what you think of Kent Hovind?

[brennan]

He's a convicted fraudster. He's been conning the gullible for decades, his favoured targets are god-botherers. Pay no heed.

 

[djcollin]

I think he's a good guy and makes good arguments against the consensus beliefs on origins, evolution, and age of the universe and earth.

I believe he was specifically targeted for his outspoken Christian beliefs and pointing out of faults in the current scientific beliefs in molecules-to-man evolution, big bang, age of universe, etc (and outspoken criticism of certain aspects of the current government). The original charge painted him as some rich preacher that's duping people out of their money, but it didn't stick because... he wasn't. Then they charged him for what amounted to paperwork error and he's served about 7 years now (?). I recently learned that he was supposed to be released, but now the government is filing a contempt charge against him for essentially filing so many suits to undo the ruling. He's been moved around to different prisons at least 20 times (if I remember correctly), which is a tactic sometimes used to get a prisoner killed. Keep him in your prayers!

If you liked Hovind, I recommend Dr Jason Lisle. He received a Phd in astrophysics and has good videos on that topic, but also makes good videos about presuppositional Christian apologetics. He learned the way of apologetics from Dr Greg Bahnsen.
And also I like Dr William Lane Craig, though I'm a bit dismayed that he follows mainstream beliefs of big bang, molecules-to-man evolution, and age of the universe, but his logical arguments for God in debates are superb!

 

[Harv]

^^ I remember going to Alcatraz and looking at a portrait of Al "Scarface" Capone and a caption saying that he went to jail for tax evasion. We all know that he did not really go to jail for tax evasion. He went to jail for other crimes everybody knew he committed, but they could not prove it in a court of law.

Are you saying Kent Hovind is not really in jail for tax evasion, but for some other reason?

 

[djcollin]

Yep! A key difference that you gloss over is that Capone was a mobster and Dr. Hovind is a preacher.
And as Ben Carson (potential presidential candidate) points out, the current IRS code is set up in a way that anybody could be in violation of it. And the IRS has been accused of targeting conservative groups, so I think my belief that Hovind was targeted is quite reasonable.

 

[Arakhor]

So out of the many, many, creationist preachers out there, your hypothesis is that Kent Hovind (he of the "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind" 'dissertation') was specifically targeted, because the establishment was (for some reason) intent on silencing him?

 

[djcollin]

I sure do.

 

[Arakhor]

Why not post that in the conspiracy theories thread in Off-Topic? You might get a better response.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ehn, he was a liar and a scam artist, peddling ignorance.

 

[Harv]

Yep! A key difference that you gloss over is that Capone was a mobster and Dr. Hovind is a preacher.

Based on what you are saying, Al Capone and Kent Hovind have something in common: They both went to prison for some reason other than tax evasion. I was certainly not saying that the some other reason was the same, and I certainly did not intend to equate Kent Hovind with Al Capone. I was just asking a question to bring your point of view into the open, without misrepresenting what you are saying.

And as Ben Carson (potential presidential candidate) points out, the current IRS code is set up in a way that anybody could be everybody is in violation of it.

Run, Ben, RUN! I have not researched him yet.

And the IRS has been accused of targeting conservative groups, so I think my belief that Hovind was targeted is quite reasonable.

So you are saying Kent Hovind was put into prison for political reasons, in an effort to silence him.

 

[djcollin]

Thank you for your editing! I wish I had a full-time editor to check my grammar.

Whether to silence Hovind or whether local politicians do not like Hovind, I'm not sure. But I do believe he was targeted and not for the claim that he was scamming people. Most of his dvds and writings weren't copyrighted and he let people freely distribute them.

And as I mentioned before, they've moved him many times. And I read an interview with an inmate who was told how many times he was moved, and the first thing he asked was 'are they trying to get him killed?'

 

[Arakhor]

For what conceivable reason would people want to kill Hovind? There are political hacks who are thousands of times more abrasive about the US government than him and dozens of creationist sites purveying similar interpretations of the Bible.

 

[djcollin]

I like Hovind, but I can see how he could rub certain people in the wrong way. There are many other preachers and creationist groups that claim to have been targeted. And I can list a few references if you like.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, I would say that there's no rational reason to target such people, but (a) I'm sure someone could prove me wrong and (b) humanity as a whole has a very good line in being utterly irrational about many things.

 

[Harv]

Thank you for your editing! I wish I had a full-time editor to check my grammar.

I did do a strikethrough and add word in bold, with the understanding assumption that people will know that the edits are mine. The intent was not to misrepresent what you are saying.

If you request, I can edit in a statement that those edits are mine for emphasis.

Whether to silence Hovind or whether local politicians do not like Hovind, I'm not sure.

Or you crossed the wrong person.

And as I mentioned before, they've moved him many times. And I read an interview with an inmate who was told how many times he was moved, and the first thing he asked was 'are they trying to get him killed?'

I know somebody who has been in prison, but have not seen him in a couple of months. If I remember, I will ask him this question.

Anyway, I am glad to see you are on and responding to posts!

 

[timtofly]

There may be some who target the government itself, and making a point as non-profit and attempting tax fraud (from the governments' perspective) is one of those ways. It is a current known fact that the IRS has been covering up it's targeting of non-profits.

I am curious why some here think that Mr. Hovind is such an immoral person? I am sure that it has nothing to do with his outspoken opposition to Evolution. Hollywood peddles ignorance all the time, and yet the government is not currently targeting them. Should Christians be concerned that they are being entertained on a weekly basis in their church services?

 

[sanabas]

I am curious why some here think that Mr. Hovind is such an immoral person? I am sure that it has nothing to do with his outspoken opposition to Evolution.

From page 1 of the thread:

The polite version of what I think of him is a fraudulent scam-artist and/or a contemptible oxygen-thief. The longer version would get me warned by the mods.

He does not 'masterfully use scientific rules to defend the Bible and God', he makes up stuff that sounds authentic enough to fool those who either want to be fooled, or don't have the basic knowledge required to realise they're being fooled. And further to that, he makes a concerted effort to convince other people to be ignorant, to indoctrinate kids to be ignorant, to simply vomit up bullet points like 'carbon dating is wrong!' without ever understanding anything about what they're talking about, or actually discuss what they're talking about. To simply keep screaming the same lies as loudly as possible, ignore all intelligent responses, and claim victory when people don't even deign to respond to the crap. To not only be a liar, to not only be wilfully ignorant, but to campaign to convince people to be stupid & uneducated, to campaign for schools to actually teach kids to be ignorant & wrong, that earns far more than ordinary dislike.

The bolded bit is why I specifically dislike him & his ilk, far more than I dislike other immoral guys who are either entirely deluded or willingly fraudulent, like say John Edward.

And I'd dislike him just as much if I thought he actually was moral, if I thought he was completely sincere about the crap he preaches.

Hollywood peddles ignorance all the time, and yet the government is not currently targeting them. Should Christians be concerned that they are being entertained on a weekly basis in their church services?

I'm pretty sure most churches don't see their role as being for-profit entertainment providers. There's a difference between peddling ignorance in the form of mindless entertainment, and peddling ignorance by actively telling people to be stupid, campaigning to get schools to teach people to be stupid, and hiding behind terrible laws and crying 'but it's a religion' in order to keep spreading your stupidity.

I think he's a good guy and makes good arguments against the consensus beliefs on origins, evolution, and age of the universe and earth.

Please present just one good argument he's made that hasn't already been debunked in depth.

And also I like Dr William Lane Craig, though I'm a bit dismayed that he follows mainstream beliefs of big bang, molecules-to-man evolution, and age of the universe, but his logical arguments for God in debates are superb!

Likewise. Please give us one of these superb logical arguments. Also, is there any reason why these superb logical arguments only apply to the christian god, is there any reason why the same arguments don't equally point to a hindu or norse or greek god instead? I've never heard of the guy, so I've got no idea if he's arguing for the existence of a specific god, or just a general one, or what attributes said god must have.

 

[Arakhor]

I think Plotinus (in Ask a Theologian) might have some interesting counterpoints to WLC's arguments.

 

[El_Machinae]

WLC is just Kalam rehashed with some Arguments from Incredulity thrown in.

 

[timtofly]

From page 1 of the thread:

The bolded bit is why I specifically dislike him & his ilk, far more than I dislike other immoral guys who are either entirely deluded or willingly fraudulent, like say John Edward.

And I'd dislike him just as much if I thought he actually was moral, if I thought he was completely sincere about the crap he preaches.

I'm pretty sure most churches don't see their role as being for-profit entertainment providers. There's a difference between peddling ignorance in the form of mindless entertainment, and peddling ignorance by actively telling people to be stupid, campaigning to get schools to teach people to be stupid, and hiding behind terrible laws and crying 'but it's a religion' in order to keep spreading your stupidity.

Is it stupid to accept something that cannot change? Is it smart to trust an idea that is constantly changing? If science proved the Bible was telling the truth, would you change your mind, or would you wait until the next time around and it was once more in your favor? If you think that science is not that fickle, then it would not need all the peer review it gets. Are you saying that people are smarter than facts and if enough people see things a certain way, it must be true? Even the way facts are presented is not a sure thing. If you can convince me that all doubt can be erased, and humans can only see what is true and unchanging, then I may accept that only non-brainwashed people are stupid. Obviously the brain has to be forced to think only one way, because humans are not capable of thinking correctly on their own.

It would be ok with you if churches would be forced to be for profit and pay their fair share of taxes? That would put them on par with Hollywood and then the alleged "stupidity" would be ok with you?

 

[El_Machinae]

We often agree with the Bible when the science supports it. I, for one, acknowledge the idea of (say) Solomon's kingdom existing. Why? Because there was clearly a reasonably powerful kingdom in that region at the time.

It's when people try to deny that the Israelites were former Canaanites that we run into trouble.