Because of hovind's use of the title of "doctor" based on a degree from an unaccredited institution, legitimate scientists have closely examined his bona fides, including the work he submitted to fulfill the requirements for a has proved difficult, because unlike common academic practice, patriot does not make its students' dissertations available to the academic december 9, 2009, wikileaks released hovind's dissertation in christian education.1] usually, legitimate scholars are thrilled to find that people want to read their dissertations, but legitimate scholars don't get their degrees from diploma mills like patriot bible university.
Bloggers and forum participants have widely linked to hovind's dissertation, since it contains a heady mixture of scientific inaccuracy, incoherent writing, frequent spelling errors, shoddy scholarship, and other things which make the skeptical community giggle with 2013, hovind claimed to have four doctorates, in (christian) education, theology, biblical ministry, and divinity (honorary).3] dissertations are the final product of this research and are supervised by a committee of academics in the relevant field, usually consisting of between three to five scholars.
Like any other publication in a library, dissertations are available to anyone who wants to read is not the case for hovind's dissertation.Hovind claims to have lost his copy of the dissertation, while patriot bible university does not make dissertations available.
A copy of hovind's 1991 dissertation was obtained by skip evans, who "receive[d] the original document, complete with a taped-in clipping from a magazine.4] bartelt's review was the only online analysis of the dissertation before wikileaks made the copy available. She found hovind's dissertation makes no useful contribution to scholarship, except perhaps as an example of how not to write one. For example, hovind publicly insisted on the title, saying, "i notice you're calling him ‘dr’ and me ‘mr,’ so i'm just making a level playing field here; i have a doctorate's degree also, although it's not from an accredited university, but i don't think that matters.
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 es, hovind tells us, didn't write "many" 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.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) 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 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 that the work of darwin and wallace in the nineteenth century might have been a bit less revolutionary and surprising than it actually was. 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 following are quotes found in kent hovind's i was thinking on this subject, i wrote a poem to try to explain this, comparing blind men and the great question, "is there really sight? Ll have to believe him and trust in his keeping with the age-old (but apparently forgotten) academic tradition of including 50+ lines of doggerel in each and every dissertation, kent has conjured up this gem.
Someone notify mit that they'll start gaining credibility if they include more poetry in their , in the form of the serpent, brought the doctrine of evolution to the garden of g that adam would latch onto a complete theory of evolution and pass it down to the next thousands of bible has never been proven wrong yet, and i believe it never will any good academic work, kent's deals in unprovable instance, communism is a direct offshoot of final sentence in a paragraph speaking of one of the biblical creation account, hovind includes this assertion with no citation or back a mars rock or a jupiter rock, i'll eat it or lick it.
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.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 rly, 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 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 of these metrics are damning in and of themselves; all else being equal, being able to express one's ideas in simple and accessible language is a good thing.
Taken in the context of the thesis's other flaws, it becomes clear that complexity of thought was never among hovind's hovind was in federal prison, he wrote another dissertation for a doctor of ministry degree from patriot.