Kent Hovind has been giving his creation “science” seminars in Dover, and it’s a fairly revolting situation. He’s glib, he’s amusing, he’s popular, and he’s lying constantly. David Neiwert discusses his roots as a “right-wing extremist with a penchant for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories”.
The sad thing about the accounts are the little kids who are getting suckered by this shameless fraud.
what is hovind’s theology? my understanding is a lot of the right-wing christian movements have theonomist/reconstructionist activists at their heart. this group dissents from the dominant pro-israel premillenial dispensationalism of modern day evangelicaism.
In case anyone’s interested in what exactly Hovind’s talks are like, I happened to stumble across this link the other day:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5056470106006523967
And some more:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Hovind
If he’s lying, and of course, if he is a creationist/ID-iot he IS lying, then why don’t peole say so in his lectures, and in writing?
And why doesn’t he sue? (And lose)
Hovind doesn’t sue because he would lose — his shtick is not courtroom shtick. It plays well (for him) only in front of approving audiences.
Three years ago I got invited to debate Hovind, on the basis of some internet discussion. They chickened out when they discovered I was Christian and a lawyer, and not an atheist scientist. Their jokes wouldn’t work. They couldn’t stand the competition.
Hovind is just P. T. Barnum with much less charm and no curiosity, and a just-below-the-surface admiration for fascism’s ability to impose religion on unbelievers.
If he’s lying, and of course, if he is a creationist/ID-iot he IS lying, then why don’t peole say so in his lectures, and in writing?
Apparently he’s very good at wriggling out of answering unpleasant questions, or coming up with an answer on the spot. You wouldn’t be able to pin him down with just one question, which of course is all anyone ever gets.
Corkscrew says:
Oh, yes, he’s very glib in a superficial, hucksterish kind of way. It plays very well with an audience that almost always wants him to succeed. Of course he’s heard all the refutations countless times, and has a flippant and wrong answer to them all or he’ll simply answer whatever question he likes regardless of what you asked (as you mention, its not like you get to follow up). He also avoids written debates like the plague itself. There he might have to actually support his case with facts and full citations, and when he screws up its there forever, so that’s not good.
So the newspaper article gently implies he’s a liar
” Hovind’s positions are not always accepted by other anti-evolutionists. For example, the Web site of Answers in Genesis, a creationist group, includes a list of arguments creationists should not use – including some of Hovind’s…”
but then quickly sweeps that under the rug and quotes the “believers”. This in essence validates his lies. Fair and balanced reporting anyone?
Very sad…
BC: I searched Google Video for “snakes on a plane” (no quotation marks) and it brought me one of Hovind’s tapes. WTF?
> BC: I searched Google Video for “snakes on a plane” (no quotation marks) and it brought me one of Hovind’s tapes. WTF?
That’s weird. I messed around with the search string and it seems that the search term “snakes” will return that video. Don’t know if the video has anything to do with snakes, but it’s kind of ironic that the search term is associated with Kent “I’m a pretend Dr” Hovind.
I tried to make a comment on Hovind’s blog on Dover. I asked if calling the ACLU, the American Communist Laywers Union, is not an ad hominem. I also asked if his stats, on crime, STDS, etc, that are linked to teaching of evolution, up-to-date.