1

Inside the Mind of a Creationist

A Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's “Doctoral Dissertation”

By Nathan Dickey*

1. Meet Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who subscribes to some of the most outlandish notions one can hope to find in the biblical creationist movement. Other creationist organizations and think tanks, notably , have even made attempts to dissociate themselves from Hovind and others like him in the interest of maintaining credibility for the movement. A few years ago, Answers in Genesis posted a list of 29 creationist arguments on their website that they strongly encourage their fellow creationists to discard. As they put it, “Even one instance of using a faulty argument can lead someone to write off as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists as shoddy researchers—or charlatans!”1 Kent Hovind perfectly fits their peculiarly unreflective criterion of a promoter and shoddy researcher, for he uses all of the arguments listed on Answers in Genesis’ current “Arguments to Avoid” page.2 Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind used to own and operate a theme park called “Dinosaur Adventure Land” in Pensacola, , before it was seized by the government to pay for the back taxes Hovind owed to them. According to Ed Brayton, a journalist who writes for ScienceBlogs, this theme park consisted of little more than a “bunch of wooden dinosaur cutouts in his back yard.”3 This may have come as a surprise to people who were aware that the theme park existed but had not personally visited or researched it. After all, it’s all too easy to visualize a mini Disneyland when hearing about the theme park when one hears about all the money Hovind was illegally

1 Quoted in B.A. Robinson, “A List of ‘Proofs’ by Answers in Genesis & Creationwiki that Web Sites Should Avoid: Part 1,” ReligiousTolerance.org, July 29, 2012, http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_dialog2.htm (accessed November 15, 2014). 2 Answers in Genesis, “Arguments to Avoid,” https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/ (accessed November 15, 2014). 3 Ed Brayton, “Anyone Wanna Buy a Dinosaur ‘Theme Park’?” Dispatches from the Creation Wars, August 2, 2009, http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/08/02/anyone-wanna-buy-a-dinosaur-th/ (accessed November 15, 2014). 2 stashing away. In 2006, Hovind was charged with 45 felony counts of tax evasion in addition to 13 other related charges. This fact exudes the impression of a man living in a mansion and pulling in an inordinate amount of money. To get some idea of this theme park’s utter lack of quality, consider that back in Hovind’s heyday, the schedule information on the Dinosaur Adventure Land webpage indicated that the park would open by appointment only on certain days. Hovind is currently reduced to scratching dinosaurs in the paint on his cell wall, but he definitely deserved this fate and had it coming. My aim in this paper is to review Kent Hovind’s “doctoral dissertation,” which was leaked to the Internet in late 2009.4 Mr. Skip Evans, who before his untimely death maintained a website devoted to critiquing Hovind and was responsible for confirming several rumors surrounding the paper, originally acquired the dissertation from Patriot University in March 1999 after several unfruitful requests.5 After finally receiving the document, Evans made it available only to certain people who ran in his circles. Now, more than ten years later, the document is leaked and available to the public. The dissertation, written and submitted by Hovind in May 1991, contains views from which he has not strayed from or changed to this day. Lying at the heart of the dissertation is the belief that “the is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, perfect Word of ” (p. 4). After reading it for himself, biologist and popular atheist blogger and PZ Myers advises us, “Remember to breathe now and then when you’re laughing that hard.”6 Upon review and analysis of this dissertation, it becomes painfully apparent just how absurd is the title of “Dr.” that he carries before his first name. Hovind once expressed the offense he took from atheist radio host Reginald Finley while on a broadcast of The Infidel Guy show in which he debated Dr. , an evolutionary biologist and philosopher of science. Finley, who moderated the debate, rightly kept referring to Hovind as “Mr.” much to Hovind’s chagrin. At one point in the debate, Hovind demonstrated his complete lack of maturity by deliberately referring to his opponent as “Mr.” Pigliucci. Yet in the process of doing so, he admitted that Patriot University, his alma mater, is not accredited:

4 Kent Hovind, “Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy in Christian Education,” (dissertation, Patriot University, 1991). This document is available for download online at http://wlstorage.net/file/kent-hovind-doctoral- dissertation.pdf (accessed November 15, 2014). 5 Karen Bartelt, “The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn’t Want You to Read: A Review of Kent Hovind’s Thesis,” No Answers in Genesis, http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm (accessed November 15, 2014). 6 PZ Myers, “Kent Hovind’s Doctoral Dissertation,” Pharyngula, December 9, 2009, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/09/kent-hovinds-doctoral-disserta/ (accessed November 15, 2014). 3

I notice you're calling him “Dr.” and me “Mr.” so I’m just making a level playing field here. I have a doctorate’s degree also, although it’s not from an accredited university, but I don’t think that matters.7

Hovind would have more credibility in my book if he had nothing more than a GED, rather than a fake “doctorate” from a . His credibility is further fractured when he claims, as he often has throughout his career, to have taught high school science for fifteen years. Conveniently, he always failed to disclose the fact that the school in which he taught was a private fundamentalist Christian high school that he himself founded. He has even gone so far as to claim that he taught science at the collegiate level. Nobody knows where; there is nothing either in his resume or his writings indicating at what college he allegedly taught. One of the skills Hovind has honed and developed over the years is the art of making claims and not bothering to back them up. In this paper I undertake to critically examine the informational content of Hovind’s dissertation as well as highlight the many structural shortcomings. Such a review and critique is made worthwhile by the large number of people who believe in what Hovind says and remain sympathetic to his dying cause. He enjoyed a significant following prior to being sentenced to prison and even from behind bars he continues to influence young aspiring creationist apologists. And Hovind’s followers and supporters are not the only ones oblivious to the ridiculousness of his claims and the shoddiness of his research. The average individual who is not grounded or experienced in science and critical thinking are liable to be drawn in by Hovind’s skillful rhetoric and humorous charm.

7 Reginald Finley, mod., “Dr. Massimo Pigliucci vs Kent Hovind,” The Infidel Guy, July 1, 2008. Audio of the full debate is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rphxOs5YFcY (accessed November 15, 2014). 4

2. Structural Criticism

At first perusal, it appears as if Hovind’s dissertation started out as a book that was later converted into something that can no longer accurately be described as a book proper. Not only does this work look as if it was originally designed to be a book, it actually claims to be a book (p. 1). This “book” which has no title has an “Introduction” that outlines sixteen chapters (pp. 5- 6). Yet only four of the promised 16 chapters are included in the paper. Also noticeable is that the pages comprising the paper are not even numbered, and that numbers have been handwritten into the manuscript every ten pages. And despite boasts on the part of Hovind that he wrote a 250-page dissertation, what Evans received from Patriot University was only 101 pages.8 For many who are familiar with Hovind’s shtick, such hyperbole has come to be a much- expected characteristic of the man. He has gained a reputation for routinely overinflating and exaggerating his claims. For instance, in this dissertation (which again was written in 1991), he claims that he preaches and teaches over 400 times a year (p. 3). A few years later, he began claiming to be preaching and teaching 900 times a year.9 When one runs the numbers on this figure, this just does not seem physically possible. If these claims are true, how is this man even alive? How did he ever have time for family? How did he have time to even eat and to make babies? One of the many structural anomalies of this paper is seen in a comparison of Chapter 2 with Chapter 3. In Chapter 3, Hovind actually plagiarizes himself. Apparently, he simply copied full paragraphs from Chapter 2 and pasted them into Chapter 3. It is enough to make readers feel as if they are on the wrong page or (if they are reading on a computer monitor) that they scrolled up by mistake. When it comes to references, the majority of his citations are from a single source, the Bible. Out of the 87 sources I counted, a total of 53 (over 60 percent) are Bible passages. As noted above, many (if not most) of Hovind’s views and interpretations of the Bible are not based on

8 Bartelt, “The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn’t Want You to Read.” According to Skip Evans, Patriot University granted his request for a copy of Hovind’s dissertation on the condition that only the latest version of the manuscript would be made public with no alterations. Hovind had claimed in the past that his dissertation was a work in progress and that he was making additions to the original draft over time. Apparently, Hovind’s imprisonment indefinitely delayed his plans to expand his dissertation into a book. 9 Kent Hovind, “Affidavit of Kent E. Hovind,” recorded in Public Records of Circuit Court of Escambia County (August 10, 2005). Available online at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind_2005_Affidavit (accessed November 15, 2014). 5 any historically-affirmed or even internally-consistent hermeneutics, but rather are born of his own idiosyncratic opinions. I cannot recall writing one college paper based completely on opinion, for that is a recipe for a failed grade. Additionally, out of the 87 sources incorporated into the paper, 15 were completely unsourced. How did a paper that is (1) not written objectively, (2) a crash-course in personal opinions, and (3) contains sources that are not identified get accepted as a doctorate-level dissertation? The fact that someone actually read this “dissertation” and accepted it is nothing short of amazingly ridiculous. Patriot University’s academic standards are clearly very flawed, and it is no exaggeration to say that a second-grader could receive a “doctorate” from their institution. Hovind’s paper is a clear testament to why Patriot University is unaccredited. To take just one example, some of the many structural problems plaguing Hovind’s paper may be partially attributed to the fact that only one person on Patriot’s committee reviewed the dissertation. In most or all accredited universities, the standard number of committee dissertation reviewers is three to five. It is interesting to note that, at this writing, the homepage of Patriot University’s website claims that they are accredited by “quality non-governmental Christian accreditation.”10 It seems they are not quite capable of full honesty. At the risk of using what some might brand an ad hominem attack, I would also point out that the school building (pictured in the photograph below) bears an uncanny resemblance to a roadside diner. The entire “university” is essentially a small trailer located in the middle of nowhere.11

Kent Hovind’s Alma Mater: Patriot Bible University, Del Norte, CO.

10 Patriot Bible University homepage, http://www.patriotuniversity.com/ (accessed November 15, 2014). 11 PZ Myers, “Patriot Bible University Has a Website!” Pharyngula, March 17, 2010, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/17/patriot-bible-university-has-a/ (accessed November 15, 2014). A satellite image of the school, including a street view, is available on programs such as Google Earth. 6

3. Quote-Mining and Misrepresentation of Sources

Because Hovind does not include a bibliography or works cited page (meaning the sources had to be counted manually), I had to do the work of digging up several of his references myself in order to follow them up. As if the structural criticisms described above were not enough, a number of his quotes are pulled grossly out of context in order to make them imply what the original author(s) did not intend to convey at all. For example, he quotes a Newsweek article in which authors Jerry Adler and John Carey discuss some challenges to Darwin’s theory of by natural selection, challenges which have prompted some paleontologists to suggest that certain species may have evolved in random rapid leaps rather than gradually over extremely long periods of time.12 The problem here is that Hovind misrepresents the whole point of the article by highlighting and dwelling on one part of the authors’ opening paragraph, which reads,

The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.

There is a very good reason why this passage comes at the opening of the article, and is not its conclusion. Adler and Carey proceed to explain the details of the debate that was then brewing between scientists who agreed on the undeniable fact that evolution occurred, but disagreed on the mechanism and process by which it occurred. The authors provide a brief but well-explained overview of the two views of evolution: one sees evolution as operating by small and very gradual changes over vast stretches of time, and the other proposes that a series of specialized cases involving sudden, gross alterations through dramatic random mutations within single generations is what best accounts for some unique and anomalous instances of evolution observed in the fossil record. The article describes how those in the who study evolution are going about communicating, debating and synthesizing these two different theories. The Newsweek article in no way portrays this particular scientific in-group debate as one that is problematic for the theory of evolution itself, which is how Hovind tries to represent it in his quote.

12 Jerry Adler and John Carey, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” Newsweek, November 3, 1980: 95-96. 7

This debate within the scientific community over gradualism versus rapid change within single allopatric generations has been a favorite source of creationist quote-miners who jump at any opportunity to misrepresent and distort the views held by evolutionary scientists. Hovind is no exception. After quoting the article by Adler and Carey, he goes on to quote professional paleontologists and Niles Eldredge completely out of context. Hovind quotes these scientists in the following manner:

There are no transitional forms between species because that is not the way we got here. Gould and Eldridge [sic] in Paleobiography [sic] (KJV; GET TITLE) [?], said,

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological design, gradualism has always been in trouble. Though it remains the official position of most western evolutionists, smooth intermissions between different animals are almost impossible to construct. Even in thought experiments, there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record. Curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count.” (p. 66)

The source of this quote-mine (which Hovind does not cite) is an article entitled “Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,” published in the scholarly scientific journal Paleobiology in 1977. While searching for this source after coming across the above quote in Hovind’s paper, I found that the same butchered quote is featured on a number of anti-evolution, creationist websites. Apparently, it is a common favorite source for misrepresentation among creationists. I therefore find it highly doubtful that Hovind actually read the paper, especially considering he does not even quote their words correctly. Contrary to what Hovind wants his readers to believe, the thesis of Gould and Eldredge in their Paleobiology paper is not that evolution itself is in dire trouble. Rather, they describe in detail the occasional problems that can arise when evolutionists insist on a gradualist account of evolutionary change and development, to the exclusion of other complementary possibilities. Their argument is that the possibility of punctuated equilibria as a proposed mechanism for evolutionary change is capable of standing up as a viable model of evolution and that it seems to best explain certain anomalous paleontological discoveries. Their criticisms of gradualism and slow transitions as the primary feature of change over time have nothing whatsoever to do with casting doubt on evolution. Their criticisms have everything to do with encouraging their colleagues in the field of to clarify ideas and hypotheses that were left unresolved 8 when many diverse fields of science synthesized their work in an attempt to arrive at an interdisciplinary understanding of evolution. Their proposed model of evolution is put forth as a means by which the range of concepts and data then available could be expanded to further support evolution. Furthermore, their thesis does not even imply that there are no smoothly transitional fossils; they acknowledge such instances and merely suggest that those few transitional forms that are absent from the fossil record do nothing to discredit evolution, but are instead indicative of other mechanisms by which it proceeds. The Gould-Eldredge model does not in any way support Hovind’s deluded notions of special creation and the immutability of the species. Following is the Gould-Eldredge quote, this time in context and reproduced correctly:

At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G.G. Simpson invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions. Recently, Lovtrup and Frazzetta have written books to support a punctuational theory for the origin of new Baupläne. We believe that a coherent, punctuational theory, fully consistent with (though not Darwin's own unnecessary preference for gradualism), will be forged from a study of the genetics of regulation, supported by the resurrection of long-neglected data on the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny.13

Compare this faithfully-reproduced quote to Hovind’s butchery of the same above, then ask yourself if Hovind actually read the paper, much less understood the points Gould and Eldredge were making. They are arguing in favor of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, a hypothesis which suggests that rapid bursts of dramatic evolutionary change interrupted the course of slow and constant change at specific intervals and points in evolutionary history. This hypothesis never states or suggests that gradual change never occurred, or that there are no transitional fossils that document change at slow rates. As the name of the hypothesis indicates, it proposes that slow and gradual change was “punctuated” by bursts of sudden change. It does not constitute

13 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, “Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,” Paleobiology 3, no. 2 (Spring 1977): 147. 9 an a priori denial of gradual change over vast periods of time. There is not a single page in Hovind’s 101-page manuscript that does not contain several falsehoods and misrepresentations. Accordingly, my review and analysis is not an exhaustive point-by-point refutation. Instead, I will focus on portions of the paper that are representative of the whole and which give me the opportunity to share the most important objections. Thus, without further ado, let us examine the direct quotes.

10

4. Hovind’s Introduction

One of the passages I first extracted for comment says this:

I am, without apology, a Bible-believing Christian. I have been saved for twenty-two years by the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son. I believe that God’s Word is infallible and flawless in every detail. If the Bible says that something was created a certain way, then that is just the way it happened. (p. 4)

We now know what we are dealing with. This is an open admission by Hovind that his belief in the flawlessness and infallibility of his holy book is based upon an axiom, rather than the end product of a reasoning process. He is not interested in proving or demonstrating his claims, but in taking them for granted and proceeding to argue from that circular starting point. Methodologies involving the use of evidence and self-correcting investigation play no role whatsoever in Hovind’s “arguments.” This admission highlights one of Hovind’s strong points, namely that he does not pull any punches. Unlike the ostensibly more sophisticated proponents of the modern Intelligent Design movement, Hovind does not try to hide or obfuscate the fact that he is religiously motivated. However, avoiding distracting tangents is not one of his strong points. It is difficult to identify exactly what the thesis of his dissertation is, for there is no consistent line of thought or topic. But the above quote is an important one to keep in mind as we examine various noteworthy passages elsewhere in the paper. Throughout his dissertation, Hovind frequently attacks atheists and evolutionists for being closed-minded, repeatedly claims that they adhere to a religion, and accuses them of seldom being honest. And yet he seems incapable of looking in the mirror. For example, at one point early in the paper he states, “Christians are often guilty of neglecting or twisting the Bible to fit their lifestyle or their preconceived ideas” (p. 3). How is Mr. Hovind himself excluded from this accusation? The idea that the earth is a mere 6,000 years old, which is Hovind’s firmly-held position, is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself. His is a loose interpretation not based on any original work done on his part in the study of hermeneutics. He admits as much one page later, where he writes,

I will be quick to point out that “there is nothing new under the sun.” Most of my ideas are the result of the input of hundreds of Godly men and women through the years. I have attempted in