Content deleted Content added
Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs) Revert to revision 136081271 dated 2007-06-05 16:06:17 by 220.253.64.111 using popups |
|||
Line 174:
This definition of "evolution" differs from the one used by scientists. By the generally accepted definition of 'evolution', only item number 5 deals with the process of evolution. Items 1 and 2 fall under [[cosmology]] and [[astronomy]], while items 3 and 4 refer to [[abiogenesis]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0&eurl=</ref>
====Responses====
Critics argue that the offer is merely a publicity stunt, that it is deliberately designed to be impossible to win because it requires the claimant to disprove all possible theories for the origin of species, no matter how ridiculous, and that it therefore reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and the [[scientific method]]. Critics say that his description of evolution does not match with the scientific definition and that he conflates evolution with other unrelated issues in the description of his challenge (see Hovind's list of "five major events" above). Furthermore, it would be impossible to prove gravity under the same conditions as Hovind requires.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://true.wxcs.com/hovind/flaw-impossible.htm|title=Hovind indirectly admits that his $250,000 Offer is impossible, and is flawed|publisher=Truth Radio|date=[[2005-04-05]]|accessdate=2006-07-14}}</ref> Similar issues on the burden of proof are common in most fields of pseudoscience, such as [[cryptozoology]].
Some creationists also do not approve of Hovind's offer. [[Answers in Genesis]] said it "would prefer that creationists refrained from gimmicks like this."<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_hovind_analysis.asp Answers in Genesis]: Response to Kent Hovind</ref>
| |||