Creationists, do you realize that it's a bit difficult to "debate" Hovind, with him being in prison for fraud?

Posted a few minutes ago:

"Why don't any of these guys debate Kevin Hovand anymore, if they have it all together. He has a 250,000 dollar "reward" to anyone who can prove The Bible wrong. A few have tried, but where are all the "big" guns, Hmmm! There haven't been any takers for quite a few years now. Interesting."

Yes, interesting, seeing as how he's in prison for fraud.


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).

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.

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.



Pieret, John. 2002. Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer.


"David." 2005. Hovind indirectly admits that his $250,000 Offer is impossible, and is flawed., transcribing an interview with Hovind on Truthradio, April 5, 2005.

Flank, Lenny. n.d. "Dr." Hovind, "created kinds", and his $250,000 "reward" . . .

Kolosick, Jama. n.d. Kent Hovind's "$250,000 award to prove evolution!"'s_pho...

"Thomas". n.d. "Dr." Kent Hovind,

Vlaardingerbroek, Barend. n.d. Kent Hovind's bogus challenge (letter).'s_bog...

Wood, Ian. n.d. Is Kent Hovind a liar too?'s_lie...

3 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Best Answer

    Excellent. Do you mind if I use it next time someone crows that no one has won his challenge yet?

  • 9 years ago

    That is why it is important to realize the truth of God's Word is not dependent on men. So when the Bible says in the New Testament:

    1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    and when it says in the Old Testament that:

    Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    We know that God is true and that when it says that Adam and Eve were created that it means exactly what it says. Human beings were created and did not evolve. I don't have to place my trust in any human to know the truth of that statement. More proof can be found in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.

    Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

    Now people who do not trust the Bible will of course dismiss the verses, but that does not mean that it is not true. Ignoring reality does not change reality and the reality is that God created this universe. One day we will all meet our creator and be held to account for our actions here on earth.

    Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

  • 9 years ago

    Yeah...the IRS has any money they could get their hands on. He doesn't have any to pay with from the start.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.