Bronze-level articleKent Hovind's doctoral dissertations

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(External links)
(Misreadings of history, philosophy and damn near everything else)
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
== Misreadings of history, philosophy and damn near everything else ==
 
== Misreadings of history, philosophy and damn near everything else ==
Hovind attempts to provide a genealogy of evolution that starts with God striking down the Tower of Babel. He traces this through ancient Greek philosophy, eastern religions and the Church Fathers. He gets large chunks of this ancient history wrong, and what little bits of truth do sneak in are surrounded by oceans of irrelevance and idiocy.
+
Hovind attempts to provide a genealogy of evolution that starts with God striking down the [[Tower of Babel]]. He traces this through ancient Greek philosophy, eastern religions and the Church Fathers. He gets large chunks of this ancient history wrong, and what little bits of truth do sneak in are surrounded by oceans of irrelevance and idiocy.
  
Socrates, Hovind tells us, didn't write "many" books. Technically true: Socrates didn't write ''any'' books, and is infamous for asserting that one shouldn't write books! Hovind describes Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as being "pantheists", and thus attempts to understand in modern terms a religious system that does not easily match modern expectations and categories. If you want to apply a modern label, polytheism catches the spirit a lot better than pantheism. (There are some ancient philosophers you can describe as holding broadly pantheistic ideas: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Zeno and Heraclitus among the Greeks and the Roman philosophers Marcus Aurelius and Plotinus.)
+
[[Socrates]], Hovind tells us, didn't write "many" books. Technically true: Socrates didn't write ''any'' books, and is infamous for asserting that one shouldn't write books! Hovind describes Socrates, [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] as being "pantheim|pantheists]]", and thus attempts to understand in modern terms a [[Greko Roman religion|religious system]] that does not easily match modern expectations and categories. If you want to apply a modern label, [[polytheism]] catches the spirit a lot better than pantheism. (There are some ancient philosophers you can describe as holding broadly pantheistic ideas: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Zeno and Heraclitus among the Greeks and the Roman philosophers Marcus Aurelius and Plotinus.)
  
 
Hovind fails when he attempts to understand Plato and Socrates, ascribing positions to them that are held by participants in Platonic dialogues, most of which feature Socrates as a character, but only some of the dialogues can be thought of as containing the Socrates of history, while the others have Socrates as a literary tool that Plato can use.
 
Hovind fails when he attempts to understand Plato and Socrates, ascribing positions to them that are held by participants in Platonic dialogues, most of which feature Socrates as a character, but only some of the dialogues can be thought of as containing the Socrates of history, while the others have Socrates as a literary tool that Plato can use.
Line 28: Line 28:
 
Hovind asserts that Democrates is the founder of Atomism, rather than Democritus.
 
Hovind asserts that Democrates is the founder of Atomism, rather than Democritus.
  
"Zoroaster" is the name given to the ''religion'' - Zoroaster is in fact the founder of Zoroastrianism - a blunder similar to writing "Christ" when you mean "Christianity" or "Muhammad" when you mean "Islam". Hovind claims Zoroastrianism was founded around 600 BCE. Most scholars actually state it was much earlier - around 1000 BCE. He completely misunderstands Zoroastrian beliefs, claiming that the essence of it is that "Satan and God are equally powerful". In fact, Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda (the 'God' character) will banish Angra Mainyu (the 'Satan' character) and bring about the end times, and then a savior figure will come along and raise up the dead. According to Hovind, in Zoroastrianism "a lack of importance [is] placed on God". Apparently, despite being a Middle Eastern monotheistic religion with a number of broadly equivalent traits to Judaism and Christianity, "Zoroasterism" (as Hovind also refers to Zoroastrianism as) is actually the bearer of the flame of evolutionism, as it has been carried from the Fall of Man through Satan and then through the works of the Greek philosophers.
+
"Zoroaster" is the name given to the ''religion'' - Zoroaster is in fact the founder of [[Zoroastrianism]] - a blunder similar to writing "Christ" when you mean "Christianity" or "Muhammad" when you mean "Islam". Hovind claims Zoroastrianism was founded around 600 [[BCE]]. Most scholars actually state it was much earlier - around 1000 BCE. He completely misunderstands Zoroastrian beliefs, claiming that the essence of it is that "Satan and God are equally powerful". In fact, Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda (the 'God' character) will banish Angra Mainyu (the 'Satan' character) and bring about the end times, and then a savior figure will come along and raise up the dead. According to Hovind, in Zoroastrianism "a lack of importance [is] placed on God". Apparently, despite being a Middle Eastern monotheistic religion with a number of broadly equivalent traits to Judaism and Christianity, "Zoroasterism" (as Hovind also refers to Zoroastrianism as) is actually the bearer of the flame of evolutionism, as it has been carried from the Fall of Man through Satan and then through the works of the Greek philosophers.
  
Which is fine, except for the fact that if the ancient Greeks, Zoroastrians and eastern mystics were all budding proto-Darwinists, you might expect some historians and philosophers who study the ancients to have spotted it - and the work of Darwin and Wallace in the nineteenth century might have been a bit less revolutionary and surprising than it actually was.
+
Which is fine, except for the fact that if the ancient Greeks, Zoroastrians and eastern mystics were all budding proto-Darwinists, you might expect some historians and philosophers who study the ancients to have spotted it - and the work of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace]] in the nineteenth century might have been a bit less revolutionary and surprising than it actually was.
  
Hovind claims that Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, which all are really evolution cults in disguise made it easy for Communism to take over in China. On the same note, Communism has spread really well in Iranian Zoroastrian communities and in India, where Hinduism and Buddhism are prevalent. This hypothesis also explains the resistance to Chinese Communism by the Tibetan Buddhist monks ''really'' well, and the religious history of Russia and Cuba.
+
Hovind claims that [[Hindu]]ism, Zoroastrianism, [[Buddhism]], [[Taoism]] and [[Confucianism]], which all are really evolution cults in disguise made it easy for [[Communism]] to take over in [[China]]. On the same note, Communism has spread really well in [[Iran]]ian Zoroastrian communities and in [[India]], where Hinduism and Buddhism are prevalent. This hypothesis also explains the resistance to Chinese Communism by the Tibetan Buddhist monks ''really'' well, and the religious history of [[Russia]] and [[Cuba]].  In reality the survival of the fittest found in Capitalist market economics has more to do with [[Natural selection]] than the Communist ideal of, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
  
Hovind also claims that Muslims believe heavily in evolution. Yeah, you don't want to mention Islamic creationists like [[Harun Yahya]]. He also makes some pretty silly remarks about the Church Fathers which are backed up with the same sort of evidence as everything else in the dissertation - that is, about the same quality and quantity as you get in a Chick tract or the ''Weekly World News''.
+
Hovind also claims that Muslims believe heavily in evolution. Yeah, you don't want to mention Islamic creationists like [[Harun Yahya]]. He also makes some pretty silly remarks about the Church Fathers which are backed up with the same sort of evidence as everything else in the dissertation - that is, about the same quality and quantity as you get in a [[Chick tract]] or the ''[[Weekly World News]]''.
  
 
== Notable quotables ==
 
== Notable quotables ==

Revision as of 17:47, 13 July 2011

Goddidit!

Creationism

Icon creationism.svg
Key claims
Science
Random articles

Truth fish transparent.png

Young earth creationist and convicted tax evader Kent Hovind suffered the leak of his doctoral dissertation in Christian Education on the website Wikileaks on December 9, 2009. Legitimate scholars are often very happy when their dissertations get widely read. But legitimate scholars don't generally get their degrees from diploma mills like Patriot Bible University. Blogs, forums and other Internet sources have widely linked to Hovind's dissertation since it contains a heady mixture of scientific inaccuracy, piss-poor writing, shoddy scholarship and other things which make the skeptical community giggle with glee.

Contents

Background

The degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D, derived from the Latin philosophiæ doctor) is generally thought of as one of the highest degrees attainable by those in science and the arts in most universities, and is undertaken often as a requirement for becoming a university professor. The degree of Ph.D is granted after at least two, usually three or four, years of postgraduate study and research, culminating in the production of an original and significant contribution to scholarship in the form of a dissertation, usually of 80,000-100,000 words, although there is not a strict word or page limit. Such dissertations are supervised by academics in the relevant field, and are certified by a committee, usually of at least three scholars. The committee also usually questions the candidate through a process known as viva voce or defence, where they must critically defend their findings. Once a Ph.D dissertation is complete, it is bound and stored in the reference library of the university, and is often made available to other scholars through inter-library loan, or by production of copies either electronically or on microfiche. It is common practice that such dissertations should be made available to anyone who wants to read them, subject to the usual procedures of libraries and universities.

Except when it comes to Kent Hovind and Patriot Bible University, that's not how it works. Hovind's dissertation makes no useful contribution to scholarship, except perhaps as an example of how not to do it. Hovind's alma mater is not accredited by any U.S. Department of Education-recognised body and his degrees are not granted any status in the academic or scientific mainstream. Hovind's dissertation is approved by only one person: Dr. Wayne Knight. More importantly, Hovind's dissertation has been not generally available - Hovind claims to have lost his copy of the dissertation, while Patriot Bible University have it as a policy to not make available dissertations. Copies have been made: Skip Evans has got one, as has of the National Center for Science Education (PZ Myers claims it is stored in the bathroom at NCSE).

Those who have completed a Ph.D are allowed to prefix their name with "Dr.", although many choose not to do so out of modesty, and so that their expertise in nuclear physics or history or philosophy (etc.) don't get called on by mistake when a medical doctor is actually required. Hovind, needless to say, has no such modesty and refers to himself as Dr. Kent Hovind. Indeed, he uses the prefix in the phone book for Pensacola, Florida. This is a common tract when comparing those with legitimate qualifications to those getting doctorates from diploma mills; Dr Gillian McKeith Ph.D vs Ben Goldacre, for example.

Style

Hovind's dissertation rejects the formal, technical style expected of most mainstream Ph.D dissertations and other high-level academic work. Patriot Bible University does allow "a popular writing style" to be used. The opening lines of Hovind's dissertation demonstrates this quite suitably:

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time.

Many armchair commentators immediately came to the same inescapable conclusion: "This is not a dissertation, this is a letter to Santa."[1]

Scientific failings

All the usual creationist blather that's fit to roughly transcribe through the brain of a dimwit.

Misreadings of history, philosophy and damn near everything else

Hovind attempts to provide a genealogy of evolution that starts with God striking down the Tower of Babel. He traces this through ancient Greek philosophy, eastern religions and the Church Fathers. He gets large chunks of this ancient history wrong, and what little bits of truth do sneak in are surrounded by oceans of irrelevance and idiocy.

Socrates, Hovind tells us, didn't write "many" books. Technically true: Socrates didn't write any books, and is infamous for asserting that one shouldn't write books! Hovind describes Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as being "pantheim|pantheists]]", and thus attempts to understand in modern terms a religious system that does not easily match modern expectations and categories. If you want to apply a modern label, polytheism catches the spirit a lot better than pantheism. (There are some ancient philosophers you can describe as holding broadly pantheistic ideas: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Zeno and Heraclitus among the Greeks and the Roman philosophers Marcus Aurelius and Plotinus.)

Hovind fails when he attempts to understand Plato and Socrates, ascribing positions to them that are held by participants in Platonic dialogues, most of which feature Socrates as a character, but only some of the dialogues can be thought of as containing the Socrates of history, while the others have Socrates as a literary tool that Plato can use.

Hovind asserts that Democrates is the founder of Atomism, rather than Democritus.

"Zoroaster" is the name given to the religion - Zoroaster is in fact the founder of Zoroastrianism - a blunder similar to writing "Christ" when you mean "Christianity" or "Muhammad" when you mean "Islam". Hovind claims Zoroastrianism was founded around 600 BCE. Most scholars actually state it was much earlier - around 1000 BCE. He completely misunderstands Zoroastrian beliefs, claiming that the essence of it is that "Satan and God are equally powerful". In fact, Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda (the 'God' character) will banish Angra Mainyu (the 'Satan' character) and bring about the end times, and then a savior figure will come along and raise up the dead. According to Hovind, in Zoroastrianism "a lack of importance [is] placed on God". Apparently, despite being a Middle Eastern monotheistic religion with a number of broadly equivalent traits to Judaism and Christianity, "Zoroasterism" (as Hovind also refers to Zoroastrianism as) is actually the bearer of the flame of evolutionism, as it has been carried from the Fall of Man through Satan and then through the works of the Greek philosophers.

Which is fine, except for the fact that if the ancient Greeks, Zoroastrians and eastern mystics were all budding proto-Darwinists, you might expect some historians and philosophers who study the ancients to have spotted it - and the work of Darwin and Wallace in the nineteenth century might have been a bit less revolutionary and surprising than it actually was.

Hovind claims that Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, which all are really evolution cults in disguise made it easy for Communism to take over in China. On the same note, Communism has spread really well in Iranian Zoroastrian communities and in India, where Hinduism and Buddhism are prevalent. This hypothesis also explains the resistance to Chinese Communism by the Tibetan Buddhist monks really well, and the religious history of Russia and Cuba. In reality the survival of the fittest found in Capitalist market economics has more to do with Natural selection than the Communist ideal of, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

Hovind also claims that Muslims believe heavily in evolution. Yeah, you don't want to mention Islamic creationists like Harun Yahya. He also makes some pretty silly remarks about the Church Fathers which are backed up with the same sort of evidence as everything else in the dissertation - that is, about the same quality and quantity as you get in a Chick tract or the Weekly World News.

Notable quotables

The following are quotes found in Kent Hovind's thesis.

  • "As I was thinking on this subject, I wrote a poem to try to explain this, comparing blind men and atheists. /Two blind men argued well into the night/about the great question, “Is there really sight?”/Said one to the other (and quite fervently)/”There cannot be colors or else we could see!”/(edit: snip 48 lines)/To deny His existence is really absurd./You’ll have to believe Him and trust in His Word."
    In keeping with the age-old (but apparently forgotten) tradition of including a 50+ line rhyme in each and every thesis, Kent has conjured up this gem. Someone notify MIT that they'll start gaining credibility among the Creationist crowd if they include more poetry in their papers.
  • "Satan, in the form of the serpent, brought the doctrine of evolution to the Garden of Eden"
    Considering that Adam was likely still figuring out a reasonable sleep pattern, bowel movements and to avoid petting porcupines, somehow it seems incredible that Adam would latch onto a complete theory of evolution and pass it down to the next thousands of generations.
    • Bonus follow-up: "Cain promoted the evolutionary doctrine that man can progress by his own efforts."
  • "The Bible has never been proven wrong yet, and I believe it never will be"
    Like any good thesis, Kent's deals in unprovable absolutes.
  • "God created the plants on day three before He created the sun on day four. If you think plants are going to survive for billions of years without the sun, you need to study more biology. I believe God did that on purpose to make us realize the days of creation were twenty-four hour days…The Day Age Theory is another unnecessary attempt by worried Christians to try to please the evolutionists."
    This wonderful display of ignorance on the theory of evolution provides ample reason to doubt all of Kent's criticisms of evolution. This quote is likely a weak attempt at "preaching to the choir", in that he is trying to evoke a sense of humor in the panel of "reviewers" at Patriot Bible University.
  • "For instance, Communism is a direct offshoot of evolution"
    The final sentence in a paragraph speaking of one of the Biblical creation account, Kent includes this assertion with no citation or analysis.
  • "Bring back a Mars rock or a Jupiter rock, I'll eat it or lick it. Life doesn't evolve."
    Comment is superfluous. Also non sequitur. And since when does Jupiter have rocks?

Metrics

Using the text from the OCR version of "Dr." Hovind's dissertation, Google Docs gives the following metrics:
(Note: These metrics are derived from the text starting with "INTRODUCTION" and continuing until the sentence "I believe Jesus was right.")

Word Count

  • Word: 25,546
  • Paragraphs: 401
  • Sentences: 1,951

Readability

  • Average sentences per paragraph: 4.87
  • Average words per sentence: 13.09
  • Flesch Reading Ease: 69.44
  • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 7.00
  • Automated Readability Index: 7.00

According to the Wikipedia page on Flesch Reading Ease, a Flesch Reading Ease score of 69.44 would correspond to being "easily understandable to 13- to 15-year old students."[2] The lower the index, the harder the piece is to read. The Wikipedia page also gives examples to compare to: Reader's Digest has a "Reading Ease" of 65, indicating that it is easier to read Kent's Doctoral Dissertation than it is to read the average Reader's Digest. In fact, the Wikipedia page states that the average 11-year-old student's written assignment has a "Reading Ease" of 60-70, which would indicate that the writing style of Kent's supposed PhD-level paper is on par with that of a pre-pubescent student.

Similarly, the "Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level" indicates the approximate number of years of education needed to understand a piece of writing. According to these metrics, a student in the 7th grade should be able to fully understand Kent's "doctoral research". Interestingly, the Wikipedia page on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level has a higher calculated grade-level than Kent's Doctoral Dissertation, at 12.5.

The Automated Readability Index is another way of calculating the approximate grade required for a student to fully understand a piece of written work. Once again, the average 7th grade student (approximately 12-13 years old) should be able to fully comprehend Kent's new research.

External links

Footnotes

  1. Examples: [1], [2]
  2. See Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test at Wikipedia
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support