Hello,
Although it seems the few DrDino people here have left for awhile, but his challenge often comes up, and he appears to be popular right now. There are plenty of refutations of his challenge around but I thought I would write my own. To give myself my own Copy and Paste when the inevitable copy and pastes from DrDino come around. The only difference is that I will have actually written mine myself.
Analysis of $250,000 Challenge.
The challenge:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
After looking through the Challenge it quickly becomes apparent that the challenged is rigged to be impossible to win, whether this was done on purpose or because of Hovind's miss-understandings is unknown.
General Evolution
Hovind has taken it upon himself to redefine the meaning of the theory of evolution, to include many different sections of science. He appears to think that just because science uses the word "evolution" in different theories, that that means they are all part of the theory of evolution. This forms a strawman, where the real theory of evolution is attacked because of less evidence in other theories. No matter how much Hovind wants to make his definition of evolution real, the reality of the matter is that the theory of evolution is part of biology and only biology. Now a look at Hovinds new definition.
"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)."
1. Not part of the Theory of Evolution. Appears to be a combination of First Cause and the Big Bang. This is part of his strawman, because First cause has many different competing theories with about the same evidence, so right now, we don't know what was the first cause.
2. Not part of the Theory of Evolution. Although this is often called Stellar evolution, it is seperate from the theory of evolution.
3. Not part of the Theory of Evolution. This is abiogenesis, and another part of the strawman, because although there is evidence for abiogenesis, it is no where near what we have for evolution.
4. Now we almost get to evolution. The very beginnings of reproduction is still part of abiogenesis. Once reproduction or replication starts to happen, then we get to evolution.
5. Finally evolution, with a twist of course. The twist is because Hovind has again redefined terms and he wants proof for his version of Macro evolution, which is changes between Kinds. Of course, he seems to refuse to define what a "kind" really is, often falling back on the claim that people should Just know.
So, out of the 5, only one is part of the theory of evolution, and even it has been changed to fit Hovind's view.
Known Options
Hovind gives us a couple options as to how the universe came about,
"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."
"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."
Here we can see what makes his challenge impossible to answer. Hovind has equated Creationism with theism and Evolution with atheism, as we can see in his options. This is what makes his challenge impossible to answer, no matter what evidence we have.
Science is agnostic, it can not prove nor disprove god. Same goes for evolution. It is impossible for science to prove that god was not involved in the universe. Since option 3 is basically saying "prove that god did not have a hand in the creation of the universe or how it runs." it is outside the realm of science and thus can not be proven through empirical evidence.
As mentioned, evolution is not atheism, and can easily be compatible with theism. Evolution is not atheism and atheism is not provable through science, so the challenge becomes impossible to win. It is possible to show that whether there is a god or not, evolution is backed by evidence.
Other Problems
Others have suggested that there are more problems with the challenge.
That Hovind's definition of "prove" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" is much different than anyone else's. Science can not "prove" something 100% so there will always be a possibility of doubt, reasonable or not, is up to Hovind. If he considered any doubt reasonable, then it would be impossible for us to "prove" anything to him.
Some also question his fairness, as in the challenge we find out that although he has a committee, all papers must go through him first, before they go to the committee. And thus he has the chance to pick and choose which papers, if any, he gives to the committee for review.
While these may be valid points, they don't really matter, since we have already seen that the challenge is impossible.
Conclusion
The challenge is designed to be impossible to win. It asks us to prove with science, something that is outside the realm of science, to prove god does not exist. It also asks us to prove Hovind's version of evolution, which includes parts of science that do not have as much evidence as the theory of evolution.
So does this prove that evolution is false, or that no evidence exists for evolution (or the other theories Hovind linked to Evolution)? No. what it does prove is that Hovind does not understand Science or the Theory of Evolution.
-Ari
.
Linear Mode
