The Young Earth Creationist organisation, Answers in Genesis, published a ground breaking article; Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use. This article warns against using any one of a substantial list of defective Young Earth arguments.  Because this list has been prepared by one of the most prominent Young Earth organizations no claim of "evolutionary bias" can be remotely justified.

What is the connection with Kent Hovind?   Below you will see the list of the flawed arguments Answers in Genesis warns against using.  Those arguments that Kent Hovind has, or still does use are highlighted in bold.

According to AIG, these arguments should definitely NOT be used

• Darwin recanted on his deathbed 
• Moon dust thickness proves a young moon
• NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua's long day and Hezekiah's sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20
• Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe
• The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in old strata invalidate the geologic column
• Dubois renounced Java man as a missing link and claimed it was just a giant gibbon
• The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand
• The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall
• If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
• Women have one more rib than men
• Archaeopteryx is a fraud
• There are no beneficial mutations
• No new species have been produced
• Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood
• Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
• Darwin's quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species
• Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents
• The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology
• There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be 10,000 years old or even more
• Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin
• The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution
• Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural
• Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark
• Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible
• Many of Carl Baugh's creation evidences

 

 

According to AIG these arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use (Hovind's use highlighted with bold)

• Canopy theory
• There was no rain before the Flood
• Natural selection as tautology
• Evolution is just a theory
• The speed of light has decreased over time
• There are no transitional forms
• Gold chains have been found in coal
• Plate tectonics is fallacious
• Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution
• The Gospel is in the stars.

 

 

 

Kent Hovind began to feel the heat (even though the AIG article wasn’t directed to him) and published a response [2].

Reading Hovind's reply you will notice an interesting phenomenon; Hovind never acknowledges he could be in error.  Instead, he uses weasel phrases such as;

 

“The verdict is not in yet on this one”

 

“…. I think the argument is still valid. It has certainly not been proven wrong.”

 

“…. it has certainly not been proven that it was not.”

 

“I don’t think it is possible to know the truth of this one but it has not been proven that it was not.”

 

“I do not say in my seminar that he did or did not find it but it is not certain that he did not.”

 

“There is no way to know the truth of this one.”

 

“…. but it is certainly not proven to be untrue.”

Answers in Genesis then wrote a counter rebuttal [3] that contained the original text of Hovind’s reply plus some surprisingly objective analysis.   For those who couldn’t be bothered wading through all the material, AIG’s response can be best summarized as;

 

“Unfortunately, Kent Hovind’s document repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands not only our article, but the issues themselves.” [3] [Original italics]

 

And the saga continues .....  Hovind counter response was;

 

"Since I have no desire to get into a spitting contest over issues that are so minor in the grand scheme of God’s work and there are much bigger fish to fry, I have not responded to their article but scores of others have." [4]

Hovind then reprints some of the feedback he has received from his fans who took exception to AIG criticizing arguments used by some Young Earth Creationists.  Kent Hovind's final statement, without admitting a single error, included; 

 

"I was shocked at their overreaction to my FAQ but I did not and do not want to make an issue out of the details. The last thing I want to do is hurt them [AIG] or their outreach in any way. They are in the same field as I am, going the same direction, just plowing a different row. At the same time I do not want them to harm the outreach of other ministries, including mine. I still believe my answers in my FAQ were right and would be glad to discuss them with anyone." [4]

Note the apparent contradiction between the last two quotes regarding willingness to discuss details  - "I have not responded to their article" versus "would be glad to discuss them with anyone".

 

[1]  Anon, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp [February 2003]

 

[2]  Hovind, K (2002) Bad Creationist Arguments? http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=41 [April 2003]

 

[3]  Wieland, C. et al, 2002,  Maintaining Creationist Integrity, 11 October 2002, updated 16 December 2002 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp [February 2003]

 

[4] Hovind, K. 2003 Readers comments to AiG's article http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=77 [July 2003]