Kent Hovind, the Interview

A short time ago I was able to relay to creationist Kent Hovind a number of questions regarding creation/evolution and young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism. I had somewhat of a mail interview with him and his answers to my questions appear below. Please note he had a list of questions with him and he responded to each although I modified his answers to make it seem as if we had a face-to-face interview, without distorting seriously any of his answers.

Kent is a young-earth creationist and has debated occasionally. His web site is www.drdino.com and he continues to wait for any, if there are any, to give him evidence for evolution.

Stueber: I recently reviewed your web site and take it nobody has proven that evolution is true, at least to your satisfaction. Has anyone made any such attempt at all ever, and if so, what kind of attempt?

Hovind: There have been a few very feeble attempts at my offer. One person told me he had proof of evolution because he had been able to take soybean plants in the laboratory to make these plants resistant to frost. Apparently he had not read my offer because that certainly would not be an example of proof of evolution. Most of the people who look at my offer will quickly admit there is no scientific evidence for evolution and then they'll come back and say, "Can you prove creation?" which is exactly what I hoped they would say. And I'll say "Of course I can't prove creation." Then they say, "What's the big deal?" And I say, "Well, if I can't prove my theory and you can't prove your theory, then why do I have to pay for your's to be taught in public schools." That usually shuts them up, very well.

Stueber: This brings me to another question. Exactly what is acceptable as proof of evolution anyway? To me, proof of evolution does not hinge on a mere fossil find of one animal, an intermediate between, say, a fish and a salamander. It seems that evolution, if true, would make sense along several areas of reality. For instance, does our experience of morals and morality conform to what we would expect in a meaningless universe bound only by chance? To me, trying to prove evolution with one fossil find is like trying to disprove Christianity by pointing out that Jeff, the devout church-going individual, cannot balance his checkbook. How exactly do you see it?

Hovind: This would go into the definition of the word "evolution" which I cover on my web site and seminar notebook. There are two different meanings of the word evolution. There's microevolution which is small variations within the same kind of animal - for instance dogs, coyotes, and wolves are obviously the same kind of animal yet they are different from each other and they probably had a common ancestor. Most people would refer to that as microevolution. What some people want to do is take observable evidence and claim that proves that the dog and the wolf and the coyote came from a rock over 4.5 billion years ago. Now that is silly. So what I'm looking for is proof for what is sometimes called macroevolution, and my offer is clearly spelled out pretty clearly on my web site.

The rest of your question deals with seeing evidence for one fossil as supposedly proof for evolution. In the first place, there aren't any fossils that have been found between major kinds of animals, absolutely none have been found. If you find a fossil that is unusual in the ground all you know is that the animal died. You don't know if it had any children let alone different children and certainly could be an example of an extinct type of animal. In any court of law it wouldn't hold up two seconds as evidence for evolutionary theory. Your comment about evolution bringing into existence morals or morality certainly, I think, is an interesting question. If evolution were true, the most ruthless, the toughest, the meanest, the ones with the least amount of conscience, would survive. And nobody should have a conscience if the evolutionary scenario were true.

Stueber: Now I'd like to discuss the debates between old-earth creationists and young-earth ones. Both sides seem equally dismayed at the other so at this time I'd like to say how I see their debate. Old-earth creationists seem to see scientific evidence for an old-earth and seek to interpret the Bible in that context. And, I might add, creationists like Hugh Ross can be very credible. Young-earth creationists, and I know you are one of them, seem to see the Bible as the authoritative source, the supreme revelation if you will, of how the universe got here and it is to be trusted above all other evidence. Marvin Lubenow, in one of his books, suggests old-earth creationists go by a "dual revelation" account of creation in which God creates and reveals his act of creating in his Word and also reveals his methods and timing in nature. It seems Lubenow would not have us rely so much on evidence derived from nature whereas it seems old-earth creationists rely primarily on evidence guided by nature. How do you see this debate?

I know Henry Morris has suggested old-earth creationists are trying to compromise with evolutionists by adopting a view that favors an old earth. I don't see it this way and I wonder if the old earth would ever be an issue if we didn't have Darwinism to argue against. Do this thought experiment: suppose there never was Darwin or evolution in the modern sense. Would the age of the earth ever be an issue among creationists who are seeking a proper time interval in which God acts? I'm questioning whether young-earth creationists have any compromise with old-earth ones here or whether you see it as an all-or-nothing issue.

Hovind: You might want to get that book Creation and Time, it's answers to Hugh Ross' heresies, actually. There are numerous things Hugh Ross believes that are absolutely unscriptural and I think he probably does love the Lord and loves the Bible and I would love to debate him on some of these topics. He's doing much more damage than good.

As far as myself being a young-earth creationist, it's absolutely true and I make no apologies for that. I do see the Bible as an authoritative source, but that's not the only reason I believe the earth is young. I see overwhelming scriptural evidence and overwhelming scientific evidence the earth is young and this entire universe cannot be billions of years old as we're teaching our children and if you'd watch my video tape number one, the second hour of that tape, which is two-and-a- half hours long, deals with that subject.

As far as old-earth creationists relying on evidence from nature, I would like to see any evidence from nature that indicates the universe is billions of years old. I've studied this subject in great detail for many years and I think the evidence could easily be interpreted to say the universe is not billions of years old. So I think to try to classify the debate as between those who look at the Bible vs. those who look at nature is not a good way to classify the debate. It's those who look at nature and see their preconceived ideas for evolution vs. those who look at nature and see their preconceived ideas of a young creation. Both obviously come into this discussion with prejudice, everybody does, and then they come away with evidence to support their prejudice. I think a young-earth position supports the scriptural and scientific evidence and I would love to see some evidence for the old-earth view if there is any.

You ask if the age of the earth would be an issue among creationists. I think it would because Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 that the creation of Adam was the beginning and the same thing in Mark 10:6. It says in Exodus 20:11 that God made everything in six days. It says there was no death until Adam sinned - in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. So I think you'd have to stretch or throw out a lot of passages to say the Earth is billions of years old. In my seminar notebook I give quite a list of verses that deal with the beginning and it's pretty obvious. For instance, Abel was the first righteous man to die in the beginning. So there are numerous references to scripture that would show the beginning was not millions of years ago. So I think this would be an issue regardless of Darwin.

Stueber: Let's turn our attention to evolution and culture now. Evolutionists have at times wondered why so many people refuse to believe in evolution and chalk this up to lack of education. But I say that people do understand evolution. I wrote a letter to the journal First Things a short time ago saying that evolution has little "selling power," by which I mean the idea of evolution - a meaningless universe governed by chance - has very little appeal. In contrast, what I call the "religious" view has much appeal and that is why people either stubbornly (and I use the word "stubbornly" because that's how I believe many atheist evolutionists look at it) cling to some sort of religion. That's probably why few choose evolution and atheism out of a feeling that it has more appeal than religion. So many of those who are liberals and nonchristian liberals are in positions where they can influence the masses and hence they have a desire for life to be meaningless. It liberates them. Most of us who have no power as them do have no need for such liberation to control the many and hence see more appeal in religious transcendence. How do you see it if at all you agree with me on this?

Hovind: I get what you say about the proposed "lack of education" all the time in debates. They're trying to frame the debates as "you're smart, we're dumb". I have to disagree with that, one-hundred percent. I have a Ph.d in education and an IQ of about 160 and taught science 15 years and do debates against anyone who'll debate me and it's not necessarily a lack of understanding. It's because people do understand evolution and the theory just doesn't lack selling power. It's ridiculous. It lacks common sense. There is no scientific evidence for macroevolution. The real problem is people who understand this can separate the microevolution, which should really be called variation which is scientific, from macroevolution which is a silly religion.

Stueber: Evolution apparently is under a severe amount of strain and creationists are making their case heard. Do you ever see a time when the evolutionary paradigm will be replaced, or do you see an endless series of adding ad hoc adjustments to evolution so as it can never be replaced by anything slightly creationist. Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker thesis seems the beginning of this, a mystical transcendent naturalistic principle guiding the development of life. What's your opinion?

Hovind: I think it would have been replaced immediately when it was first discovered if it weren't for the fact that the only alternative, which is creation, means a creator and then there's a set of rules. I think there's too much baggage that comes with evolutionary theory and I doubt it will be replaced any time soon because that's the theory that justifies the new world order and one world government because our founding fathers who had the creation philosophy, or paradigm, said we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. There are those that think we get our rights from the government, actually from them, the super rich who would like to rule the world. They don't like the idea of there being a creator bringing them freedom because laws come from a creator - in a constitutional republic, which is what America started to be. There are those who would like us to have a democracy which is a terrible form of government which always leads to dictatorship. So I think because of the political ramifications evolution will continue to be the accepted paradigm by many.

As far as Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker thesis, I agree it's trying to answer a question - he certainly did a lousy job of answering the question, by the way - and I'd love to debate him on this topic. They are always trying to find a way to have the complex arise by chance and that is not what we observe anywhere in nature either historically or in the present. I think it is ridiculous but they don't want to throw it out because, as Thomas Huxley or one of the Huxley boys said, it gives us sexual freedom. They like evolutionary theory.

Well, I hope this was a help. Call if you have any other questions.

Jeff Stueber, jstueber@charter.net