EvoWiki is now a project of the RationalMedia Foundation.
We are moving all content to RationalWiki.
See the EvoWiki project page for details!

Talk:Kent Hovind

From EvoWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This may be the most balanced, fairest article I have ever read. Whoever wrote this article must have "neutrality" as his/her middle name. Well done! *rofl* --

"Since Hovind claims that his beliefs make him a better person, examples of his behavior which have bearing of the question of whether or not he is a better person are very relevant indeed to evaluating the validity of his claims.

Also, as his arguments often include the point that evolution shouldn't be taught with tax money, it makes it somewhat ironic that Hovind doesn't pay tax. "

Um...Perhaps Hovind doesn't like the idea of a governmentally-imposed income tax or other taxes used to fund a belief to which he doesn't subscribe. So, no, it's not ironic to not want to help fund something you think is crap. Would you give someone money willingly if you knew they were going to use it to do something you don't like? Maye this guy actually has personal convictions and isn't afraid of our government.
How about saying that I'm going to tax your income and give it to anyone with an agenda to teach kids in public schools about Creationism? Creation and Darwin's Evolution are both BELIEFS. Whether you call the "Driving Force" behind the origin of our universe "God" or "Evolution" you must accept either one without irrefutable evidence. Thus, and much to Hovind's credit, his aims are to give the belief of Creation founded on a literal reading of the KJV Bible an equal representation with Evolution founded on Darwin's racist monolith "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" more commonly known as "The Origin of the Species". In an era of supposed "tolerance" and "civil rights" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." we are quick to bend the requisite "scientific proof" to favor one belief over another.
If one were to merely observe Kent Hovind in a discussion or through his videos, one would see that his "moral irresponsibility" is little more than a dissatisfaction with a biased educational system. The self-righteousness that you report is always tounge-in-cheek. Hovind is dedicated to this vocation not to gain prestige, but to point people young and old back toward a much older and eternally useful written work than Darwin's pathetic groping at why men are better than women and whites are superior to blacks. Actually read the work through -- you'll see who has the moral deficiency, even by secular standards. Hovind points people back toward a literal sit-down-and-read-it study of the Holy Bible.
Oh, one last thing. Why defend the institution of governmental taxation? WTF? That's the stuff that used to breed revolution. And, it's a damned Communist mentality. (Read Marx's Communist Manifesto.) --
In my opinion, Mr. 74 has a point: Not paying taxes because one doesn't want to pay for things one considers bunk is consistent, not ironic. If that's his justification, his tax behaviour should be seen as part of his anti-evolution campaign. I think this page needs work, but at the moment I don't know what it should do.
  • Removing the tax subject?
  • Interpreting it as part of Hovind's campaign? But we don't know that it is so.
  • Discussing it somehow?
What do you think? I'd rather remove it. It would be the cleanest solution.
This site is about evolution, the way it works, the arguments in favor of it, and the nonsense brought forward against it. Hovind's tax problems are off-topic. --tk 11:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph on Mr. Hovind's claim that believing in evolution has deleterious moral consequences should be moved out from the section on his failure to pay taxes. There is sufficient argument on this talk page to demonstrate that a link between "trouble with authorities" in this regard and moral rectitude is not NPOV. Besides, it makes me confused whether to jeer or cheer at the man since I'm both a (theistic) evolutionist and an anarchist. :) -GRB.
Do realize that this is the same man who offered a quarter of a million dollars prize while trying to weasel out of paying income tax by filing for bankruptcy, as well as refusing to pay taxes on his "scientific" amusement park on account of it being a religious institution.--Yours truly, His Imperial Weirdness 16:17, 7 February 2006 (GMT)

There is no reason to put a preacher down or to pick on him about something he's right about in the first place statistics favor hovind and his will to save the world Evolution has not been proved to a legal status of the term science. Which means that it has not been proved it is still a theory and getting weaker everyday. Science is things we know things that can be proved with legal standings. Plus your religion is undesirable, when i die i would like to go to a heaven and not just die and rot. He is also right about public schools, when the evolution THEORY came about, US statistics come from tax payers, meaning statistics cost lots of money, your money. Now tell me how one government funded program contradicts a government funded religion. Public schools went to shit after evolution was introduced, so did crime, teen birthrates,moral, and the prestige of a human race, statisticaly. Statistics don't lie, Science don't lie, and evolution contradicts both so how can a worthy scientist stand behind something that they can't prove or know. Hovinds best inerests are for the children unlike his rivals. Feel free to contact me with any Questions you may have brianrayhubbard@yahoo.com or www.Statisticsgov.uk/ Thank you

All this is nonsense. For example, science and the law are different fields and have different standards of evidence. See also Crime rates etc. have increased since evolution began to be taught, Do you want to be descended from a monkey? (second response) and Evolution is only a theory. And I have no questions to which you are likely to have a helpful answer. -tk (t) 13:18, 2 Jun 2005 (BST)
Why have you given your contact details as what I asume to be the Office for National Statistics website with a typo? Are you a non-ministerial UK government agency? The ONS answers my questions all the time. Questions like "At what rate has the population of Hampshire grown over the past 55 years?" and "How many people in Bristol cycle to work regularly?" I've been having trouble finding the gross domestic product of Wiltshire though, so it would be great if you could help out on that one. I have far better qualified people to direct my questions about science to though. Joe D (t) 13:49, 2 Jun 2005 (BST)

There is some discussion of irony here and in the article, but there is one that has not been noticed by the author(s). "Hovind's response to all of his legal troubles has been to cast himself in the role of martyr and victim of religious persecution. He believes the US government has no legal jurisdiction over his church." My question is: why does he believe that his "science" museum deserves the tax-exempt status of a church? He is all-but-confessing that it isn't science.

As for the question of whether or not Hovind should be evading taxes: I do think there needs to be a stronger argument than just "he doesn't like to support government program X." It is just the nature of democratic institutions that by representing everybody, they represent nobody in particular. (I'm sure that we can ALL find at least one government program, endeavor, or employee to which to object. However, democracy only gives people the power to vote how their taxes will be spent, not the power to pick and choose how to spend it.) --C.B. wrote "Will someone with an unbiased opinion of Kent Hovind please rewrite this article?" User:Apokryltaros

Just to make one thing very clear. Hovind never did say he teaches science at these seminars. Last night I watched one of his debates where he clearly states that he can admit his is a religion, and he wants evolutionists to admin the evolution is religion as well. (sorry for pissing in your coffee, please continue)

Another Hoving "defender"

From an anonymous creationist:

Please note: the above information is a personal, uneducated and misguiding opinion from someone for whom evolution is a religion. No one has ever prooven that evolution exists and just because some scientists(majority opinion) believe in it - doesn't make it true.
Evolution is the best available scientific theory. It is the only known theory which matches all known evidence. Creationism does NOT match all the known evidence. It hardly matches any. I've been asking creationists for decades to explain fossil sorting as just one examples of evidence against creationism, but none have managed. Would you like to try?
--Suttkus 15:32, 29 June 2006 (BST)
Who ever wrote this may not know this but at one time all the scientist believed the sun went around the earth - but that was proven wrong too wasn't it?
Actually, the first scientist was Galileo. He began the work to define the scientific method in it's modern form (subsequently worked on by people like Francis Bacon). As the first scientist, Gallileo did NOT believe the Sun rotated around the Earth. In fact, the only people who believed that were creationists who did so on Biblical grounds, not scientific ones. You're shooting yourself in the foot.
--Suttkus 15:32, 29 June 2006 (BST)
I thought it was Copernicus... Still, didn't Martin Luther rail against the Heliocentric Model of the Universe, saying that it would lead to the spiritual destruction of Christians everywhere?--Mr A. 16:01, 29 June 2006 (BST)
My understanding is that Galileo was the first to codify science based on ideas Copernicus was using in practice. It's debatable which you would consider first. Neither believed heliocentrism.
I searched Google for "+"Martin Luthor" +heliocentrism" and came up with nothing relevant. As google is the be all and end all of historical research, I'd say not.  :-)
Mind you, this is from those fine Christians of the inquisition...
"The opinion of the earth's motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation, should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves."
You should have googled for "Martin Luther" +heliocentrism" instead. You would have found this: "There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." --tk (t) 09:24, 30 June 2006 (BST)
Sorry, Superman on the brain, I guess. Thanks for the catch.
--Suttkus 13:18, 30 June 2006 (BST)
But remember, this is SCIENTISTS doing this, right? The creationist said so so it must be true...
--Suttkus 16:30, 29 June 2006 (BST)
I pay taxes and MY tax dollars are being used to teach evolution in schools, so Dr. Hovind is not alone and has many supporters. He speaks out for all of us.
Your tax dollars are being used to teach the best available understanding of the world. There are numerous groups in the country who object to this, flat earthers, hollow earthers, new agers, etc. That some people refuse to accept reality cannot be allowed to harm the nation as a whole. Hovind is an idiot who believes in Bigfoot and that the government could be watching you through you television. If he speaks out for you, it doesn't say much about you, does it?
How about, just for larks, trying to REFUTE one of the claims made against Hovind! Oh, wait, you can't. Sorry about that.
--Suttkus 15:32, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Just to make one thing very clear. Hovind never did say he teaches science at these seminars. Last night I watched one of his debates where he clearly states that he can admit his is a religion, and he want evolutionists to admin the evolution is religion as well. (sorry for pissing in your coffee, please continue)

You missed. (Maybe you hit your own pants.) Evolution is not a religion. See Evolution is a religion. --tk (t) 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I now see why the page "Lip service fallacy" was added. Hovind may say that he is in religion. But the impression he tries to give, by meantioning "Ph.D. in education", "i have taught science for 15 years", even "i am a science teacher" , and his authoritative (but incompetent) talks about sicence laws, all try to give a wrong impression. He has been lecturing for more than a decade. If he is ready to admit he has dubious science background, why has he never done that in 10 years? A lot of damage has already been done. -- 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Documenting 'snapshots of creationist webpages'

The link [1] in the first sentence does not work. This reference was actually a page on "Answers in Genesis". In such cases is it actually possible to take snapshopts of relevant pages (especially those on creationist websites) and keep them on wiki, so that the creationists dont 'tamper' with our evidence? I think this is important in the long run.

Hm... I don't know how to do this. --tk (t) 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't there "time machine" websites that can show a user a particular defunct website as it was at a previous date? Maybe we can use one of those to take screenshots and then store them in either Yahoo! Briefcase, or Flickr?--Mr A. 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools