A $250,000 "challenge" where he is the only judge? Funny how no one has won that rigged contest.
No matter what scientists provide as evidence, he just counters with "Nope, that's not my definition of evolution" and continues to use it as a point to disparage science. "See how no one has won my evolution challenge?"
Dishonest bastard.
------
Strictly speaking, it is true that Hovind's challenge has not been met in the sense of someone officially signing up for it. However, countless people have answered Hovind's challenges unofficially, without a serious response from him beyond turning the claimant down.
The challenge is explicitly and deliberately designed so that it is impossible to meet whether evolution is true or not. This is a serious charge, but anyone who examines the details of Hovind's offer will find it difficult to argue either that Hovind's challenge really is possible to meet, or that its impossibility could be an innocent accident.
Hovind conflates many areas of science, including cosmology and abiogenesis, under his misuse of the word "evolution."
He wants proof that the universe came from nothing, which is not known to be true (and which is not relevant to evolution). To quote Hovind himself:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
In addition to being phrased in bizarre ways ("learned to reproduce") only the very last has anything to do with the sort of evolution as defined by Darwin and relevant to the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis.
Most importantly, Hovind requires proof that "evolution . . . is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." It is impossible to prove a universal negative such as this. In fact, scientists already seriously consider alternatives for abiogenesis (namely panspermia). Thus, let's say that you've got the ultimate, irrefutable package of evidence that flat-out proves evolution, end of discussion. Bring it to Hovind and claim your $250,000, he'll just say, "Yes, but it doesn't explain how the Universe came to be. Better luck next time!"
Just as Hovind has his own private definition for "evolution", unrelated to the definition used by real scientists, so does he have his own private concept of what constitutes adequate support for a scientific theory. Hovind doesn't want you to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is a better explanation for the observed data than any other; rather, he wants you to "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." (emphasis added)
Real scientists want a theory that fits the data better than any competing theory; Hovind wants you to disprove every last one of the competing theories -- including those which haven't been conceived yet.
The "truth" of a scientific theory is not based on Dr. Hovind's personal opinion. Rather, it is based on experiment, reasoning, and community discussion. If most scientists were to agree that Dr. Hovind's test is a reasonable and rational test for evolution, then it might have scientific merit. However, it does not appear to be a reasonable test for evolution. It lacks precise and scientific definition of the criteria to be met. Further, the evidence needed to meet the challenge could not be obtained from any conceivable experiments or evidential finding. In short, the offer seems more of a publicity game than a scientific challenge.
James Randi has indicated that a demonstration of Creationism would qualify the demonstrator for his million dollar prize. If it is significant that scientists haven't claimed Hovind's prize, then it is equally significant that creationists haven't claimed Randi's. Furthermore, unlike Hovind, Randi has not only made the terms of how to win his prize very clear (and created a process whereby both sides agree beforehand to their own satisfaction what will constitute a valid demonstration), but he has removed himself from the judging process.
Hovind doesn't actually have $250,000 to award, and is in no position to award the money anyhow, as he is currently incarcerated for tax fraud, among other financial crimes.
