Challenge to Dr. Kent Hovind to provide empirical evidence for Creationism

Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge

Ed Babinski:

“Ed Babinski will give 50 cents to anyone who can prove that even half of Kent Hovindʼs claims are correct, and that goes for his claim to have a ‘Doctorate’ degree based on a level of course completion and study that is even half as rigorous as the doctorate degrees acquired at genuine institutions of higher learning.”

Harry: Like all Creationists they also believe in “The Golden Rule” … he who has the gold makes the rule. Even if he offered all the money and land he had, no one will ever get one single cent of it because of his “Golden Rule”. If he has lived 74 years believing this out-dated religious crap while denying facts, then anyone is simply foolish to waste time hoping to claim his illusive prize.

From: Sharon
To: “Ed Babinski”
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005
Subject: Has Kent Hovind Renigged on his 250K Offer?

I could not locate the challenge on his site.
What is the URL now if the offer still exists?

When I checked the link this came up:

Not Found
The requested URL /Ministry/250k/index.jsp was not found on this server.

Apache/2.0.53 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.53 OpenSSL/0.9.7d PHP/5.0.3 Server at Port 80

On 7/29/2005 2:58:09 AM, John Stear wrote:
Subject: Hovindʼs 250K Offer, Gone?


No Answers in Genesis — Kent Hovindʼs Phony Challenge

Itʼs from my Hovind page you quoted.



Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast on nature.
—Jacob Bronowski (1908 - 1974) British historian and mathematician.

Be sure to visit my web site “No Answers in Genesis

Now, letʼs take a look at what Dave Matson has to say:
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovindʼs List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims

Are you up to Edʼs Challenge?

Anna takes the Fifty Dollar (now reduced to fifty cents) Challenge

“Betting on Geocentrism”

(Kent Hovindʼs ‘Bet’ not Unique)
Edward: Here is an article about Elmendorf, who has a standing offer of $10,000 for a proof that the Earth moves around the Sun, and $5,000 for a proof that the Earth rotates on its axis.

Who said thereʼs nothing new under the sun?
by Brian OʼNeill (
Monday, January 21, 2002

As weʼre nearing the end of our conversation at his dining room table, R.G. Elmendorf says to me, “I have the perfect title for your column: ‘Crackpot in Glenshaw’.” The next morning, a letter arrives in my mailbox. Itʼs from Elmendorf, suggesting that “Off-the-Wall in Glenshaw” might be better. As I donʼt write the headlines, I donʼt know what the editor is calling this, but I mention it to make clear that Elmendorf, 74, is well aware of how far out his quest is.

He has spent more than two decades offering a reward to anyone who can prove what almost everyone believes: The Earth revolves around the sun. He recently upped that reward offer from $1,000 to $10,000: five grand to anyone who offers “scientific proof positive” that the Earth orbits the sun; another five grand to anyone who proves that the Earth rotates on its axis. He doesnʼt expect to have to take out a second mortgage to pay anyone soon.

How often do you meet a guy willing to take on Copernicus and Galileo anymore? For generations, schoolchildren have been making Styrofoam solar systems with a big olʼ sun in the middle and the nine planets hanging out on wires. Hereʼs a guy suggesting they might have deserved Fs. Heʼs not sure, mind you. He just believes itʼs an open question — hence, the funky steel model that was on his dining room table when I arrived. It was an armillary sphere, not unlike the ones used back in the pre-Copernican day, with Earth at the center of the solar system and the sun just another orb spinning round. By my unskilled calculations, the Earth has been around the sun nearly 22 times since Elmendorf first offered the reward on March 10, 1980. The Earth has rotated on its axis almost 8,000 times. But I canʼt prove that. Thatʼs the rub.

“The required proof must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive — in other words, conclusive scientific evidence of the celestial state of affairs,” his reward offer states. “Hearsay, popular opinion, ‘expert’ testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational ruling, conventional usage, superficial analogy, appeal to ‘simplicity’ or other indirect means of persuasion do not qualify as scientific proof.” In short, he is harder to convince than the O.J. jury. As his wife of 51 years, Virginia, made coffee, I asked what had led him down this celestial path. Heʼs no astrophysicist. A mechanical engineer who earned his degree from Cornell University in 1950, he has an engineering, design and fabrication shop in West Deer, 10 winding miles north of his home. (Donʼt drive behind him; his license plate warns “STACALM” because he drives as slowly and meticulously as he does everything else.) His unconventional journey began conventionally enough. He became a fundamentalist Christian, accepting the Bible as the literal truth. That led him to question scientific wisdom. When he discovered the “Copernican arrangement” of the solar system hadnʼt really been proven, at least to his engineering standards, he was shocked.

Donʼt tell him about the Foucault Pendulum, the 19th-century device that purportedly shows that our planet rotates beneath a pendulum whose motion remains fixed in space. Elmendorf self-published an 82-page book in 1994 declaring the pendulums fakes.

“Iʼve pretty much concluded the proof isnʼt out there,” he said.
The problem is distinguishing between a moving Earth and a moving universe. Iʼm told not even Isaac Newton solved that problem. The astronauts havenʼt gotten us any closer to the truth either, according to Elmendorf.

If you think you have what NASA and Newton lacked, write to R.G. Elmendorf at 208 S. Magnolia Drive, Glenshaw 15116. Because when the sun sets — excuse me, appears to set — tonight, Elmendorf will still be sitting on his money.
Brian OʼNeillʼs e-mail address is

Comment using Google

Comment using Disqus

Comment using Facebook