My summary:
he goes on for a few minutes talking about the age of the Earth and how evolution says we came from rocks. Note that this is no foundational part of the theory of evolution -- the theory actually says nothing at all about where life first came from, it only describes the mechanism by which diversity accumulates in a population.
Abiogenesis is the idea that life came from non-living material (usually organic molecules) and quite a bit of interesting research has been done in the area -- especially in self-replicating molecules. However, no scientist knows or claims to know that this is what happened.
At five minutes in he then says that Cain married his sister. If this part of the Bible were meant historically (and not as a story similar to parables that also convey truth) then humans would not have more than two blood types (only one if Eve had the same as Adam). To claim that our blood types just HAPPENED to evolve in a few thousand years (because that's what evolution is -- the change of the frequency of traits in a population) and HAPPENED to evolve to mirror exactly those found in apes and other mammals is actually supporting a hyper-fast evolution that is never found in nature.
The same issue is found with eye and hair color etc...
Interestingly enough, the Bible uses many literary techniques that were common to the other cultures in the area including inflating the ages of important patriarchs. The Assyrian Kings list (easily found on Wikipedia if you're interested) inflates the ages of the Assyrian leaders by hundreds to thousands of years. They end up (If I recall correctly) with about 28,000 years in the list of Kings. It was in no way meant as a lie -- they weren't hyper-literal about their history as we were. The inflation was meant to inspire a sense of awe that gives great importance to the leaders. It also serves to set one's ancestors apart from other tribes or empires and you'll note that ages are never inflated (in the Bible or Assyrian or Egyptian literature) for other country's leaders.
It's a huge mistake to read the Bible as a modern historical account because their culture just didn't put any sort of importance on details but on meaning.
Now Hovind says, "this is a big problem because the credibility of the book of Genesis is at stake." He calls those who disagree that it's a historical account a "cult" because we'd need to talk to them to understand what it means (i.e. a form of Gnosticism or secret knowledge).
The bit he's missing is that the real meaning behind Genesis is not in the details of who married who when and lived how long, but in describing God's relationship with man. The first few chapters were designed to directly counter the Assyrian and Egyptian religions that had gods throughout nature. The Bible begins by essentially saying, "you know your sun god and your rain god etc...? OUR God created them!" Is it somehow a lie to use narrative language to portray this truth? In our culture it might be, but we're far FAR from the nomadic pre-enlightment culture and it would be utter arrogance to claim that the Bible must conform to our ultra-literal historical reporting standards in order for it to contain truth!
He mentions that nearly every other book in the Bible refers back to Genesis, and Jesus in particular quoted it 25 times, but look at some of those quotes. Jesus always refers to scripture in trying to teach the deeper non-literal meaning. And it's not just Jesus, the New Testement is chock full of the authors teaching and interpreting the meaning behind the "plain reading" of scriptures. Quite simply, Genesis wasn't written to just be read as history but as a deeply meaningful book with truth that WOULDN'T be obvious to somebody who had never studied the Hebrew culture.
Oh, good, at about 9:00 minutes in, he starts talking about science. First off he talks about how if people reproduced exponentially it couldn't have sustained life for longer than a few thousand years without overwhelming the Earth.
It's utter nonsense. Rabbits reproduce much faster than we do -- why haven't THEY overtaken the entire Earth? Simply because of predators and a lack of resources. The human population was reduced (in Europe) by a full third by the Black Plague! Quite simply, it wasn't until we had the technology to make our resources essentially unlimited and to reduce our susceptability to predators and disease that the Earth's population started taking off.
This is such a horrible argument it's one that I would claim is terribly dishonest. On its face it seems reasonable, but it's really got nothing supporting it. He even claims that the curve looks like it starts at a global flood -- this is also absolute nonsense. He DESIGNED the curve to go from 8 people to 8 billion in exactly the time he thinks it took.
Then he comes up with anti-human quotes from a number of pretty crazy humans... I don't think any evolutionist listens to Prince Phillip as a source of their beliefs, so when he says we need to reduce the Earth's population we don't much care.
Meh, I need to get to work, and I'd hoped to get through more actual science, but as you can see Hovind doesn't really stick to facts very often. I'd strongly suggest reviewing the Answers in Genesis (a young-earth creationist organization) and their list of arguments creationists shouldn't use. Many of Hovind's arguments are on this list and it gives reasons why they aren't particularly useful or honest.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp
