

you: And yet, I persist in thinking that what Eichmann did was a bad thing ;)

Yes, you do. But Why? Eichmann persisted, until he was executed, in thinking what he did was ok. He said, "Remorse is for children. It is useless." How do you justify a moral condemnation of Eichmann if his own made up morality was as legitimate as yours is? How can a subjective 'morality' be binding on anyone else? Actually any moral prescription is self contradictory to a premise that reduces morality to mere personal (or should I say 'impersonal':^) preference. You have your personal preference; he had his. And this problem persists even if you get past crucial threshold issue of how, in the first place, in an impersonal universe that just "is", anything could be considered "right" or "wrong", or not the way "it ought to be". It just is. Notions of "good" and "evil" become meaningless and unintelligible.

If morality is a matter of consensus, then we may appeal to consensus as a means of determining good from bad. I think that the consensus is generally in agreement with us - that what he did was bad and wrong - even if various folks have differing reasons for why what he did was bad.

What if the consensus in Germany at the time was in favor of Eichmann's personal preference of having as much fun as possible throwing caviar parties, and killing as many Jewish people as possible? The consesus among many Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank is also that it is a positive good to kill as many Jewish people as possible. If consensus is the basis for morality, then these Consesus' (consensi?) prove that the aforesaid aims and ends must be seen as 'good'.

me: It seems to me that an exhoration to act as if there are moral truths when there there really aren't any is to suggest that we ought to live on the basis of an irrational, subjective fantasy. In fact, to claim that we ought to do so is a moral claim itself. But then again, why should irrational, subjective exhortations be binding on anyone?

you: Is it not possible that we can construct a logical, reasonable case for why people shouldn't do things?

Take murder, for example. We may either believe that murder is wrong because God says so, or we can try to build a logical case for why murder should not be permitted. One short possibility - in a society where men are free to murder one another, the possibility exists that I may be murdered. I prefer not to be murdered. Therefore, because I prefer not to be murdered more than I prefer the freedom to murder, murder should be proscribed. I persuade you of the logic of my case. You accept my logic, and find that you also prefer not to be murdered. Therefore, we both go forth and evangelize our logic to the world, persuading others that it is in their own interests to proscribe murder. As most men are capable of recognizing their own self-interest in not being murdered, we ought to have little trouble persuading them of the logic of our position. When consensus is reached, murder is proscribed, and we have a society where murder is considered wrong, without the necessity of God at all.

I can just imagine us trying to persuade someone like Uncle Joe Stalin or Mr. Mao, or whomever, that it really is in his best interest to give up his murderous practices. Perhaps we can these days persuade Islamists to do the same. But what if they refuse to be persuaded. Are they "wrong" for not adopting our morality?

A proscription of murder may have utilitarian value, but you can't say, at least consonant with your premise, that there really is anything objectively "wrong" with murder. It is just as much a part of nature as anything else. There cannot be anything "wrong" with the cosmos. The cosmos just is.

Cordially,

[inquest]

But how does nothing become something? How does nothing-nothing "start" the process of articulated reality that we call the cosmos, and all the things in it? To say "there was no beginning; it just always was" is to say that nothing ever got started.

I don't know. It just happened. Bada-bing-bada-boom.

Wrong. Way too many syllables.

[tortoise]

So the issue really isn't where our "order" comes from (which science may very well be able to answer), but where our souls come from.

What is this "soul" thing that you speak of, and where can I find one?

[inquest]

Can't help you. You either gots it or you don't gots it. Got it?

[inquest]

Better left alone. :-)

I guess so. I always knew this subject was nothing but trouble anyway. But I just can't keep away...

[tortoise]

Can't help you. You either gots it or you don't gots it. Got it?

Which translates (roughly) to: "I have no bloody clue". Yeah, I got it. You are saying that "soul" is semantically equivalent to "flurfignob" and "bublfip". At least "God" denotes something specific; I don't think I've ever seen a meaningful definition of "soul".

Is the insertion in your sentences of words without meaning a regular habit for you?

[inquest]

I would gather as well that "free will" is also something whose meaning eludes you?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Woobulous!

[inquest]

Hint: it doesn't mean "fahrvergnugen".

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[betty boop]

This is, briefly, how you get around all this stuff about not being able to prove God (Diamond, are you here?) -- you stop worrying about it…. So you can't logically prove God's existence. What's the man of faith's proper response? "So what?", of course. "Big deal."

This is all perfectly true, general_re. But it appears you may still be missing the point I've been trying to make. Just to check: God is not susceptible to logical proof because He is not a “thing” of the class of things amenable to logical proof. We might say He is “supralogical.” The “fault” does not lie with God (i.e., that He is neither verifiable nor falsifiable by the techniques of the scientific method) – the fault lies in the limited ability of the human mind to grasp a Reality which, in its totality, comprehends everything that is, intramundane and supramundane – that is, of the orders of immanence (the natural world and the physical universe) and transcendence (the Source of created order and of the spiritual life).

Does God make a habit of revealing Himself directly to men in order to give them proof of His existence? Of course not….

God doesn’t reveal Himself to men to “prove His existence” to men; He reveals Himself in order to have relationships with men.

[I]f God wanted, He could end all doubt about His existence by revealing Himself tomorrow in flashes of light and and claps of thunder and with all the attendant miracles only possible by God himself. But He doesn't do that.

No, He doesn’t; and if He did, it wouldn’t end all doubts about the Reality of God. If He were to do these things, our atheist/materialist/positivist/phenomenalist friends would turn themselves inside-out to come up with a “plausible explanation” for the fireworks from “natural,” immanent causes. You know that as well as I do, general_re.

In fact, if you were so inclined, you could even take the fact that no proof is available as indirect evidence of the existence of God, don't you think?

No formal proof of God is available – in the sense of a demonstration of a principle of mathematics or logic, or of an experiment in natural science. But no man in whose soul the Spirit of God has moved would deny that he has experienced an encounter with God, and that God Is – that is, He is Real.

If have often thought that if God were to fully reveal Himself to us, not even the most brilliant intellect on the face of this earth would be able to fully comprehend the revelation.

Indeed, as Francis Schaffer has pointed out, we do have “information” from God in the Holy Scriptures – which speak of God (and man, community, nature, and universe in their several relations) “truly, but not exhaustively.”

I have thought for a long time now that God has also informed us of His Reality – “truly, but not exhaustively” – in the Book of Creation, if I might call it that. Study the natural world through the eyes of the spirit, and you will find that God has left “traces” of Himself (so to speak) in everything He made.

So you can't prove God. Big deal. You aren't supposed to need proof - it's supposed to be a matter of faith.

The word faith derives from the Latin, fides. Fides denotes “a living trust vested in another.” Today, however, the word faith usually connotes something along the lines of "It’s true, therefore I believe it.” We end up playing games of “faith versus reason,” constructing false dichotomies of “belief vs. proof.” The fact is (or so it seems abundantly clear to me) faith and reason are not mutually exclusive; both are components of everyman’s conscious experience (at least as potentiality). Faith and reason are simply different modes of the human mind. Both have their “truth,” and their particular standards for evaluating truth claims.

You choose to believe and have faith — I do not, at least not in the same sense you do. It's the same free-will we all have, that God is supposed to have given us.

Ah! the joys of free will! Yet I feel I must point out, I really do not “choose” to believe and have faith. Quite the contrary: I don’t think I have any choice in the matter. God is Truth. Truth is not "optional." His Truth far surpasses the capability of any merely empirical/logical test; it exceeds the capacity of the human mind fully to grasp it. As Anselm of Canterbury put it, “Thou art not only greater than that which can be conceived, Thou art also greater than what can be conceived.”

When the spirit of God has moved in our souls, when the Light of His Truth has illuminated our minds, then only a fool would say "NO!" to God. JMHO FWIW.

More people would have experiences of this sort if it weren't for the fact that most "educated, intelligent" people these days slam the door shut on God, thinking Him "dead." I am so amused, however, that for three hundred years now, the "executioners" or "murderers of God" have been nervously busying themselves about the putative "corpose," as if to reassure themselves that He is, in fact, still dead.

Think about that for a minute: If God did not "exist," if He were really "dead," then why has a cottage industry of "undertakers" been devoting itself to "refuting" or denying Him for lo, the past three centuries?

Thanks, general_re. Time to get back to work; so I’ve got to run for now. Best, bb.

[PatrickHenry]

Even numbered post?