The CSE Challenge

My review, critique, and analysis of this stupid and rigged challenge.
My responses are in blue.

main review

[Original Text] of the Creation Science [sic] Evangelism folk

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.*  My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
Yep.  I concur.

2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Yep.  I concur.

3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
No.  That is a demonstrably false assumption, an anthropocentric value judgment. Even bacteria are highly evolved forms of life. Trees. Elephants. Everything on the planet is highly evolved, highly adapted to this environment. The competition between living organisms for the limited resources on this planet has weeded out all the non-advanced forms of life. That's called natural selection.

Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--

1. The universe was created by God.
Untenable assertion.  Unless "god" is "the universe"; then I can see the logic in that statement:  god-the-cosmos (an impersonal, nonpersonage deity) created the universe (itself) in the big bang event.

2. The universe always existed.
Demonstrably disproven, at least as far back as the big bang event.  What existed "before" the big bang?  Dunno.  If the standard model of physics is correct, there is no "before".  If string theory is correct, then we live in a closed, cyclical universe that oscillates over trillions of years, and thus the universe always existed (although "universe" is most appropriately applicable to this particular cycle of the universe).

3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
The natural process is cosmic evolution.  As distinguished from biological evolution.  You have to be careful with the word evolution, it has several distinct meanings.  Muddying them together can cause ambiguity and equivocation.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
No.  Evolution is acclaimed as being the the best hypothesis supported by observed phenomena (the data or facts), which doesn't rely on unobserved mumbo-jumbo and other flights of fantasy.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
No, evolution (cosmic or otherwise) is not the event that brings time, space and matter into existence from nothing.  That is referred to as the big bang event, of which there are a multitude of scientific hypothesis to explain the event, but all of them have a low level of certainty.  We need more facts and knowledge (such as quantum gravity) before we can understand the mechanisms behind the event to help weed out the incorrect hypotheses from the plausible (and the more certain) hypotheses.

2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Correct, cosmic evolution, primarily from the force of gravity, is the organizational force that forms the galaxies, stars, and planets.  It has a very high level of scientific certainty.

3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
No, evolution (biochemical in this case) has nothing to do with the biogenesis event (when an inanimate protein became the first self-replicating protein on Earth some 4 billion years ago).

4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
The protolife had no brain, and thus "interested" is a misnomer.  It was a simple molecule that functionally reproduced itself; it had no will or intent in the matter.  It was capable of reproducing itself.  And it did so in abundance.

5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
Here Dr. Hovind is using biological evolution in the correct sense.  The "spontaneously" is caused by mutation, adaptation, and natural selection (to weed out poor mutations and poor adaptations).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true.
Dr. Hovind is equivocating on the usage of "believe".  He seems to be equating it to "faith".  Belief is the confidence in the truth of something (in this case, cosmic evolution, and biological/biochemical evolution) which is susceptible to rigorous proof.  That something may not be immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.  But it can be rigorously proven.

While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense.
Now I'm confident that Dr. Hovind is equivocating on "belief" as a synonym for "faith".  Substitute these phrases for "belief":  "blind faith", "scientifically provable knowledge".
In science, one must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Then one either knows a thing, and then it is known—one doesn't need to have blind faith in it.

It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense.
The basic sentiment of evolution (of any kind) is:  things change, things are in a state of flux, change effects the state of the universe.  Dr. Hovind contends that philosophy.  He'd have us believe things are static and never change.

The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Because Dr. Hovind cannot distinguish between objective reality, and his own fantasy world, he would invoke the separation of church-and-state clause of the U.S. Constitution.  What sorry sot.

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.
Hmmm...here's a loaded question!  Evolution does not explain the big bang event.  Evolution does not explain the biogenesis event.  Dr. Hovind has pulled a fast one.  I call shenanigans!  Get a broom!

Only empirical evidence is acceptable.
Doesn't matter -- the contest is already rigged because it is based on a incorrect premise.  That premise is trivially shown to be incorrect by any creditable scientist.

Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation.
Here's my official evidence in writing:  the contest is a ruse.

A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
No committee needed.  You're trying to prove the existence of basic mathematics based only on evolution.  Square peg, round hole, disingenuous.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
Good luck on this one.  You'd have to prove that the universe is inconsistent, and unreliable (ie, speed-of-light in a vacuum isn't a constant, radiatioactive decay varies in time, et al).  The consistency of the universe is one of the provisional axioms of science.
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
That's been observed with every generation.  I am not my father or my mother.  I have changed.  I have evolved, ever so slightly.  I am fundamentally different from both my mother, and my father.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
It's a rare occurrence.  In the history of the Earth, it appears to have happened only once.  New protolife is at a serious disadvantage, in competition with further evolved and hostile life.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
Ever hear of quantum mechanics?  Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princple?  Matter makes itself out of nothing all the time.

My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach.
They believe [having a solid reason to trust in an hypothesis based on scientific principles] in it, because the facts substantiate the theory, and the theory has further been tested and corroborated against new facts, which further the certaintly level of the theory.  The theory of biological/biochemical evolution itself has evolved.  It has not gone unchanged since Darwin first put it forth.  It has been refined, parts thrown out, other parts added (such as the whole field of genetics).

They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science.
Dr. Hovind, do you understand what the scientific method is?

Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
Ahh, now Dr. Hovind is using faith to describe his own untenable convictions.  Methinks I've found a hypocrite.  Before you cast that stone, Dr. Hovind, take a long hard look in the mirror.