If that is true... then why won't professors engage him in a debate if he is a so called fake? I find that odd.
Most scientist today cannot even agree but yet we teach it as fact in schools... again very odd.
If you spend even a little time Googling it, and not limiting yourself to God Squad sites, you'll know why. Hovind's challenge is empty and cynical.
Also about what are most scientists unable to agree? certainly not evolution. You're being fed customized facts by an interested party ... check the source. cn
Critics view this offer to be spurious because of the conditions which Hovind imposes. The 'theory of evolution' as defined by Hovind covers not only the process of evolution but also
abiogenesis,
astrophysics, and
cosmology.[SUP]
[58][/SUP] Also, unlike Hovind, scientists in the field of evolutionary biology do not distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution as distinct processes, instead contending that evolution takes place as microevolution, and that macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.[SUP]
[59][/SUP]
Critics argue that the offer is merely a publicity stunt designed to be impossible to win because it requires the claimant to disprove all possible theories for the origin of species, no matter how ridiculous: his FAQ states that claimants must "prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."[SUP]
[57][/SUP]
Hovind has said a panel of judges would decide if a claim had met his criteria, but he has refused to say who would be (or is) on that panel, or what their qualifications might be. Challengers who have submitted claims to Hovind say they have become convinced that he does not actually use a panel of judges, in spite of his promise to do so.[SUP]
[60][/SUP] In one case, after twice stating that he would send a particular response to his judges (according to his website any responses he sent were considered "legitimate"[SUP]
[57][/SUP]), Hovind stated, "Thanks for reminding me about not sending minor changes to the committee. This would be a waste of time for everyone involved. If you ever get any evidence that does support evolution please send it to me". The respondent felt that this indicated dishonesty on Hovind's part and confirmed public suspicions that he never intended to pay.[SUP]
[61][/SUP]
People have approached Hovind in regard to the challenge, addressing it from perspectives ranging from "Large-scale Evolution" to the "Big Bang Theory"[SUP]
[62][/SUP] to polar bears.[SUP]
[61][/SUP] In 2001, biologist
Massimo Pigliucci attempted to collect Hovind's prize.[SUP]
[63][/SUP] During a debate with Hovind, Pigliucci said Hovind did not send any details or names of scientists judging the evidence and Hovind "could have decided on his own" to dismiss the evidence.[SUP]
[64][/SUP] Pigliucci later issued a "counter-challenge" as "a spoof meant to uncover Hovind's challenge for the gimmick that it is" by asking for "empirical evidence, that Christianity is the only true religion and that a god with the exact characteristics of the one(s) described in the bible actually exists".[SUP]
[65][/SUP]
The winter 2005 issue of
Skeptic included an article titled "Doubting Dr. Dino" by Adam Kisby.[SUP]
[62][/SUP] Kisby lays out Hovind's arguments in formal logic, and says that the assumptions "God is a necessary cause of the universe" and "The universe is eternal, i.e., un-caused" lead to contradictions. Kisby sent his proof to Hovind and reports that "many weeks later I received a terse reply from Hovind in which he dogmatically rejected my proof." Hovind's reason was "the
universe is evidence of a Designer not proof there is no Designer." Kisby concluded "I contend that either my proof is technically correct or Hovind's $250,000 offer is fundamentally flawed. If my proof is correct, then Hovind is constrained by the terms of his offer to release the money. On the other hand if Hovind's offer is flawed then he is morally obligated to withdraw it or modify it."[SUP]
[62][/SUP] The Spring 2006 issue of
Skeptic contained criticisms of Kisby's proposed proof.[SUP]
[66][/SUP][SUP]
[/SUP]
