Dr. Hovind's Theories

[vossler]

I believe that he did break the law... I mean 10 years for nothing? Come on. But I also believe that he was a target - Someone was out to get him. They charged him with everything they could, and 10 years was way too much of a sentence.

I believe he did some things he shouldn't have, but I also believe he most definitely was a target.

I also am very thankful to Dr. Hovind. I was raised a Mormon. My beliefs about creation/evolution was a very confused belief. I grew up thinking that creation and evolution coexisted. God's 6 "day" creation was possible because God's "day" is very different than ours, and is actually the equivilent of many thousands of years, or a thousand years, or a timeframe that no one is sure of. As you can picture, this theory leaves many holes and much confusion. It left me with a small amount of doubt in Christianity. However, the LDS theory is not true, and because of Dr. Hovind, I can live in 100% faith in Christ.

Praise the Lord for your deliverance and for the man who He used to helped deliver you.

 

[Dannager]

Praise the Lord for your deliverance and for the man who He used to helped deliver you.

While I'm glad it allowed her to place full faith in God, I'm hopeful that she will be able to graduate from the mental crutch that is young earth creationism and the rest of Hovind's teachings.

 

[Jase]

I believe that he did break the law... I mean 10 years for nothing? Come on. But I also believe that he was a target - Someone was out to get him. They charged him with everything they could, and 10 years was way too much of a sentence.

Come on now, he was a target? He wasn't targeted for anything. He purposely broke the law. He repeatedly took out large amounts of cash that were just under the amount that sets off alarms at the IRS. How much more devious can you get? He knew he was doing wrong, but he didn't care.

I also am very thankful to Dr. Hovind. I was raised a Mormon. My beliefs about creation/evolution was a very confused belief. I grew up thinking that creation and evolution coexisted. God's 6 "day" creation was possible because God's "day" is very different than ours, and is actually the equivilent of many thousands of years, or a thousand years, or a timeframe that no one is sure of. As you can picture, this theory leaves many holes and much confusion. It left me with a small amount of doubt in Christianity. However, the LDS theory is not true, and because of Dr. Hovind, I can live in 100% faith in Christ. I am glad that his ministry has grown so big, because if it hadn't his video would not have reached me. I've always had faith, but it was a 70% faith, where 30% doubt was attributed directly to evolution that everyone is taught in school and trying to make it work with Creation.

First of all, could you please stop referring to him as Doctor Hovind? He isn't a doctor in any way shape or form. He bought his doctorate. He did absolutely no scientific work to obtain it. He is a total fraud. His arguments have also been completely shot down in every single case. Almost no informed creationist actually takes him seriously, let alone anyone from the scientific community.

Might I suggest you read Dr. Francis Collins "The Language of God" ? I'm just about finished it. Dr. Collins has a ph.d from Yale in biochemistry and an M.D. He is one of the most renowned scientists in the world, and was the leader of the Human Genome Project. He also used to be atheist. Now he is a theistic evolutionist. A devout Christian and a first rate scientist. There is no need to settle on the ideas of a fraud like Mr. Hovind when the majority of the world's Christians can reconcile science and faith just fine. Evolution is not in conflict with Christianity.

 

[ChristBearer]

Come on now, he was a target? He wasn't targeted for anything. He purposely broke the law. He repeatedly took out large amounts of cash that were just under the amount that sets off alarms at the IRS. How much more devious can you get? He knew he was doing wrong, but he didn't care.



First of all, could you please stop referring to him as Doctor Hovind? He isn't a doctor in any way shape or form. He bought his doctorate. He did absolutely no scientific work to obtain it. He is a total fraud. His arguments have also been completely shot down in every single case. Almost no informed creationist actually takes him seriously, let alone anyone from the scientific community.

Might I suggest you read Dr. Francis Collins "The Language of God" ? I'm just about finished it. Dr. Collins has a ph.d from Yale in biochemistry and an M.D. He is one of the most renowned scientists in the world, and was the leader of the Human Genome Project. He also used to be atheist. Now he is a theistic evolutionist. A devout Christian and a first rate scientist. There is no need to settle on the ideas of a fraud like Mr. Hovind when the majority of the world's Christians can reconcile science and faith just fine. Evolution is not in conflict with Christianity.

For the PHD issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY972IBuFyU

Name the tax laws he broke, because even the IRS didn't name any. The ones that they did name were proven to be faulty accusations, or they were simply not laws that Kent Hovind chose not to follow.

 

[Deamiter]

Wow, I just watched that video and boy does he have trouble staying on topic! A couple points -- first of all, his degree is not accredited. That means that there is absolutely no oversight and the school could be teaching NOTHING and still give out the degree. Unaccredited degrees are generally useless -- those with unaccredited degrees are usually forced to prove their knowledge through tests or experience to an employer.

Second, his thesis was totally full of spelling errors, has no title and no references. He only had one "committee" member. Now, he's edited it since then, but that's also not allowed in any accredited school -- Given the quality of the thesis he supposedly "defended" to his single committee member, I think it's pretty clear that the school isn't giving out degrees for merit!
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

As for the tax laws he violated,

On July 11, 2006, Hovind was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola with twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over Federal income taxes and FICA taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in Federally-insured financial institutions to evade the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 31 C.F.R. sec. 103.11, and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws under 26 U.S.C. § 7212. Twelve of the charges were for failing to pay employee-related taxes, totaling $473,818, and 45 of the charges were for evading reporting requirements by making multiple cash withdrawals just under the $10,000 reporting requirement (a technique known as "smurfing"). The withdrawals, totaling $430,500, were made in 2001 and 2002.

The government charged that Hovind falsely listed the IRS as his only creditor in his bankruptcy, filed a false and frivolous lawsuit against the IRS in which he demanded damages for criminal trespass, made threats of harm to those investigating him and to those who might consider cooperating with the investigation, filed a false complaint against IRS agents investigating him, filed a false criminal complaint against IRS special agents (criminal investigators), and destroyed records.

Kent Hovind was found guilty of all 58 counts presented.

Basically, he ran a business with employees (who punched in and out daily and were paid on a schedule and didn't even consider the "ministry" to be a church). He used well-known schemes used by Glen Stoll to avoid paying taxes and conceal ownership of his properties. His Creation Science Evangelism ministry is not listed as tax exempt.

Note, it's often brought up that he was jailed for taking out under the amount allowed ($10,000 per day). That's not quite true -- he was jailed for not paying taxes on this money (which he took out to pay employees). He was convicted of structuring (repeatedly taking out less than the $10,000) as part of his scheme to avoid paying taxes, not because taking out under $10,000 per day is illegal.

 

[Deamiter]

Oh and ChristBearer -- for the third time, let's get to details. You claim that many of his claims are correct, yet even other creationist organizations seem to disagree with you and Hovind. As Hovind said repeatedly in his video -- let's get back to the topic at hand. Pick ANY of his claims (say two at a time?) and let's get down to the details.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Annalisa,
It is great to see that you want the truth to be known, but when using Dr Hovind we do need to be careful. I wouldn't take all that he says as fact, some yes, all no. The hard part is sifting through what is true and makes sense from the garbage. One other thing, many people, especially TEs, don't like Hovind. I can see why as the way he presents and talks is very demeaning and less than gracious. IMO, he is one brother in Christ we should not emulate. I suggest looking at AIG instead (already suggested by others). Blessings!

 

[Dannager]

Name the tax laws he broke, because even the IRS didn't name any. The ones that they did name were proven to be faulty accusations, or they were simply not laws that Kent Hovind chose not to follow.

It worries me that you would even be capable of believing that someone could be convicted of something without having named the law they violated. That's, like, step one of prosecution.

 

[annalisa201]

Annalisa,
It is great to see that you want the truth to be known, but when using Dr Hovind we do need to be careful. I wouldn't take all that he says as fact, some yes, all no. The hard part is sifting through what is true and makes sense from the garbage. One other thing, many people, especially TEs, don't like Hovind. I can see why as the way he presents and talks is very demeaning and less than gracious. IMO, he is one brother in Christ we should not emulate. I suggest looking at AIG instead (already suggested by others). Blessings!

I'm not interested in closely studying any of this... it just leads to more controversy... I'm just glad that there are people out there, Dr. Hovind and other Creationists, that don't support evolution because (as I stated before) evolution is a huge contibuting factor to doubt of God's word. I believe that he is wrong in much of his "facts" but it still has opened the door for me. My doubt is gone.

And as for calling him Dr. - Dr. Hovind spent nine years obtaining his PhD. If I'd spent nine years in school, got a PhD and people said I wasn't a real doctor, I'd be very angry. I could understand saying it's not real because it's not an accredited school and he obtained it in a year, or two, or three, or four..... but NINE YEARS? yeah, he's pretty knowledgeable... Haven't you ever been to a doctor (like a family practitioner) and they've misinformed you, or seem to not know what they're talking about? I have. Isn't that similar?

I also had to laugh after the Dr. Hovind vs. Ali G video on YouTube Very funny. I had actually seen it before, but didn't know who Hovind and that makes it even funnier.

Have a good weekend.

Annalisa

 

[annalisa201]

Might I suggest you read Dr. Francis Collins "The Language of God" ? I'm just about finished it. Dr. Collins has a ph.d from Yale in biochemistry and an M.D. He is one of the most renowned scientists in the world, and was the leader of the Human Genome Project. He also used to be atheist. Now he is a theistic evolutionist. A devout Christian and a first rate scientist. There is no need to settle on the ideas of a fraud like Mr. Hovind when the majority of the world's Christians can reconcile science and faith just fine. Evolution is not in conflict with Christianity.

I did a search for Dr. Francis Collins - and watched a video of him. He supports the Big Bang... Dr. Hovind can easily contradict the Big Bang theory because some galaxies are spinning backwards, and some of Jupiters moons are spinning backwards. This is impossible if the Big Bang were true. Maybe evolution and Christianity can coincide, but the Big Bang is obviously flawed, and definetly not scientific. I don't understand how any scientist could believe the Big Bang Theory with knowing that these galaxies and moons spin backwards... any comments?

 

[Mallon]

And as for calling him Dr. - Dr. Hovind spent nine years obtaining his PhD. If I'd spent nine years in school, got a PhD and people said I wasn't a real doctor, I'd be very angry.

I don't know if you've ever set foot in a university before, but taking nine years to write a 250-page PhD dissertation is NOT a good thing. It looks bad on both the student and the advisor because it gives the impression (perhaps appropriately) that no work is getting done. My advisor would have my head on a platter if I took longer than five years. What makes things even worse is the fact that Hovind's thesis includes no original research! It's just a summary of some textbooks he read!
Regardless. If YECs insist on clinging to "Dr." Hovind's "science," then so be it. It makes refuting YECism that much easier.

 

[Deamiter]

I did a search for Dr. Francis Collins - and watched a video of him. He supports the Big Bang... Dr. Hovind can easily contradict the Big Bang theory because some galaxies are spinning backwards, and some of Jupiters moons are spinning backwards. This is impossible if the Big Bang were true. Maybe evolution and Christianity can coincide, but the Big Bang is obviously flawed, and definetly not scientific. I don't understand how any scientist could believe the Big Bang Theory with knowing that these galaxies and moons spin backwards... any comments?

Oooh, details! Yes actually, I'd like to comment.

First of all, the Big Bang has never been proposed as an explosion in space, but the initial expansion of space itself. Nobody claims that the universe itself is spinning. In Hovind's video, if you look closely at the source he briefly throws up on the screen, it's talking about the origin of rotating GALAXIES, not the Big Bang as he implies.

Secondly, in an explosion there are a number of ways that pieces of an original object can be spinning in the opposite direction (note, the Big Bang was not an explosion but an expansion of space itself -- but I'm just showing how he's wrong about the spinning of the solar system being evidence against it's coming from a spinning source).

Mainly, any time there is a collision, kinetic energy can be transferred to rotational energy and will be any time the objects do not hit dead center. You can test this with a ball on a table -- hit it in the middle and it won't change it's spin, but hit it on the side and it'll start spinning.

Scientists have always theorized that the planets and moons that are spinning "backwards" are products of collisions, and those that are orbiting backwards (no planets, just moons) are easily explained because their orbit is ONLY dependent on which side of the planet they were captured on.

I wish I could show you in pictures, but the bottom line is that angular momentum is not necessarily conserved in an explosion. ENERGY is conserved, but kinetic energy can easily be transferred into angular momentum.

If you want to get even more complicated, find a pool table and spin a ball. Then hit it at different angles (and different spots on the spinning ball) and see what happens. You'll find that the rate of spin is different for different collisions.

 

[Deamiter]

I don't know if you've ever set foot in a university before, but taking nine years to write a 250-page PhD dissertation is NOT a good thing. It looks bad on both the student and the advisor because it gives the impression (perhaps appropriately) that no work is getting done. My advisor would have my head on a platter if I took longer than five years. What makes things even worse is the fact that Hovind's thesis includes no original research! It's just a summary of some textbooks he read!
Regardless. If YECs insist on clinging to "Dr." Hovind's "science," then so be it. It makes refuting YECism that much easier.

Time totally aside, just look up Patriot University! Credits cost $5 each and with a few hundred for other fees, a Ph.D. costs about $500 - $1000.

And it didn't take him 9 years to write a 250 page thesis, he wrote a 100 page thesis that had numerous spelling errors, a graph hand-pasted in (copied from a textbook) and some pages that were apparently copied and pasted from OTHER PAGES in the thesis!

Seriously, if you honestly think he did any studying or work in those nine years, take a look at this link to see what he produced at the end of it!
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
in short:

If Patriot University did, in fact, accept this dissertation and award a Ph.D. in Christian education, then it does fall into the category of a diploma mill, for the reasons listed below.

--- There is no original research presented.

--- Large portions of the dissertation are repeated. Formatting errors are rampant.

---References are absent.

--- Spelling errors that are typical of high school (but not college) writing are present in this document.

--- The writing style, "popular" or not, is typical of high school-level writing, not college, and certainly not postgraduate. The writing style, as well as Hovind's lectures, are reminiscent of drive-by shootings, where many disjointed topics are presented in rapid-fire order (so as to not allow the reader or listener to really think about any particular topic).

 

[ChristBearer]

http://penaltyprotester.com/files/LindseyHovindTrialReport.pdf

^About him breaking a law that doesn't exist.

Also, just because he got his degree in a private school doesn't make it any less real, nor does it matter in the end, it's what he's saying that counts.

 

[Mallon]

Also, just because he got his degree in a private school doesn't make it any less real, nor does it matter in the end, it's what he's saying that counts.

I agree. And in the end, every argument he has ever used has been thouroughly and convincingly denied with verifiable science. Period. If you disagree and wish to discuss details, as Deamiter has been probing you to do, then by all means, please do so. But if you aren't willing to back up any of your assertions and insist on just promoting hearsay, then please refrain.
Hovind is no role-model.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I don't know if you've ever set foot in a university before, but taking nine years to write a 250-page PhD dissertation is NOT a good thing. It looks bad on both the student and the advisor because it gives the impression (perhaps appropriately) that no work is getting done. My advisor would have my head on a platter if I took longer than five years. What makes things even worse is the fact that Hovind's thesis includes no original research! It's just a summary of some textbooks he read!
Regardless. If YECs insist on clinging to "Dr." Hovind's "science," then so be it. It makes refuting YECism that much easier.

Could you explain what you mean by saying "original research? I'm just trying to understand what you mean by that. On the surface it sounds kind of funny since researching usually intails looking at other people's work. In essence research doesn't appear to be original.

 

[Mallon]

Could you explain what you mean by saying "original research? I'm just trying to understand what you mean by that. On the surface it sounds kind of funny since researching usually intails looking at other people's work. In essence research doesn't appear to be original.

Any Doctor of Philosophy degree entails doing some original research. By "original research" I mean going out, gathering your own data, analyzing it yourself, and coming to your own conclusions, thus advancing the field. Yes, it involves doing a great deal of studying previous research, but your job as a PhD candidate is to push the envelope and go beyond what research has previously been done. Hovind's book report does not fulfill the above criteria.

 

[Deamiter]

Any Doctor of Philosophy degree entails doing some original research. By "original research" I mean going out, gathering your own data, analyzing it yourself, and coming to your own conclusions, thus advancing the field. Yes, it involves doing a great deal of studying previous research, but your job as a PhD candidate is to push the envelope and go beyond what research has previously been done. Hovind's book report does not fulfill the above criteria.

Indeed, it gets a little funny when you get into Ph.D. in music history or something. In that case, you're not so much collecting new DATA but reading through all the correspondance and writing or some small bit of history as well as studying music styles etc...

In a hard science, original research does indeed have to take into account previous research but it also has to produce new data and analysis of that data.

What disqualifies Hovind's thesis? Well first of all it has no references. Stealing from other people's work without giving credit is absolutely not allowed! Secondly, he both offers no new data and no new analysis. As with music history, Christian education might not actually generate new data, but you'd at the very least expect it to collect data in a new way and come to some new conclusion about how Christians should be educated etc...

 

[Deamiter]

^About him breaking a law that doesn't exist.

Also, just because he got his degree in a private school doesn't make it any less real, nor does it matter in the end, it's what he's saying that counts.

I'll discuss the laws he broke later -- basically he's been reusing old tactics that are pretty standard among tax-evaders. Amusingly enough, since part of this involves renouncing citizenship, Kent Hovind probably doesn't have any rights under US law that could possibly be violated. Anyway, I need to get a bike ride in before it gets dark so again, I'll discuss this later.

As for the second bit, it has nothing to do with it being a private school. Most private schools are WONDERFUL! I went to Bethel University in Minnesota, and highly recommend it as a great undergraduate Christian-centered conservative Baptist university! The point is that Patriot University is not accredited. That means they do not agree to even the minimum standard that every mainstream (public AND private) school must hold to to be accredited.

And you're absolutely right, in the end it IS what he's saying that counts. Again, I'd absolutely LOVE to get into details about what he's saying. I mentioned his discussion of population levels in the world, but if you have something else you'd like to focus on, don't hesitate to bring it up! Let's discuss what he actually says rather than his degree so everybody can make their own decisions about the validity of his claims!

 

[pastorkevin73]

Any Doctor of Philosophy degree entails doing some original research. By "original research" I mean going out, gathering your own data, analyzing it yourself, and coming to your own conclusions, thus advancing the field. Yes, it involves doing a great deal of studying previous research, but your job as a PhD candidate is to push the envelope and go beyond what research has previously been done. Hovind's book report does not fulfill the above criteria.

Awww! Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you mean now. Blessings!