Top 15 Quotes from Kent Hovind’s Ph.D. Thesis

by Luke Muehlhauser on July 13, 2010 in Bible,Creationism,Funny,Quotes

Kent Hovind's alma mater.

Earlier, I listed the Top 15 Christian Fundamentalist Quotes of This Week. Today, I list my top 15 quotes from that one-man show of fundamentalist nutjobbery, Kent Hovind! More specifically, I shall only be quoting from his “Ph.D. dissertation” (from an unaccredited institution, obviously).

Here we go: My top 15 quotes from Kent Hovind’s Ph.D. Dissertation. I have not given page numbers because his dissertation has no page numbers.

1. The Opening Sentence

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.

Right away, you know this is gonna be good.

2. That old trickster, Satan

In the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

Holy crap, he believes in Satan? And he thinks Satan’s major attack of the 20th century was not the Holocaust or the AIDS pandemic but instead scholarly doubt about the literal truth of Genesis? Not even St. Augustine took Genesis literally.

3. You haven’t read anything by a real biologist, have you?

Chapter nine discusses the “best evidence” evolutionists have for evolution, that is, archaeopteryx.

4. Just when I thought you had hit rock bottom idiocy…

I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but the have lived with man all through his six thousand year history.

5. For a few words, there, you almost sounded like a scientist.

While all of the evidence is not in yet, I feel it is still the best option to take God’s word at face value. The Bible has never been proven wrong yet, and I believe it never will be.

6. You haven’t read anything by a real biologist, have you? (the awful sequel)

The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is that there is continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order.

7. One of the greatest blows to humanity’s ego in history appeals to people because… what???

One of the underlying reasons that evolution appeals to us so many people is because it appeals to man’s pride.

8. What astonishing knowledge you have, Dr. Hovind!

I personally believe that Satan fell from heaven about a hundred years after the creation of Adam and Eve… He had been God’s choir director since he was created… In his pride, Satan decided he would exalt himself and take over the throne of God. This is where evolution started.

9. Please, do tell: What else can we blame the theory of evolution for?

Cain promoted the evolutionary doctrine that man can progress by his own efforts… When God rejected his [sacrifice], he became angry at God. Since he could not hurt God, he took out his anger on God’s servant, his brother… Cain’s efforts to “evolve” closer to God met with disaster.

10. Evolution can be blamed for Ham not covering his father’s nakedness, right?

The story of evolution continues in Gen. 9:22, “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.”

11. Just how early was evolutionary theory developed, Kent?

When the people left the Tower of Babel, they took their false religion of evolution with them.

12. Do you even know anything about religion?

The god of Mohammedism is not the God of the Bible by any stretch of the imagination. It is a little pantheistic god of nature. Because of this, the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching. In the country of Turkey (which is almost totally dedicated to Mohammed) evolution is taught as fact.

13. What can you tell us about geology, wise sir?

The Colorado River did not form the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon was formed as the flood went down.

14. Where do I even begin?

…evolution is just another religion. There is no empirical evidence to back it up so it is certainly not part of science.

15. On this, we can agree

I must… take the blame/credit for what is written in this book.

(Actually, these are quotes from but the first half of Hovind’s dissertation.)

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 60 comments… read them below or add one }

Walter July 13, 2010 at 6:18 am

Sweet Jesus!

  (Quote)

Hendy July 13, 2010 at 6:28 am

I’m approximately speechless. The most striking part for me is it seems like all he’s really doing is making a profession of faith to those who hold the keys to his diploma/pastoring certificate…

  (Quote)

Bill Maher July 13, 2010 at 6:43 am

The funny thing is that Plantinga has about the same level of knowledge on evolution.

  (Quote)

Alex July 13, 2010 at 7:21 am

I’m ambivalent between “Hats off for having a strong enough stomach to go through even half of this drivel” and “Seriously? THIS is what you do in your free time?” :)

  (Quote)

Ajay July 13, 2010 at 7:23 am

I’m going to be writing my dissertation next year…and I think I just found my first line. Cha-ching!

  (Quote)

TV's Mr. Neil July 13, 2010 at 7:37 am

“While all of the evidence is not in yet,”

I love how he sets this goal that is unambiguously arbitrary. How do we know when “all the evidence is in”, Kent? At this point, it should be clear that there is no amount of evidence that Kent Hovind will accept.

Every time I see this disaster of a dissertation, I always think it should be signed Kent “The Yellow Dart” Hovind.

  (Quote)

Bill Maher July 13, 2010 at 7:52 am

I am surprised Noen hasn’t said something super butthurt yet.

  (Quote)

Silas July 13, 2010 at 7:53 am

“Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.”

Hahahaha! How can he possibly be serious?!

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks July 13, 2010 at 7:54 am

Hovind: In the country of Turkey (which is almost totally dedicated to Mohammed) evolution is taught as fact.

It’s so hilarious that of all the Islamic countries he could settle on, he chose the country that rejects evolution the most. Even if he said “Saudi Arabia,” it would be basically wrong, but not as wrong.

It’s as if he isn’t satisfied with being just incredibly wrong. No, no. He HAS to be as wrong as coherently possible.

  (Quote)

Hermes July 13, 2010 at 7:56 am

Bill Maher: I am surprised Noen hasn’t said something super butthurt yet.

Well, it’s hard to write with tears of joy after reading Kent’s sage words.

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 13, 2010 at 8:09 am

Silas,

I think little Kent thought he was writing “What I did on my summer vacation.”

  (Quote)

Torgo July 13, 2010 at 8:12 am

Glad to see you drawing attention to this. I read the first few chapters a while back, and the whole thing reads like it was written by a fifth grader who’s hastily doing Wikipedia searches and filling his paper with irrelevant crap to meet the word count limit. I recall whole stretches of the dissertation that read like this:

Then [person X] was born in [year Y]. He said, [insert irrelevant quote].

He was just throwing a bunch of BS on the wall, hoping some of it stuck.

  (Quote)

MKR July 13, 2010 at 8:18 am

What is the “error of punctuation” that is supposed to occur in number 3 (“Chapter nine discusses the ‘best evidence’ evolutionists have for evolution, that is, archaeopteryx”)? Are you objecting to the use of quotation marks around the phrase “best evidence” or to the use of a comma after “that is”? Neither one is an error of punctuation.

  (Quote)

zak July 13, 2010 at 8:44 am

Nice job, Luke! I tried to read Hovind’s “thesis” a couple years ago… but just couldn’t handle it. Thanks for taking one for the team and finding some real gems.

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 13, 2010 at 8:44 am

I was thinking of the comma. But maybe that’s a regional thing. I’ve never before seen a comma used before the phrase “that is” (used this way). I removed my sentence on that.

  (Quote)

MKR July 13, 2010 at 8:52 am

Okay, Luke. The prevalent (though admittedly not universal) practice is to place a comma after “that is” when it is used as an adverbial phrase. See rule 9 here, rule 21 here, or the table in the middle of this page. I don’t doubt that there are genuine errors of punctuation elsewhere in “Dr.” Hovind’s dissertation.

Thanks also for the photo of “Dr.” Hovind’s alma mater, which is a hoot. It’s like something out of The Onion. What a rube!

  (Quote)

Erika July 13, 2010 at 10:02 am

That was amazing. Sometimes I wonder how people cannot realize how wrong they are (although I am guessing they are just as mystified by us evil atheists).

  (Quote)

Rek July 13, 2010 at 10:07 am

@MKR

Lukeprog isn’t talking about the comma *after* the phrase “that is”, but rather the comma *before* the phrase. I may be mistaken, but it does seem to be syntactically invalid. He could have used a semi-colon or dash instead, but comma there is wrong.

  (Quote)

MKR July 13, 2010 at 10:14 am

Rek, please follow any of the three links that I provided in my previous comment. As I said in that comment, the phrase “that is” is adverbial in the context under consideration. It is an inessential modifier occurring after the beginning of the sentence and therefore must be set off by commas.

  (Quote)

JMauldin July 13, 2010 at 10:18 am

I can’t say it was THE Kent Hovind, but when I was six or seven my father took me to a Hovindesque presentation at our local church. The place was packed to the rafters with Christians eager to gather ammunition to fire back at high school biology teachers. The point was to arm the children and parents for the inevitable lies we were going to be told in science class.

I was too young to really know what was going on but as I got older and more familiar with Kent Hovind (through his epically silly debates) all of his inane arguments (the upside down whale slide for example) came back to me. The truth is, it doesn’t matter how fraudulent his Ph.D. is, as long as it’s attached to his name most people in his intended audience aren’t going to do their homework. People like Hovind are very successful (provided they pay taxes of course) selling talking snake oil to a ready-made audience.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk July 13, 2010 at 10:57 am

Holy crap, he believes in Satan?

Believe in Satan? I watched him win the Stanley Cup.

  (Quote)

Tony Hoffman July 13, 2010 at 11:39 am

Reginald, as a longtime Buffalo Sabres fan you can’t imagine how much it hurt to see Satan lift the Cup. I expected him to scream, “It burns! It burns!”

  (Quote)

ConsiderAtheism July 13, 2010 at 12:16 pm

Oh my word…

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 13, 2010 at 1:54 pm

MKR,

My problem was with the comma that precedes ‘that is’, not the one that follows it. But I guess rule 9 at your first link says that a comma before ‘that is’ is okay if its break from the rest of the sentence structure is minimal. Otherwise, a colon or semicolon or em dash is preferred.

  (Quote)

al friedlander July 13, 2010 at 4:45 pm

“That was amazing. Sometimes I wonder how people cannot realize how wrong they are (although I am guessing they are just as mystified by us evil atheists). Erika”

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/06/24/too-stupid-to-know-the-difference/

  (Quote)

al friedlander July 13, 2010 at 4:46 pm

^
I remember when I read the paper mentioned in the article during undergrad, and suddenly becoming -very- worried that I was actually a moron oblivious to his own stupidity.

  (Quote)

Evolution SWAT July 13, 2010 at 5:53 pm

LMAO

So much of his dissertation is plagiarized I think I could probably crank one out in a few days. Maybe I could even use a program to generate part of the text! That would be pretty interesting actually … generate random text that contains on average the same words as the usual creationist stuff, and then just edit! It might work, and no I am not kidding.

  (Quote)

Hermes July 13, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Al, the original Dunning/Kruger paper was very informative and by itself it stands up well over the years since it was published.

That said, there are valid criticisms and refinements to what they found in the years that follow. Unfortunately, I’m too incompetent and unaware to have references handy to back up what I just wrote. :-0

  (Quote)

Jeff H July 13, 2010 at 7:16 pm

Lol I love the part about “Mohammedism”. It’s so concisely packed full of ridiculous errors that it’s hilarious. I’ve heard a number of Christians call pretty much every other religion “pantheism”, and you have to wonder if they really actually know what that word means or if they just heard it from some apologist and decided to use it as much as they can.

And of course, I love “Mohammedism”. Like “Islam” was too many syllables or something :P

  (Quote)

Hermes July 13, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Agreed. I’ll add the tendency to equate theism with specifically their sect of Christianity only or when charitable maybe other sects and condescending promotion of the 0.22% blip of the world known as Jews. You could say that the Jews are grandfathered in and treated like they are in a nursing home already.

  (Quote)

JS Allen July 13, 2010 at 8:10 pm

What possible snaggle-toothed thought process would lead a guy like that to even resolve to “get a Ph.D”?

  (Quote)

Hermes July 13, 2010 at 8:17 pm

Patriot University is a diploma mill. A Ph.D, regardless of actual merit, sounds impressive.

  (Quote)

Thomas July 14, 2010 at 12:14 am

Bill Maher:
The funny thing is that Plantinga has about the same level of knowledge on evolution.

Come on.

EAAN is still very much unrefuted. Mocking Plantinga doesn´t make the self-refuting nature of evolution&naturalism go away.

  (Quote)

Hermes July 14, 2010 at 4:09 am

Thomas, “the self-refuting nature of evolution&naturalism”? Really? Wow. Care to back that up?

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk July 14, 2010 at 5:26 am

I haven’t seen so much debate about a comma since the Johannine Comma.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk July 14, 2010 at 5:27 am

EAAN is still very much unrefuted. Mocking Plantinga doesn´t make the self-refuting nature of evolution&naturalism go away.

OK, we can switch from mocking Plantinga to mocking you instead.

  (Quote)

Polymeron July 14, 2010 at 7:56 am

Why, the self-refuting nature of evolution&naturalism is so plainly *evident* that it really goes without saying, and no further clarification or proof is at all required. Really, I’m surprised you don’t know this already.

[/sarcasm]

  (Quote)

Atheist.pig July 14, 2010 at 8:36 am

If anyone is interested, here’s Plantinga presenting his EAAN argument.

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/289

And here’s a paper from Elliott Sober & Branden Fitelson showing errors in Plantinga’s argument, though the paper is from 1998.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/fitelsoon%20and%20sober%20on%20plantinga.pdf

(Link embedding isn’t working)

  (Quote)

al friedlander July 14, 2010 at 10:02 am

Hermes,

Thx for the tip off

  (Quote)

Steve Maitzen July 14, 2010 at 10:11 am

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.

The opening sentence isn’t just bizarre; it’s false. It commits a use/mention confusion. It ought to be

Hello, my name is ‘Kent Hovind’.

Hovind has confused his name with himself. (Both seem to have roughly the same IQ.) I mark even first-year students down when they confuse use and mention. An obvious falsehood is a good way to start your dissertation!

With all the talk about commas on this thread, I figure this comment isn’t too pedantic.

  (Quote)

Eric July 14, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Get a Free Online Degree in seconds at the level of Kent Hovind!

http://thunderwoodcollege.com/

  (Quote)

Eric July 14, 2010 at 7:24 pm

I have a PhD in Intelligent Design!

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 14, 2010 at 7:40 pm

Eric,

I think Brian Dunning of Skeptoid made that site, right? Good stuff.

  (Quote)

kyle July 14, 2010 at 9:48 pm

the scariest part is when he says he is a high school science teacher…

  (Quote)

Haecceitas July 15, 2010 at 2:03 am

Eric, thanks for that link. They offer a Doctor of Science in Podcast Production degree. Luke might like that one. But I’d rather take an interdisciplinary doctorate in acupuncture and cryptozoology. I really like to stick needles to unicorns (especially the invisible pink variety). You may say that this is wrong and unnecessarily cruel, but I’d just like to point out that it has never been proven that unicorns even have desires, so you’d have no grounds to claim that I’m violating their desires.

  (Quote)

antiplastic July 15, 2010 at 5:19 am

No, it is critical that any self-proclaimed “sophisticated theists” understand that Plantinga’s job description differs from Hovind’s only in degree, not in kind, and that his biological knowledge is indeed every bit as abysmal as his fellow traveler’s.

How many *decades* has he been banging on about the “one genetic mutation equals one propositional belief” tiger example in the EAAN — you know, the one anyone with a 9th grade education can refute? How many years after Behe was humiliated on the witness stand at Dover was Planty trying to keep the IC scam under the heating lamps like a sad spoilt entree at a combination Pizza Hut-Taco Bell in his APA debate with Dennett?

  (Quote)

Haecceitas July 15, 2010 at 12:34 pm

antiplastic,

Could you provide a reference for that “one genetic mutation equals one propositional belief” citation from Plantinga while I’m waiting for Cornell University Press to release a book titled something like Darwinism Defeated?: Essays on Kent Hovind’s Argument Against Evolution containing critical evaluations of Hovind’s argument by bunch of 9th graders Ph.D.s?

  (Quote)

antiplastic July 18, 2010 at 8:38 pm

You could try his _Warrant & Proper Function_, pp. 225-228.

In what sense is a tiger-footrace belief *biologically* adaptive? In the sense that it is heritable.

Are acquired propositional contents heritable, I ask the hypothetical 9th grade non-apologist?

This is of course bracketing any other number of forehead-smacking issues like truth being some sort of “correspondence to reality” instead of coherence under indefinite trials of experience, or the idea that induction is capable of producing an indefinite number of serendipitous non-parsimonious models.

  (Quote)

Haecceitas July 22, 2010 at 8:20 am

Perhaps I missed something but I didn’t see any indication that he asserted anything like “one genetic mutation equals one propositional belief”, nor the claim that acquired propositional contents are heritable. So I think you are just not being very charitable in your interpretation of Plantinga.

And truth IS a correspondence relation between a proposition and reality. Coherence may be a good criterion of justification but it’s hardly the nature of truth itself. This should be clear enough on the basis of the fact that there can be countless different hypotheses that all cohere with the trials of experience.

  (Quote)

S E E Quine July 22, 2010 at 12:57 pm

Is he still in jail for his paranoia about the government out to get him?

  (Quote)

antiplastic July 27, 2010 at 8:23 am

I really should make a habit of using RSS comment feeds so responses don’t get lost when the posts move to the back pages…

He doesn’t come out and say it, but he needs it to get his intuition-pump going. It’s obvious when you do what Alvin fails to do, which is force armchair speculation to make contact with the way the world actually works. I ask again, what is it for a phenomenon to be adaptive in an evolutionary sense? It is to increase the number of fertile offspring through a heritable variation. Getting hit by a meteor isn’t good for your chances, but meteor-dodging is not a heritable trait and neither is tiger-footrace belief.

Flukes are not heritable. Neither are beliefs. Neither are belief-systems. Only belief-system-forming systems are. Even putting aside the obvious fact that tiger-concepts and footrace-concepts are massively embedded in a conceptual web that entails things about e.g. what will happen when you turn to congratulate your opponent that make even non-heritable flukes infinitely more flukey, EAAN fails because evolution is never in a position to select between a BSFS that produces an indefinite number of flukes and one that does not. It only seems superficially plausible because the intuition pump is constructed in such a way as to get you thinking about footrace beliefs in the same way you think about moth pigmentation – as atomic, isolated phenotypic variants visible to selection.

Here is the deeper point: in what sense is a false belief that predicts the outcome of future observations in a fluke case actually false? Just in the sense that it entails possible future observations which fail to materialize. In what sense is a cognitive machine which consistently makes accurate, parsimonious predictions producing false beliefs?

  (Quote)

Chris Jones November 3, 2010 at 3:45 pm

It’s funny whenever people disagree with the truth bad language and sarcasam comes into the conversation, i agree with Kent. Kind Regards Chris Jones

  (Quote)

Peter January 4, 2011 at 5:21 pm

His thesis makes Baby Jesus cry.

  (Quote)

NoriMori March 30, 2011 at 8:56 pm

What is the “error of punctuation” that is supposed to occur in number 3 (“Chapter nine discusses the ‘best evidence’ evolutionists have for evolution, that is, archaeopteryx”)? Are you objecting to the use of quotation marks around the phrase “best evidence” or to the use of a comma after “that is”? Neither one is an error of punctuation.

Where did anyone say it was an error in punctuation?

  (Quote)

NoriMori March 30, 2011 at 9:00 pm

It’s funny whenever people disagree with the truth bad language and sarcasam comes into the conversation, i agree with Kent. Kind Regards Chris Jones

Uh, actually, bad language and sarcasm come into the conversation when we disagree with the non-truth, which is what Kent Hovind’s drivel is. It also comes into the conversation when we’re sick to death of this kind of bullshit. And it also comes into the conversation when we feel like amusing ourselves. :P

Seriously though, do your homework. If you knew even the first thing about evolution, you would see what is so, so, SO horribly wrong with everything Kent Hovind says here.

  (Quote)

Roger June 28, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Kent Hovind is an embarressment to thinking Christians, who acknowledge growing knowledge of God’s creative/sustaining work, and who apply appropriate scriptural studies to the issues. Genesis 1 conveys truth to an Egyptian-educated Hebrew in ways that he can understand. It is truth, but not exhaustive truth. The fuller dimensions of the truth regarding God’s creative work have become more evident as our knowledge has increased.
If some of you atheists would spend more time looking carefully at the latest findings of astronomy and biology, it would become more and more difficult to deny intelligent, transcendent creative design in the cosmos and in earthly nature. Scripture points accurately to that one as the God who has made Himself known to us, in part through his work in the universe and on earth, and more completely through Christ Jesus’ life as described in Scripture.

  (Quote)

NoriMori July 3, 2011 at 9:02 pm

If some of you atheists would spend more time looking carefully at the latest findings of astronomy and biology, it would become more and more difficult to deny intelligent, transcendent creative design in the cosmos and in earthly nature.

No, it wouldn’t, because there is nothing in the findings of either astronomy or biology which even *suggest*, let alone prove, intelligent design at all. Even if they did, this wouldn’t say anything about the identity of such a supposed “designer”. Even if there were evidence of a designer, *which there isn’t*, such a thing would bring us no closer to proving that your God exists. The designer could be anyone.

Scripture points accurately to that one as the God …

Prove that a designer exists and that the designer is your God.

… who has made Himself known to us, in part through his work in the universe and on earth …

Prove that this “work” was your God’s work. *Without begging the question.*

… and more completely through Christ Jesus’ life as described in Scripture.

Scripture does not constitute evidence of God or intelligent design, any more than Harry Potter constitutes evidence of wizards or magic. Just because something is described in a book doesn’t mean it exists or is truthful.

Kent Hovind is an embarressment to thinking Christians …

There are plenty of people who embarrass Christians. Kent Hovind is just the tip of the iceberg. See FSTDT.

And one more thing:

… thinking Christians, who acknowledge growing knowledge of God’s creative/sustaining work, and who apply appropriate scriptural studies to the issues.

Applying “appropriate scriptural study” to an issue does not suggest that one is “thinking”. In fact it suggests quite the opposite, because it’s not any different from taking any other random book and trying to apply its contents to “the issues”. That doesn’t sound like something a “thinking” person would do, unless by “thinking” you mean “jumping through mental hoops”.

  (Quote)

Barry Johnstone. July 18, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Kent Hovind a DOCTOR! You have to be kidding me! Doctor of what?

  (Quote)

Reece November 15, 2011 at 11:36 am

This is a website for dumbasses who believe in evolution! Kent Hovind is probably one of the most brilliant minds there is today. Hes probably one of the truest christians i have ever met. Any one of you idiots who claim to be christians and still believe in evolution and side with the atheists are NOT TRUE CHRISTIANS!!! Cant you see that evolution contridicts your own faith?

  (Quote)

Grischa November 15, 2011 at 11:48 am

I have a PhD in Intelligent Design!

I respect your work Eric, you and your father inspire me greatly! Ive always been a Christian but you and your father have said me in away im not sure you could understand. If its possible i would love to learn more! I would love to get the same PhD as you and your father!

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }