Yes, if it was just a few typos or mistakes, that would be one thing, but Hovind's case is VERY different.
And the difference, generally, between the mistakes of secular science and "creation" science is very simply drawn. While there have been a few intentional hoaxes (Piltdown Man, etc), most of the errors are honest and readily acknowledged when pointed out. In fact, it is almost always the secular scientific community itself which points it out! Scientific study creates a growing body of knowledge and concepts and, as a general body, they recognize this growth as part of the process. Theories are expounded, attacked, tested and critiqued. Those which survive this grueling process over a period of time are given a certain degree of respect and, at some point, are deemed sound enough to build upon.
Creationists, however, tend to adopt arguments not based on their tenebility, but on whether they support their preconceived belief (ie, a young earth). They will then hold on to these LONG after they have been refuted beyond a reasonable doubt simply because they have too much invested in them. AIG finally came out with a list of arguments it will not use anymore when it became outright embarrasing. The list is still too short, of course, and they held on to them WAY too long, but it is a step in the right direction.
Hovind, in response to this very list, said he will continue with these arguments regardless of whether they have been proven false. At one point he actually makes reference to the fact that he has these arguments in his books, seminar materials and videos and asks AIG whether they expect him to trash all of these and redo them. The correct answer, of course, is yes, he should. But he won't.