Monday, December 14, 2009

Hovind thesis: follow-up

I have finished reading Kent Hovind's doctoral thesis. It is every bit as bad as expected. I say this not on the force of mere disagreement with its contents: it is an extremely unprofessional work, even by creationist standards. The thesis is almost entirely written in testimonial form, with declarations of personal belief and disbelief offered in place of even an attempt at providing evidence. Not until the last half of the last chapter (on the age of the Earth and the rest of the universe), does Hovind's thesis even rise to the level of a Henry Morris or Duane Gish tract (and, at that point, it appears to consist of recycled and largely unreferenced ICR literature). To cap it off, the thesis does not make any proper citations, even for the numerous quotes it contains.

I have no idea whether "Patriot University" is actually a diploma mill, but if this is its standard for doctoral work, it might as well be one. This simply is horrible work; it is amazing, embarrassing, and speaks volumes about Hovind's character (not necessarily dishonesty, but certainly buffoonery), that he genuinely seems to think such a slapdash production entitles him to bear the title of "Doctor." It is an insult even to other creationists, many of whom, whatever their faults, have worked very hard for legitimate degrees.


James said...

I have no idea whether "Patriot University" is actually a diploma mill, [...]

Here's a photo of Patriot University.

I think it's status is pretty clear.

Mark Vuletic said...

Yes, I would say that's about as clear as things get, unless most of the campus is underground.