Just goes to prove how stupid they are

Kent Hovinds "PhD" thesis has finally been leaked. For many a year he's touted his PhD (you know, that ol' logical fallacy of argument from authority). But while he's touted his PhD, he's steadfastly refused to allow anyone to read it.

Probably because reading it would:
a) cause your head to explode, and
b) make people realize just how stupid he really is

I'm about half-way through - in less than 30min.  Pretty sad for a thesis; normally these things are much longer, and not written in the language used by a 5-year old child.  The thesis is scanned, so whole-scale quoting is going to be hard.  None-the-less, here's a few gems (any spelling errors are mine):

Hello, my name is kent honvid.  I am a creation/science evangelist.  I live in Pensacola Florida.  I have been a high school science teacher since 1976.

As I said, the guy writes like a child.

Where in the world did the idea come from that things left to themselves can improve with time?  Who would start a crazy idea like that?

Academics try to be impartial, as to ensure their findings are as rational and objective as possible.  Apparently Kent didn't get that memo.

The first law [of thermodynamics] says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Err, no.  The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of a closed system stays constant.  You can create/destroy all the matter you want; so long as you obey the E=mc² rule.  Oh, and this is his logic behind "there must be a god" - all because the first law says matter cannot be created; ergo, there must be a creator.

Now since the first law allows for matter to be created and destroyed, where does that leave god?

Or, for that matter, if matter cannot be created, what was the creator created from?

 The technical definition of evolution is "change".

Wrong - again.  The accepted scientific definition of evolution is the change in a populations genetic composition over generations.  Lots of evolution (probably most) involves genetic changes that do not result in changes to the organism itself.  Its called genetic drift; maybe you've heard of it?

Much of the rest is a confused, obviously wrong in many places "history" of evolution, obviously wrong "history" of modern religion, and various biblical quotations taken out of context to "prove" his case.

A few more gems:

Evolution is purely a religion
Religion has not evolved (and yet he gives a history of its change!)
We go now the the Humanist Manifesto Two written by Paul Kurtz...

BTW, that last one's not a typo on my part; he actually wrote that - double "the", "two" in the wrong place AND the wrong "to".

His thesis is available from wikileaks.

Hat tip to PZ Myers, over at Pharyngula