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 Answers in Genesis, 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 creationism as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists as shoddy researchers—or charlatans!”1 Kent Hovind perfectly fits their peculiarly unreflective criterion of a pseudoscience 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, Florida, 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 Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, perfect Word of God” (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. Massimo Pigliucci, 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 diploma mill. 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.