Index to Creationist Claims,  edited by Mark Isaak,    Copyright © 2007

Previous Claim: CA340   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CA342

---

Claim CA341:

Source:

Response:

1. The challenge is set up so that it is impossible to meet it whether evolution is true or not. First, Hovind conflates many areas of science, including cosmology and abiogenesis, under his misuse of the word evolution. Second, he wants proof that the universe came from nothing, which is not known to be true (and which is not relevant to evolution). Third and most important, Hovind requires proof that "evolution . . . is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." It is impossible to prove a universal negative. In fact, scientists already seriously consider alternatives for abiogenesis (namely panspermia).
   
   Hovind's challenge requires proof that evolution (and other origins) occurred without God. However, evolution does not deny God, as Hovind himself acknowledges, and Hovind admits that it is impossible to disprove God. Thus Hovind himself implies that his challenge is flawed and impossible to meet ("David" 2005).
   
   
2. The judging is likely to be unfair. The judges are all picked by Hovind, so they are probably biased, and Hovind has refused to let unbiased judges judge a challenge (Kolosick n.d.). Hovind's hand-picked judges may well be unqualified, too, since Hovind does not have the background to judge qualifications. There is even evidence that the judges do not exist: An advertisement in Pensacola headed "Attn: Hovind's Expert Committee" received no responses (Vlaardingerbroek n.d.).
   
   Hovind himself says he will not accept important evidence. He will not accept macroevolution in the form of speciation as evidence for evolution.
   
   
3. Several people have tried to collect on his challenge, only to get a runaround or to be ignored:
   • Lenny Flank received only nonanswers when he asked Hovind to clarify what "fundamentally different kind of animal" means (Flank n.d.).
   • Kevin R. Henke called to inquire about the terms that would be necessary to win the award. Hovind told him that the award could be collected by recreating the Big Bang. One of Hovind's staff members agreed that the conditions were technically unfeasible and financially impossible. Hovind was willing to offer $2,000 for proof that a dog and a banana have a common ancestor, but he backed out of this when it was required that the judges be unbiased (Kolosick n.d.).
   • Dr. Barend Vlaardingerbroek corresponded with Hovind concerning clarification of conditions and matters of fairness and got a runaround. He learned, however, that Hovind reserves the right to throw out any evidence he does not like before the judges see it (Vlaardingerbroke n.d.).
   • Thomas, trying to meet the challenge, sent Hovind a list of evidences. He heard nothing back ("Thomas" n.d.).
   • Ian Wood sent Hovind some evidence for evolution and found that Hovind lied about submitting evidence to a panel of judges (Wood n.d.).
   • Adam Kisby met Hovind's challenge on Hovind's own terms, logically disproving the alternatives Hovind listed. Hovind tersely dismissed the result without giving any valid objections (Kisby 2005). Though Kisby's proof may be flawed, neither Hovind nor his committee have looked at it enough to see any flaws themselves.
   
   In short, the challenge is a fraud.

Links:

References: