…and this is a 
A challenge!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 27, 2006 9:37 AM, by PZ Myers
Here's a request from gnosos:
"Dr" Hovind is giving a speech on my campus tomorrow night in a 450 seat auditorium. Usually, questioners only get 15 seconds at the mic at these kinds of things, and I'm trying to think of a question that approaches one of his many glaring errors in thought in a novel way. Do you (or your readers) have any ideas about what you (or they) would say to Kent Hovind given 15 seconds?
I'm cynical: I think the rapid-fire limitation is intended to prevent deep, thoughtful questions or any kind of considered rebuttal, and I also think he'll just reply to anything with more empty-headed, rote creationist jingo, so I think it's all an exercise in futility. But maybe someone here can come up with a simple stumper of a question.
Comments
I have a question for Mr. Hovind.
If we are intelligently designed, why do men have nipples and why do they secrete "witches milk" sometimes?
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | February 27, 2006 9:59 AM
If there is an intelligent designer, why does She/He/It (abbreviation S.H.%T.) act just as randomly as does a universe without an intelligent designer?
Posted by: Kristine | February 27, 2006 10:11 AM
If dinosaurs still exist, why are there pygmies and dwarves?
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 10:15 AM
"If there is an intelligent designer, why have my knees worn out before I was finished using them? And my eyes? And just what was the intelligent designer thinking of when he put the prostate where it is? And why did the intelligent designer make it so that most humans can't go out unprotected under our native sun without risking dying from cancer? What what's the deal with cancer anyway?"
Posted by: Mark Paris | February 27, 2006 10:17 AM
Hovind had a 2 hour debate with Massimo Pigliucci (on www.infidelguy.com).
Men's nipples?... Men have nipples because it joins different types of skin at that point.
Wisdom teeth?... People were bigger back then, so there was less crowding the jaw. Now that we're smaller, our teeth don't fit.
The problem is that you can't stump Hovind because his answers don't have to make any kind of sense at all.
Posted by: Mike | February 27, 2006 10:18 AM
You could ask him why he keeps repeating the same lies over and over again, even after they're debunked, and since he's so good at lying, does it mean that he's really an agent of Satan?
Posted by: Ray | February 27, 2006 10:22 AM
I have a question for Mr. Hovind...If there is an intelligent designer, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
Posted by: Shygetz | February 27, 2006 10:22 AM
Why did the designer make things so complicated? Why not just create dolls with souls? The more simplex something is, the less chance for error.
Posted by: Rick | February 27, 2006 10:22 AM
You can't invent questions that will stump someone like this. He's preaching largely to his own choir and is not bound by rules of reason -- even the most thought provoking question can always be met with "the intent of the Designer is not known to us and perhaps can't be known by us". Attacking him in that setting is a losing proposition.
Posted by: bmurray | February 27, 2006 10:26 AM
Ask him why does the ID love beetles so?
Posted by: Steve | February 27, 2006 10:27 AM
Is there any specific piece of evidence that would convince you that an intelligent designer does not exist?
Posted by: Kieran | February 27, 2006 10:28 AM
just 4 fun,
what about "If earth is just few thousand years old, why do we see supernovae in galaxies hundreds of thousands of light-years away, expanding with the same speed of light as today" ?
Posted by: T_U_T | February 27, 2006 10:29 AM
or if the ID designed us to talk out of our mouths, why is he using is arsehole?
Posted by: Steve | February 27, 2006 10:30 AM
(As others have pointed out, you're not going to stump someone who is basically working from a different rulebook. The best you can do is make it clear that he's precommitted to the conclusion, and that's not scientific.)
Posted by: Kieran | February 27, 2006 10:30 AM
1.Why are human beings sometimes born with tails?
2. What about diseases that outsmart the ID immune system- are they intelligently designed?
Have examples handy. He might deny 1. He might say the devil did 2.
Posted by: polliwog | February 27, 2006 10:32 AM
Yayus, brethren, the designer works in mysterious ways...
Actually, I've been doing a little homework in preparation for a visit to my campus by Dembski next month. You know, you can't get him with the obviously-poor-design argument any more; he actually has an essay posted called 'Intelligent design is not optimal design' which basically sez: "Hey, we never said the designer was any good at it, just that it's obviously design, good, bad or ugly." So does that imply that the Designer is not, perhaps, omnipotent...?
No; the designer works in mysterious ways...
(but, really, it's Science! No, really!)
Posted by: CCP | February 27, 2006 10:36 AM
Sin cursed world, duh.
Posted by: darukaru | February 27, 2006 10:40 AM
I think the "if we're intelligently designed, why arn't we perfect" strategy is a bad one. A creationist is just going to give some bs about how we're not in a position to question why jebuz created us the way he did.
I think Kristine wins.
Posted by: Jeff | February 27, 2006 10:55 AM
If we didn't descend from animals, then why does it hurt your tail-bone when you fall flat on your arse, MONKEY-BOY?
Posted by: Magnum | February 27, 2006 11:02 AM
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 11:02 AM
IDrs claim that if evolution were viable scientific theory, it would be disprovable, which it is. But how can ID be disprovable if it completely lacks methods or means, or even reason more than "he did it because that’s what he wanted."?
Actually, just occasionally blurt out, "Men have nipples!" from the audience.
Posted by: dbpitt | February 27, 2006 11:06 AM
How's this for a stumper?
Why should these good people here tonight give you more money, when you've been perpetrating income taxe fraud for years?
Posted by: Jim | February 27, 2006 11:10 AM
Just say "Isn't there a commandment against lying?" He probably won't get it, and that would be very satisfying humilation.
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | February 27, 2006 11:10 AM
Dr. Hovind, when you say that a creature's design is "irreducibly complex" and thus demonstrates the existence of a creator, aren't you making a leap of faith instead of a reasoned argument?
Posted by: Rob Thornton | February 27, 2006 11:10 AM
Hovnid's "YEC", right? He's one claimimg the flood killed off the dinosaurs (including the small ones), right?
So, if "Noah did all that the LORD commanded him" (Genesis 7:5), meaning he took "seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth." (Genesis 7:2-3), then he *had* to have taken dinosaurs with him on the arc.
So what happened to them since?
For that matter, were the shoal fossils found in China in the past 5-10 years be "birds" or "animals"?
Posted by: Joe Shelby | February 27, 2006 11:12 AM
Given the vast number of books that claim to have been written through divine inspiration, how do you (Hovind) know that the one you rely on is, in fact, the right one?
Posted by: Jake | February 27, 2006 11:14 AM
"Does a dog possess the Buddha-nature, or not?"
Posted by: idlemind | February 27, 2006 11:24 AM
If you could win a soul to Christ by misrepresenting science in your talks, would that be all right with the Lord?
Posted by: polliwog | February 27, 2006 11:26 AM
The point of asking a question is not to stump him but to provoke the rare thought in a member of his audience. Thus the question is what's important, not the predictable stupid answer.
Oh, and don't call him "Dr." Stick to "Mr." Respect for his person is good and politic; respect for his "credentials" only helps him.
So, use the whole 15 seconds to give as many examples of unintelligent design as you can. Then, finish with something like, "Can you explain why an intelligent designer would make so many mistakes?"
Posted by: lovable liberal | February 27, 2006 11:28 AM
Hey, I've got another one: "You don't like the concept of mathematical chance. But if the intelligent designer exists simply because the intelligent designer has always existed, couldn't you say that the intelligent designer happens to be the intelligent designer only by CHANCE?" (My previous question restated, actually.)
Posted by: Kristine | February 27, 2006 11:31 AM
How about "could you please detail an example of a repeatable biology EXPERIMENT using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, the conclusion of which strongly points toward a designer?"
Posted by: Nate | February 27, 2006 11:31 AM
Jon Stewart's question to Dembski, about why he has a scrotum with his testicles hanging out in a vulnerable place. You'll at least get him to blush.
Posted by: John | February 27, 2006 11:34 AM
Or maybe even, "can you outline the steps of the scientific method, and explain how they are consistently used by those favoring intelligent design, and perhaps how this use differs from the way godless biologists use them?"
Posted by: Nate | February 27, 2006 11:34 AM
"Mr. Hovind, are you on crack?"
Posted by: fwiffo | February 27, 2006 11:35 AM
Many of the suggested questions for the guy are too logical. Hovind obviously doesn't care about making good arguments; his technique is to make emotional appeals to the audience of believers, cloaked in scientific sounding words. Any question you ask should be designed not to rebut his argument but to ruin his calm, to destroy his hold on the audience, and to cause him to become emotional and flustered. If you achieve this, he will be less charismatic, less authoritative & more insecure, and ultimately less appealing for the audience.
Posted by: Space_Monkey | February 27, 2006 11:35 AM
We now know that the human embryo has approimately 10 tail vertebrea that extend beyond the anus. This tail is identical to other primate tails at this stage of development, as it includes a spinal chord, notochord, and mesenchyme (which is a precursor to connective tissue, bone tissue, and circulatory tissue).
After about 2 weeks, most of this tail regresses. The cells that form about 6 of the vertebrea die along with the other complex tisues that accompany them. These dead cells are then comsumed by the embryo's digestive system. A few vertebrea remain, however they are reduced further and they eventually become the coccyx.
Why would a intelligent designer, specifically an omnipotent and omniscient one, design humans so that they have real tails during embryonic development, only to take them away a few weeks later? Why not just remove the tail genes altogether?
Posted by: Frank Sullivan | February 27, 2006 11:37 AM
Just say "Isn't there a commandment against lying?"
The commandment is against bearing false witness against one's neighbor. There is not a commandment against lying generally.
Posted by: Chuck | February 27, 2006 11:40 AM
"Oh, and don't call him "Dr." Stick to "Mr.""
Does "Mr." stand for "Mocktor"?
Posted by: Frank Sullivan | February 27, 2006 11:46 AM
Since the defence now against pointing out poor design is that the designer doesn't have to be good, why not ask him this: Given the many instances of poor design, is it really correct to refer to an "intelligent" designer? Isn't there a better term for a designer that does such a bad job? Like "bad designer"? Or "incompetent designer"? What about "half-assed designer"?
Posted by: Mark Paris | February 27, 2006 11:49 AM
Mr. Hovind, Would you be willing to participate in a written, formal debate with a recognized authority of evolution, with the results published on the Internet? Why or why not?
Or perhaps
Mr. Hovind, Is it true that you won't participate in a written, formal debate with a recognized authority of evolution because a spoken debate format allows you to list a lot of unsupported claims without fear of having them all rebutted?
Let's see him try the "Hovind Gallup" in a written debate, and have each of his points slaughtered.
The point of the question would be to show the students that Hovind is not acting in good faith - that he is actually using a spoken debate and some fast talking to 'snow' the listener with a lot of claims that can't be debunked quickly, or on the spot.
Posted by: Calladus | February 27, 2006 11:49 AM
Just ask him to explain how we would discover that there had been a global flood if never had the Bible's account.
Posted by: Martin Brazeau | February 27, 2006 11:52 AM
Lots of good ideas here. Please recall that Kent Hovind is a YEC, not an IDist. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/31/8219/5938 summarizes his position.
Posted by: Zeteo Eurisko | February 27, 2006 11:56 AM
I actually like the "What evidence would convince you that the world was not made 6,000 years ago in just 6 days?" Although one of the "PYGMIES + DWARFS" ones would probably be better at making him lose his composure. Or, rant about some mysterious, advanced technology that he uses during his talk (microphones, projector, etc.), point at him and yell "Witch!"
Posted by: Shygetz | February 27, 2006 11:57 AM
So Hovind does not talk about an intelligent designer? He actually believes in YEC? In that case, there is no point in trying to ask him a question and expect a rational answer. He has given himself over totally to delusion. Save all those questions for the IDers who pretend to science.
Posted by: Mark Paris | February 27, 2006 11:59 AM
My question would be brief.
Since you lie about having a Ph.D, why should be trust you?
Posted by: steve s | February 27, 2006 12:00 PM
I've actually put some thought into what one question I would ask to Hovind if given the opportunity. So far I've come up with this: shared broken genes and shared retro virus insertions (an explainer on the latter can be found here).
This is the greatest proof for common ancestry that I'm aware of and its a completely fair thing to ask because Hovind is certainly aware of it. During his radio show a guy named Jared Hoag called up and asked him why humans share broken genes with apes. Unfortunately, it seems that the audio file from the segment is no longer available at this site. But, his response was something to this effect: "This could be evidence for a common catastrophe; if you found a whole bunch of animals with concussions you would assume a hail storm, not common ancestry". This shortly before he announced that he had just ran out of time.
Posted by: Desruc | February 27, 2006 12:06 PM
Another route is, you could get him to start with the conspiracy talk.
"There are 100 biologists who believe in evolution, for every one who believes in creationism. Are you saying those biologists are stupid and decieved, or cowardly and lying?"
Posted by: steve s | February 27, 2006 12:06 PM
I'd ask "Do you yourself go to doctors trained in intelligent design? Or do you prefer doctors who have degrees from institutions in which intelligent design is considered laughable quackery? When your followers ask for advice on medical care for themselves and their children, which type of doctor do you urge them to go to?"
Or maybe "Why do you go to all the trouble to travel around and tell these lies to people? Is it for the money? The fame? Do you have any idea how predatory you seem to the people who actually see clearly what you're doing? Are you capable of understanding what you're doing to our nation by destroying young Americans' ability to understand science?"
Just FYI: EVERY question you ask that presupposes an intelligent designer, such as "Why did the designer do ...?" places you at a disadvantage.
Merely by phrasing the question that way, you buy into his field of argument.
You're essentially saying "Okay, I'll agree there's a designer. Now I want to ask you a question about what He intended."
You may not think so, but that's what almost every listener will hear.
It really is a subliminal suggestion to the listener that a designer exists.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 27, 2006 12:25 PM
Were the Sumerians before or after the Flood?
If he says before, ask how is it that they wrote about the flood then?
if after, well they existed 5000 or more years ago, so much for a 6000 year old earth.
Posted by: Brian | February 27, 2006 12:29 PM
I like the "Are you on crack?" one, mainly because any truly serious question is going to either get ignored or handwaved away.
Have some fun with it.
Posted by: ceejayoz | February 27, 2006 12:33 PM
I think this is the best one so far:
polliwog:
If you could win a soul to Christ by misrepresenting science in your talks, would that be all right with the Lord?
I think it would have the greatest impact on the audience, and that's really the important thing. I would think he'd answer something like "There's no need to lie, the evidence doesn't need to be misrepresented to lead souls to Christ" but the seed will have been planted in the audience to question his motives.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | February 27, 2006 12:38 PM
I think this is exactly right.
The fact is, you can't ask a question in the 15 seconds which can stump him, because his system doesn't work like that. The whole setup is designed to allow him to use his system, which involves throwing vast quantities of arguments at any dissenter so quickly that they can't possibly rebut all of them in whatever time they have - and there is no check on him changing the subject so as to conceal his failure to actually respond to any question put.
His modus operandi isn't about having a rational discussion - and there is simply no point in attempting to engage in one - in doing so, you're simply feeding his system.
Your only hope is to point out that this is what is happening - that this is simply a demonstration of his system - and that he won't engage in a discussion outside of that format. Maybe somebody in the audience will see what is happening.
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | February 27, 2006 12:38 PM
If you could win a soul to Christ by misrepresenting science in your talks, would that be all right with the Lord?
Posted by: polliwog
The winner, hands down.
Posted by: Phila | February 27, 2006 12:43 PM
"Mr. Hovind, I'm a Christian, but I'm troubled by the obviously poor science being peddled by the ID and YEC crowd. No, I don't have time to go into it in 15 seconds. My question is: is believing in creationism a salvation issue? Do I have to agree with you to be a Christian?"
Posted by: Andrew | February 27, 2006 12:43 PM
I second Kieran's proposed question. The only points you could resonably make in that venue are ones that establish his level of intellectual honesty and scientific rigour. Asking him to tell the audience what evidence would falsify ID is the perfect question for testing both such things.
Posted by: ochreous | February 27, 2006 12:56 PM
"Mr. Hovind, as you realize, in science new evidence sometimes means we change our theory. If eventually new discoveries make it absolutely clear that evolution happened after all, do you advise everyone here to be honest and renounce Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? In other words -- is evolution your test for God?"
Give the religious folk in the auditorium something to mull over.
Posted by: Sastra | February 27, 2006 12:58 PM
Could God have used evolution to create new species?
If the response is "no", then say "I thought God was omnipotent. Who are you to say what God can't and can do? If you're denying that God could have used evolution, you're denying His omnipotence, and thus denying God Himself."
Posted by: shooboo | February 27, 2006 1:13 PM
Yes, Mr. Hovind, one of the things you constantly harp on is that God created kinds, and species are variations of these kinds. For example, all dogs, and, presumably, wolves, hyenas, foxes, and such are all the same kind. Since the only way you've ever given for determining what a kind is is to "step back and look at it", how can you justify saying that apes, monkeys, and humans aren't the same kind? After all, if you step back and look at them, aren't they pretty much the same basic design with some variations here and there?
Posted by: Alan | February 27, 2006 1:18 PM
I'm considering asking one that is general enough for the audience and gets at his method without directly asking. Tell me what you think of:
"There are many branches of science that provide evidences of an old earth. Among these are geology, biology, cosmology, and physics. Does a branch of science exist of which you are willing to concede that a millions-of-years-believing scientist may have a better understanding than you?"
Posted by: Zeteo Eurisko | February 27, 2006 1:21 PM
For a person like Hovind, you cannot beat him at his own game. What you can do is make him look bad in front of his flock.
Who would be more likely to use false claims and trickery to make their point - Satan or God?
Why have you spent all this time with false claims and trickery in God's name when you obviously must be doing Satan's work?
Posted by: DouglasG | February 27, 2006 1:22 PM
Maybe this is over the line, but did anyone see that ALI G episode with Kent Hovind on?
I laughed so hard at Ali G's insistence that Kent Hovind "Left a floater" in the green room toilet.
I guess with that in mind, I'd ask Kent "Did you REALLY leave a floater?"
Posted by: Joe | February 27, 2006 1:31 PM
What about a simple double negative question like: Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift? or can god create a universe so big he cannot control it?
Posted by: Mike | February 27, 2006 1:40 PM
If God loves truth, why would he deceive us by filling rocks with fossils and space with starlight from distant galaxies?
Posted by: aiabx | February 27, 2006 2:02 PM
Here's a quick one:
Mr. Hovind, have you had a flu shot this year? Why?
Posted by: Marc Connor | February 27, 2006 2:05 PM
To help out, Hovind definitely would not have gotten a flu shot, since he thinks innoculations are part of a government conspiracy.
He'll also use the ole' "variable speed of light" explanation for the distant stars/galaxies.
He also wouldn't go for any of the ID questions because he "believe(s) the Bible cover to cover" and is quite the literalist. You know, when it suits his purpose.
I'll vote also for the question about converting souls by lying about/misrepresenting science.
Posted by: Alan | February 27, 2006 2:14 PM
If the scrotum question is out, I'd go with simply, "As a highly respected scientist, you know that any reputable theory must have a means by which it could hypothetically be disproved. How could intelligent design [better: the existence of God] be disproved?"
Then be sure to record the flailing.
Posted by: BJHokanson | February 27, 2006 2:14 PM
Mr. Hovind..Please if you may....explain why I am not the intelligent designer of which you speak.
Posted by: gbusch | February 27, 2006 2:23 PM
Ask him why plesiosaurs, trilobytes, icktheosaurs, ammonites, and all the prehistoric sea animals died in the flood and their bones turned into rocks but whales, dolphins, sealions, and fish all survived? If it was because whales were stronger, why did fish survive? If it was because there was a difference in climate, isn't that proof of Darwin's Natural Selection?
Naah, too technical.
I'd probably ask, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Posted by: Siamang | February 27, 2006 2:47 PM
Or better yet:
Mr. Hovind, please prove that I am not God.
Posted by: Jake | February 27, 2006 2:50 PM
I appreciate several of the questions posted. Desruc, your discussion of retrovirus insertions is one of the most compelling and comprehensible evidences of evolution I could mention, but I fear I would lose the audience. Any comments on my previous idea:
I may follow up with:
If he says no to the first question, he betrays his intellectual dishonesty. If he says yes, there is a chink in his armor, and I doubt he could provide an example for the follow-up question. This is much like the lady who asked Bush in the '04 race, "Can you give me an example of three mistakes you made as president?"
Dr. Myers - any thoughts from experience?
Posted by: Zeteo Eurisko | February 27, 2006 2:51 PM
I would simply ask: "Mr. Hovind, can you please articulate your definition of science?"
Posted by: BL | February 27, 2006 2:54 PM
Perhaps I should ask, "Can you give me three examples of when you have abandon a creation-based theory or concept as a result of testing by evidence?"
Posted by: Zeteo Eurisko | February 27, 2006 2:56 PM
If all he gives are meaningless answers, ask meaningless questions and see if he gives you a real answer...
What's the difference between a duck?
The expected non-sensical answer:
One of its legs are both the same.
Posted by: Martha | February 27, 2006 3:05 PM
If God created man (and woman) on the sixth day, why are there still monkeys?
Posted by: LilLeaguer | February 27, 2006 3:08 PM
there must be a newspaper at your campus. could you audiotape the lecture, or just take notes, then submit an article with some of the most glaring inconsistencies countered with factual rebuttal? and maybe preface the whole thing with exactly the question suggested above: why is this guy willing to stand and speak uninterrupted in front of us, only allowing a few seconds to ask questions, but he doesn't want to share the stage with someone who claims as much expertise as he has, but in a different field?
Posted by: katie | February 27, 2006 3:10 PM
I love the suggestion someone made above: "Since you lie about having a Ph.D, why should be trust you?" That's at least good for snarky entertainment purposes.
I like this one even more: "If you could win a soul to Christ by misrepresenting science in your talks, would that be all right with the Lord?" This one is great not only because it might make Hovind flinch but also because it would appeal to the values of the Christians in the audience.
Every now and then I teach a Bible as Lit course. When I speak to students about this stuff at the beginning of the course, I begin by referring to the passage in the gospels where Jesus tells the disciples, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees." The disciples respond by saying (loosely translated) "Huh? Did someone forget to bring the bread?" Jesus (no doubt shaking his head in disgust) then tells the disciples he was speaking metaphorically about the doctrine of the Pharisees, not literally about bread.
Among other things, this passage suggests that the Bible's language is at least sometimes meant to be understood as figurative rather than literal. Jesus himself says so! Also, if we can trust the gospels, it tells us that biblical language is sometimes misunderstood, even by people who were "there," when people mistake the figurative for the literal.
I then ask my students: When you're reading your Bibles, how do you decide whether to read a given passage--say, the opening verses of Genesis--literally or figuratively? Please explain the criteria you use to make that crucial decision. They typically wind up admitting they've never even considered this question.
Other questions: Do you think you're better at understanding this stuff than Peter and the other disciples were? Isn't it possible that you're making the same mistake that the gospels say they made?
I really try to stress that, with the single exception of the "leaven of the Pharisees" passage, the Bible doesn't engage in the sort of "metacommentary" that would tell us how we are supposed to read it. Of course, all Bible readers constantly (and usually unconsciously) make interpretive decisions about whether to read literally or metaphorically--but those decisions obviously cannot be said to be based in the Bible itself, for they must be made before one even knows what the Bible means. For my fundie students, the point is that their beliefs are not, as they like to claim, "based on the Bible." Their beliefs are instead based on interpretive decisions that precede their Bible-reading and that they've never even thought examine.
Posted by: David Mazel | February 27, 2006 3:13 PM
All the ID stuff is wasted on Kent; he's the nuttiest of the YEC crowd; created "kinds" and floods and lifespan-lengthening cloud covers. The deal with him is that he's very charming and that's why he insists on public debates. He can "win" by trotting out mounds of shit with a confident smile and end it with a cheesy zinger that makes you smile along with him.
The only achilles heel he really has is that he's a complete liar. And the only way to really expose it properly is in print, which he adamantly refuses to do. He's in-person personable. The funny thing is that he refuses to debate in print format because he claims he has "no time" for it. Oh sure, he'll drive or fly around the country to debate for a few hours, but using those same hours to write down what he has to say? No way.
Let him know that debating, long the domain of people with things to hide (*cough* politicians and lawyers *cough*), is a terrible way to debate science which typically takes decades just to LEARN and has taken centuries (millenia?) to BUILD. If he won't debate in a format that allows for time to research (for both the debaters AND the audience), then he remains outside the realm of the respectable. Anyone who will only debate science in person is pretty obviously a charlatan. Why get science (or even religion, for that matter) from a charlatan?
Posted by: pough | February 27, 2006 3:19 PM
I like the idea of the "Why don't you do a written debate?" question, but what about just giving him a chance to expound on one of his other crackpot opinions that may not play as well as his religious ramblings? I suggest trying to get him started on vaccinations. Or taxes. Anything else is just giving him a chance to preach to the choir.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | February 27, 2006 3:19 PM
Maybe something totally stupid:
.
If we're not descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 3:23 PM
Tell him the dinosaurs are stomping all over his website for using their name to defraud the public:
http://www.netdisaster.com/go.php?mode=dino&url=http://www.drdino.com/
Posted by: Kymeia | February 27, 2006 3:27 PM
I agree that this is the best so far:
polliwog:
"If you could win a soul to Christ by misrepresenting science in your talks, would that be all right with the Lord?"
Hovind could duck the question like this: "There is no need to misrepresent science.... I am doing real science. So neither I nor God have to worry about the question."
IMO, you should try to think of *ALL* of the possible responses to any question you ask *before* you ask it, and think of you own replies, so that you are in a position to respond quickly and authoritatively.
--------
Perhaps something like this could work too: "You seem like a good scientist, and an honest man, so I'm sure you can answer this for me. [Said with a sincere tone of voice.] So if you woke up one morning, and found that you and your theory had been completely discredited, what would you do? [Said with a more and more commanding tone of voice, as if you are *telling* him what to do, not asking a question.]"
The point of this is that at first you are disarming him by ingratiating yourself to him, and then quickly becoming dominant over him and placing him under the pressure of that situation.
The key is to be utterly confident, using your tone of voice to maximum effect, with the hope that it gets to him emotionally.
If he keeps his cool, how could he respond?
Posted by: Space_Monkey | February 27, 2006 3:43 PM
If he's a YEC and a fundamentalist, none of the questions above, except perhaps the "would you lie for Jesus" one, would make a dimple. Fundamentalists are not scientists; they are not even rational. They don't believe in reason or science unless it confirms their prejudices. They behave exactly as satan is said to behave, weaving their attractive lies to lure people in. There is simply no point in talking to or about him unless you want to set out intentionally to embarrass him. Not that I'm against that.
Posted by: Mark Paris | February 27, 2006 3:48 PM
In the vein of just having fun with it, I'd suggest
"Can I tell you about my friend Hank? He'd love to give you a million dollars..."
Posted by: carlie | February 27, 2006 3:48 PM
Although this will go over the heads of the vast majority of students:
"Why do you remind me so much of 'Professor' Harold Hill?"
We've got trouble right here in River City -
and it starts with E ...
Posted by: natural cynic | February 27, 2006 3:56 PM
What exactly is the definition of a kind?
Posted by: Corkscrew | February 27, 2006 3:57 PM
"Explain, if you are able, the scientific method."
Posted by: pndmnm | February 27, 2006 4:07 PM
"Mr. Hovind, how many dogs were on the Ark?"
Posted by: CC | February 27, 2006 4:14 PM
I have been doing some reading. Clearly the best page rebutting Kent Hovind specifically is http://www.kent-hovind.com/ -- I highly recommend it.
From their page, http://www.kent-hovind.com/puzzling.htm , I borrow the following questions:
Posted by: Zeteo Eurisko | February 27, 2006 4:59 PM
Since the universe 'appears' to be much older than 6000 years and there 'appears' to be many examples of poor design in both humans and animals, are you saying that the Designer is imcompetent or a liar, or both?
Posted by: Ashley Moore | February 27, 2006 5:03 PM
Why, he does remind me of "Professor" Hill!
"Mr. Hovind, when a woman's got a brain, and you've got none, why should she take advice from you? Even if you can quote Genesis and Leviticus and all them other high-falutin' Revelations." --Marion the Librarian
Posted by: Kristine | February 27, 2006 5:09 PM