Kent Hovind’s doctoral thesis

Dr Kent Hovind’s was once a prominant creationist, until he went to prison for tax fraud. As a result his rate of publication has dropped off slightly, but don’t worry. He has some excellent gems in his back cataglogue. Like his doctoral thesis, recently re-released on wikileaks (hat tip to Leaving Fundamentalism).

It tells the story of how the theory of evolution is 6,000 years old; and came from Satan himself!

Where in the world did the idea come from that things would improve with time? Who started a crazy idea like that?…To really understand evolution, we have to understand its author. Satan is the master-mind behind this false doctrine…Satan in the form of a serpent, brought the doctrine of evolution to the Garden of Eden

Where did it go from there?…Cain promoted his own evolutionary doctrine…[but his] efforts to “evolve” closer to God ended in disaster

From there it goes on to give a more “classic” history of the theory of evolution, starting with the Greeks and progressing onwards (albeit in a very judgmental way). Despite sticking to ‘facts’ this part still contains such gems as

It was Shintoism, based on evolution, that was responsible for Japan’s actions during WWII

Archaeology…tells us man has always worshiped one god.

If you take time away from evolutionists…that is like taking a pacifier from a babies mouth

I contend that the earth is 6 or 7 thousand years old. There may be some slight error.

Go read it for yourself (if you dare), I’ll bet you’d find a delightful bit of hilarity I missed

21 thoughts on “Kent Hovind’s doctoral thesis

  1. I read it a few years ago. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so damn tragic. Actually, scrub that, It is hilarious. I’ve never seen a dissertation that starts “Hello, my name is…” and it was laughs all the way after that.

    • I can’t decide which is more hilarious. The general incompetence (like starting off with his name) or the story being conveyed. The Snake: precursor of Darwin!

  2. Do we call him Doctor? It wouldn’t be so tragic but for him to write this stuff. What kind of college/university is this that gives a degree in dissertations like this? Ihavehave only read the first two pages

          • It was called a college when Kent went to it. An unaccredited college to be exact. It is unfortunate if there are attempts to put on a false impression by claiming the education is of a standard that it is not. However I believe that much of what passes as science is in fact philosophy. I believe that it does not require a university degree to be a philosopher. I believe the same things happens within the accredited scientific community when much of what they teach depends on philosophy when it comes to mans origins. The credentials or the lack of credentials are meaningless when it comes to philosophy. I have recorded a science degreed speaker on the discussion of the Philosophy of Science that are viewable at our website. Please comment on those videos if you look at them.

  3. I’ve spent my evening reading this. I firmly believe that any well-indoctrinated fifteen-year-old could have written this travesty. That he was awarded a doctorate on the basis of this trash devalues the institution of the doctorate.

    • The instiution, as far as anyone can tell, is little more than a diploma mill. Hardly something with huge quantities of value in the first place.

      Rather, I think a bigger take home message is the fact “Dr” Hovind was able to garner such prominence and respect within the creationist community despite having the intellectual standing of a “well-indoctrinated fifteen-year-old” as you nicely put it.

      • I was meaning the general idea of having a doctorate, rather than the porta-cabin diploma mill that he ‘studied’ at. Or rather, sent his rather juvenile writings to.
        It does say a lot about the creationist community will accept such drivel as worthy of respect.

      • @Wombat: The end always justifies the means with creationists. It doesn’t matter about the quality so long as they received affirmations for their prejudices.

  4. This is truly horrendous, not just poorly conceived, idiotic, and childish, it is historically inaccurate, often arguing that people held positions the opposite of those they actually held. For example, Voltaire didn’t ridicule Newton, he is often considered a Newtonian, and used his rational methodology in his own philosophy. The “fact” that Voltaire played a role in the revolutionary redesign of the calendar 15 years after he died is truly impressive.

    • I didn’t know he was wrong about that point because I know very little about Voltaire. It seems like every little bit is wrong, and scratching the surface just makes it wronger.

      The very definition of fractal wrongness.

  5. “There is no scientific evidence at all to back up any form of macro-evolution”

    This line reminded me of a clever remark about making an artificial distinction between macro- and micro-evolution:

    “Saying you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is like saying you believe in bricks but not walls”

    Clever, eh?

    • A little bit of sarcasm always makes these analogies come alive

      “I think you can place two bricks on top of each other, but making a whole wall? Don’t be crazy!”

  6. Email as sent to AiG and others:

    note from his Facebook page that Mr Ham is about to instruct a load of ‘home-schooled’ young people and their parents on “biblical authority and apologetics to equip them to defend the Christian faith against the anti-god religion of evolution/millions of years and how to stand boldly on the Word of God with the increasing hostility in this culture against Christianity”.

    But, in this I hope interesting message I am focusing specifically on his rather unexpected comments there about a new book. (A book which I don’t claim to have read by the way.)

    If you wish, please take a look at this:

    Had I read the above in isolation, I might have thought that young Earth creationist Christians like Mr Ham would not wish to draw any attention to this book. However, I would not have been more wrong in making such an assumption!

    Here is Mr Ham’s message to his followers on his Facebook page:
    “Well I may shock you – I’m going to agree with an atheist – well in regard to a particular conclusion the atheist makes. A new book entitled “Evolving out of Eden” has two authors – one being an atheist who is described as a supposed ‘biblical scholar.’ You see these two authors accept evolution (one was trained in a very liberal approach to the Scriptures). They conclude (correctly I might add) that one cannot reconcile evolutionary belief with the Bible as it is written. I wish all Theologians, Christian academics and Christian leaders would realize that this is so, and give up the rampant compromise that exists in the church. This compromise is undermining the authority of God’s Word and a major factor as to why the church’s influence in this culture is waning and why 2/3rds of the next generation are leaving the church by the time they reach college age.
    Here is what the press release stated about this book:
    “Evolving out of Eden” Refutes All Attempts to Reconcile ‘Theistic Evolution’ with Science.”
    Now of course what they mean by ‘science’ is actually the BELIEF in evolution. And from what I’ve read about the book they don’t approach the Scriptures in the right way either! The press release continues:
    “A new book by two ex-Christians argues that Christian theology and evolutionary science cannot be reconciled, no matter how sincere the attempt. “Evolving out of Eden: Christian Responses to Evolution” (Tellectual Press, March 2013) is co-authored by biblical scholar Robert M. Price and Edwin A. Suominen.
    “When we first started on this book, I was a struggling Christian,” Suominen said. “I had accepted the reality of evolution, but could not see a way to resolve the conflict between science and my inherited faith. And now that the last page is written, I know that there isn’t one.”
    “The book began as a collaboration between Robert M. Price, a biblical scholar and atheist, and Suominen, who was a believing Christian at the start. Both accepted the reality of evolution, and agreed to research its theological implications and the various ways that Christian writers have tried to smooth over the conflict between science and faith… The authors, Price and Suominen, explain how Christians through the centuries have interpreted and re-interpreted these stories in order to make them fit with an ever-expanding scientific knowledge. Religion originally provided the explanations, they note, but now it is what requires so much explaining. And they illustrate how these attempts to combine science with Creationism have always failed.”
    You can read more about the book at:

    We will obtain a copy for our AiG library – I’m sure there are a couple of quotes I could use to challenge compromising Christians with”.

    Some comments:
    – this book appears to be no help whatsoever to the cause of biblical or young Earth creationism;
    – Mr Ham says he is quoting from a press release, but gives no link to such, and my online searches including of Mr Ham’s link did not turn up any document which contains the particular sentences that he cites (I also was assuming that my first link at the top of this message, not provided by Mr Ham on Facebook, was in fact the book’s press release);
    – in general he appears to be trying to mislead his followers somewhat, by implying that the book attacks theistic evolution more than his own cherished biblical creationism, but he could in fact be scoring an own goal by even mentioning this book to his fans and other more discerning readers of his Facebook page;
    – nevertheless he wishes for Answers in Genesis to search this book in order to quote-mine from it in future when ‘challenging’ other Christians;
    – this would apparently be as part of Ham’s strategy of attacking ‘compromiser’ Christians and try to make a case that it is ‘compromising’ the Bible with modern science (rather than the science per se) which is leading to a loss of Christian faith and belief;
    – this possible course of action would be followed even though one atheist reviewer has stated that the book also, among other positions, “clearly exposes the fatal flaws of biblical creationism” (see my first link);
    – likewise Mr Ham quotes the unidentified press release about the book as making clear that the two authors “illustrate how these attempts to combine science with Creationism have always failed”;
    – whilst Mr Ham ‘agrees’ with atheists about the incompatibility of the claims of modern science and the Bible (ie attempts by theistic evolutionists to ‘marry’ the two), these and other atheists and former believers most certainly would NOT agree with Mr Ham about his biblical creationism which he claims is true ‘science’ and they realise is no such thing!

    A H-R

    • As one of the co-authors of Evolving out of Eden, I was amused but not too surprised that Ken Ham would find something to like about at least the premise of our book. We actually quote him approvingly about the one thing we agree on, that evolution and Christian theology are irreconcilable. Of course, he thinks evolution is what is false, when overwhelming scientific evidence points in the opposite direction.

      There was indeed a press release, and Ham’s assessment of it is not unfair. We really do pay more to the problems of theistic evolution than those of creationism, though he would not much care for the reasons we give for that focus. We just don’t consider creationism worthy of much serious discussion.

      Regarding the Harvard-educated young-earth creationist Kurt Wise, for example, we suggest that, rather “than pretending that all his secular education about the natural world really means anything at this point, he might as well study the danger of airplanes ripping a hole in the firmament, letting the waters above it pour out and cause another worldwide flood. Let the rest of us engage in adult conversation while those who refuse to acknowledge reality play in their sandbox of infantile faith. ‘When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11).’”

      There is plenty of ground to cover criticizing the theological problem you have deal with once you accept the reality of evolution, and that’s where we focused most of our 340 pages. I hope you do read the book, Ashley, and thanks for pointing it out as well as our strange-bedfellows agreement with Ken Ham about evolution vs. Christianity!

  7. Adam

    Any chance of my comment being moderated? (Are you on holiday perhaps?)

    And WHAT exactly does the ‘comment’ of 5 June bring to the discussion? I would suggest nothing. Has Adam seen it?


  8. Pingback: 100 Reasons Kent Hovind is Stupid! | thegreatantagonizer

You evolved too. Have a say.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s