Creationism Gurus

I am curious about a few names of creationism Gurus. One name has been used several times (mostly with contempt) and there are two other names that have come up. I am interested to find out what you may know about these three men and whether you agree with them or not. If you could also state which POV you are inagreement (YEC, OEC, TE) (I know which POV alot of you have, but there are some I do not. Also I am curious to see what those who hold to TEC and OEC side have to say about these three. These three men are:

1) Ken Ham
2) Kent Hovind
3) Vance Nelson

Thanks.

I'm a TE.

1. Ken Ham: He is the founder of AiG. He's got a BS in environmental biology. He doesn't have a lot of qualifications in the necessary fields. This doesn't discount him from adding meaningful things to the discussion, but one would typically like to have an authority who has worked through a PhD in one of the appropriate areas of study. In lieu of this, it would be nice if he'd published something in a credible peer-reviewed journal. The short of it is that he doesn't really have good reason to say what he's saying, and he isn't much of an authority.

2. Kent Hovind: He has a doctorate from a diploma mill. Few people have managed to get copies of his thesis (which, apparently, has been modified since he submitted it; a very strange thing, indeed). He is considered dishonest by the standards, not only of those who oppose him, but also those who share his views. AiG will have nothing to do with him. TEs, here, use him as a sort of litmus test to mentally gauge new YECs who start posting to OT and Crevo. Basically, if a person cites him, we know the person doesn't really know what he's talking about in this area.

3. Vance Nelson: I don't know who this person is. A cursory Google search doesn't help, and Wikipedia doesn't know who he is, either. Is this the correct spelling? Either way, I probably don't know who he is. Sorry.

__________________

Thanks for posting. What I do know about Nelson is that he is somewhat in the middle of the discussion, but is not to well known yet. He has been steadily growing as one who supports the creationists side and has gotten a hold of many artifacts and fossils. I do know that Kent Hovind and Ken Ham seperately have approach him to join their organizations. I sounds like He is sceptical of Hovind.

I'm just wondering if YEC, OEC and TEs find him credible.

I wouldn't know whether or not to trust Nelson until I find papers that he published. I tend to be skeptical of any person unless they have some sort of scientific creditials when it comes to science. And by creditials, I don't mean a degree (but it helps). I mean that they have published peer reviewed papers. That's why I trust Ken Miller since he continues to actively pursue science and publish papers, while I have very little trust in Behe (he has not published a single paper on ID, as far as I know).

__________________
Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death" --- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17. - AV1611VET

My 2 cents:

1) Ken Ham

Originally from Australia, Ken Ham was recruited by ICR (or was that CRS?) and moved to America, where he subsequently became CEO of AiG. He has recently had a falling out with the other founding fathers of AiG (Weiland and Sarfarti, also Australian), who have split off from AiG to form Creation Ministries International (www.creationontheweb.org ). The reasons for the division have been kept from public knowledge.

I personally do not respect Ham very much. He does not seem very honest with science, and is a shocking theologian. He seems more interested in emotive simplistic arguments than sound, thoughtful and sensible exegesis. Most of all, I disrespect Ham because of his disgracefully hostile attitude towards non-YECist Christians.

2) Kent Hovind
3) Vance Nelson

I'm unfamiliar with both of these men. I've heard a lot of negative stuff said about Hovind, and am inclined to believe it.

Not to mention Ham's insistance that we bring people to faith by first slamming them with the Creation story rather than graciously sharing the Gospel message with them. I've heard fellow fundamentalist pastors harp on him for this one.

It's also worth pointing out that besides Hovind's lack of credibility in the sciences, his unwillingness to pay taxes (a practice Jesus firmly believed in) lends even less credibility to his Christian nature, too.

__________________
We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.

-- Charles Darwin

I don't know too much about Ken Ham and even less about Vance Nelson so I can't comment on them. But my first encounter with Kent Hovind which left a bad taste in my mouth was when I first wandered onto another Christian forum and found someone posting Kent Hovind's 25 objections against evolution - the one that has questions like "How can matter come from nothing?" and pretends that it is a valid objection against evolution. Even back when I was a creationist when I saw that I knew straight away that this wasn't a valid objection to evolutionism. AFAIK most other creationist orgs aren't comfortable with him either.

__________________

Hello, my name is Matthew. I have been faithful to God and all of his Glory since I was 11. Currently, I have a major in Behavioural Ecology and am studying Evolutionary Psychology for my post grad. I am a TE through and through.

I have wanted to address the issues of Kan Ham and Kent Hovind to a Christian audience for quite some time. Neither are on my page, but one seems of pure intentions and the other as a self-promoting liar. Both speak with Authority, one given to him by Genesis, the other by two sources: his questionable education and as well Genesis. Being a TE, even Genesis can be called into question, not on it's authorship, but on how literal it is.

The third gentleman I know nothing of, sorry.

Kent Hovind: The 250,000 dollar challenge. It is such a flawed program that he must know he's a liar. He knows that this challenge will not be met, that is why it's there. Anyone that endorses and practices logic and reason for even a small period of time knows that this contest is rigged. Mr. Hovind is a self-promoting liar.

I obviously have my feathers ruffled over this man. The idea of him spreading false science around to children that will believe anything does make my temper flare a bit. He has a Dinosaur playland where children can see dinosaurs and humans together "like they originally were." It hurts to know that people like this exist.

I've seen his series on Evolution as well as a few seminars(of the "700 he gives per year") and am appalled at the distortions he uses as well as the exceptions that go unquestioned among a faithful, believing audience. I don't blame the audience at all, I blame Mr. Hovind.

He has several debates on YouTube dot com(can't link because I'm new) that are put there to promote himself. I want to highlight one that really puts the case home. If you look for the one that has him debate 3 Evolutionists so they "can not use the "that is not in my field" excuses" you find the debate I'll be referencing. Again, I wish I could link it without posting 15 posts first.

It isn't the topic but who he is debating that falls into question. I would encourage you to look up the names of the gentlemen he is debating to find that two graduated from Baptist Colleges(misplaced motives potentially, and could have done better) and a third man that isn't even on the internet's radar yet. One of the Baptist College Graduates' name is mispelt and I hope, though I don't want to imply, that it isn't on purpose. I've never known this to be proper, especially given a debate. Also, the structure of the debate is tilted towards Mr. Hovind's side and that structure was laid out by him and his son Eric to begin with. He always opens HIS debates.

He is a charmer and yes, they do exist. It has been my experience that people that talk as fast as Mr. Hovind do so deliberately to fulfill the illusion of unquestionable authority.

In summary, I question Mr. Hovind's integrity to the point of calling him not just a liar, but a knowing liar. He is a poison to our faith and should not be trusted, especially with our children.

Ken Ham seems to me a man of good intentions. One that upholds the literal account of Genesis and is a true believer. He is not a liar to say the least. Picky/Choosy? Maybe....

He is a proponent of YECism and parts of ID. Both POVs are designed by and supported by Creation Scientists. Emphasis added.

These men are not scientists. Scientists use the Scientific Method, point and simple. To summarize the Scientific Method, though not complete, is to the point like this:

Scientific Method:
1. Find Facts
2. Draw Conclusions from those Facts

Creation Scientists shouldn't use the title Scientist. They should make a new word, which I see as demanded. Let's say it's Martist(pulled out of the air.) These Creation Martists use the Martific Method to reason things.

Martific Method:
1. Have Conclusion
2. Find Facts to support that Conclusion

Again, for comparative analysis:

Scientific Method:
1. Find Facts
2. Draw Conclusions from those Facts

Completely backwards. Martience is not Science.

As a faithful believer I believe that God works outside of our reasoning and that his scribe was meant for his understanding and our research into it. I believe that as a scientist I am unlocking the majesty that is our Cosmos laid out by his hand in his metaphorical 6-day Creation story. My personal belief that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour doesn't suffer and neither does my future standing with the public.

Thank you and God Bless.

For a Creationist to get a PhD in "one of the appropriate areas of study" from an accredited university is almost like a black man joining the KKK and trying to get to the top.

Godwin's Law! w00t!

__________________