Look at this, I just took some random FAQ question and he manage to make a bunch of mistakes:
There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution.
1) He confuse evolution and macroevolution
2) He is double dead wrong on his first claim since:
a) We have incredible evidence of "kind" to another "kind" such as the fossil record of our own ancestors species. We have so much evidence for so much species its just can't be denied.
b) speciation have been observed in laboratory. 2 populations becomes unable to mate and so each develop different traits.
3) His second sentence is half-right. Indeed, all those changes aren't evolution but are mutations. If now you take in account the fact that if the change is beneficial, the individual have more chance to survive, you get natural selection. Now, evolution is roughly natural selection + mutation. So, Kent Hovind do not know it but he do agree with evolution. What he do not agree with however is macroevolution. But that is just because he so want the universe to be 6000 years old.