Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism MinistriesKent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953), an American young earth creationist, is considered by many to be one of the foremost authorities on science and the Bible. The amazing ability of Kent Hovind to communicate complicated scientific concepts in an easy-to-understand format makes this essential information accessible for youth and laypersons, as well as science professors. The goal of his creation seminars is to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. As of 2012, this Creation Seminar has parts translated via subtitling in 37 languages.

Kent Hovind’s views are contradicted by secular scientific journals. Some of his ideas have also been criticized by young earth creationists. This happens even in the general scientific community and even in certain creation organizations. Kent Hovind established the Creation Science Evangelism ministry in 1989 speaking extensively on young Earth creationism at private schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Since January 2007, Dr. Hovind’s materials have been distributed by Creation Today. They continue to influence many lives with the Gospel through the Creation message.

Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors, Creation Science Hall of Fame, says that he met Kent Hovind at his Creation Boot Camp in Pensacola, Florida and found him to be a dedicated Creationist and Christian.

Update

At the request of Mr. Eric Hovind, son of Kent Hovind, the Creation Science Hall of Fame removed the open letter from Kent Hovind on his tax battles. Mr. Hovind asks everyone to respect the privacy of the family and not ask for a specific reason. CSHF apologizes for any inconvenience that might have happened to the Hovind family or to anyone else. We wish only to do what is right by the Hovind family.

In Christ serving the Creation community,

THE CREATION SCIENCE HALL OF FAME

RETURN TO LIST OF LIVING INDUCTEES

28 thoughts on “Kent Hovind

  1. Pingback: Not Income Tax Evasion – Structuring | 1040 Tax Plus Services

  2. Pingback: Is IRS Persecuting Kent Hovind For Creationism ?

  3. Pingback: Let’s Have Judge Judy Tell Us How Old The Earth Is | Forbes

  4. I’m not sure citing a case involving one of the most notorious Boston crime bosses is really the defense Kent wants to take that he did nothing wrong or that the government sometimes lies! Peter Limone was a ruthless murderer, extortionist, and ran illegal gambling operations. Limone was returned to prison in 2010 because he returned to his crime life after leaving prison in 2001. He used his lawsuit settlement to continue his life of crime.

    Using the Limone case to defend yourself is bizarre to say the least.

    CP

    • If the particular activities of a party to a case diminished the probative or precedential value of that case in every context in which one might sight it, half the precedents in American case law today would evaporate. Try harder than that to play amateur amicus curiae in the case of US v. Hovind.

  5. Pingback: Kent Hovind: not a tax protester | Conservative News and Views

  6. Pingback: Kent Hovind: not a tax protester | Creation Science Hall of Fame

  7. Terry,

    In your post of the 27th you said that Kent claims that the first 35 pages were missing from the IRS Master file. However, the court trial transcript shows that Kent was claiming that only 10 pages were missing. He claims that the content of these missing pages has the IRS admitting that Kent owed no tax whatsoever.

    Have you any explanation for the discrepancy in the number of missing pages and why, if the IRS had indeed made such an admission, Kent’s defence attorney failed to bring it to the attention of the court?

    • Tell you what: the site’s still up at last report.

      link to 2peter3.com

      Maybe you should look it up there. There’s a wealth of material, if you’re really interested.

      Bottom line: the US Internal Revenue Code is full of circularities, even more than is the theory of evolution. Sometimes I think the Code means whatever the Lois Lerners of this world think it means, any time they say it and have the authority to say it.

  8. My question was not about the IRS Code (with which the vast majority of Americans seem to have no problem complying) but about the discrepancy in Kent’s court transcript (found on his website) and his open letter published on your website a couple of days ago. But, if you don’t know the answer, you don’t the answer.

    It seems that Eric and Kent are falling out over more than Kent’s open letter. How long will it be before Eric is forced to give Paul Taylor his marching orders do you think?

  9. Regarding this

    “The goal of his creation seminars is to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology”.

    It makes it sound like he is against science with the ‘geophysics’ and ‘cosmology’ parts, he isnt-no YEC is against actual science, they (myself) know evolution is religion, not science. Just my personal suggestion why not

    “The goal of his creation seminars is to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, and atheistic interpretations of geophysics, and cosmology” or

    “and secular interpretations of geophysics, and cosmology”

    Sam from Australia.

  10. Sam,

    Kent’s formal science education ended at high school. He then spent a couple of years in preaching college. The limit of his maths education was geometry, trigonometry and algebra. He probably didn’t even get as far as elementary calculus.

    Why should I listen to a word Kent has to say on on such specialist subjects as geophysics or cosmology when he seems unable to grasp even simple scientific concepts? What respect can you have for the views of some-one who says repeatedly over the years: “I’ll believe in evolution when a dog gives birth to a non-dog?” Do you understand why such a comment demonstrates his utter lack of basic comprehension of evolutionary theory?

    • All that shows, is that he does not respect The Evolutionary Narrative. Maybe he doesn’t understand it. I wouldn’t count that as evidence of The Narrative’s truth or sophistication. I suggest you and others do not know the difference between sophistication and sophistry.

      • From your blurb at the top of the page: “The goal of his creation seminars is to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution,….”

        So you honour a man for not understanding the very basis of a theory he has spent the last 40 years arguing against. How strange. Kent’s mantra is akin to “I’ll believe in the theory of gravity when apples fall upwards.”

        • Actually, he, and I, both understand what you and your goalpost movers are really all about, and what your shifting definitions of evolution are all in aid of.

          • Please don’t be so shy. Spell out what you think I am “really all about”. How have my definitions of evolution shifted and please supply a couple of examples?

          • I know your real name, which of course you spell out in your e-mail username. You and I have conversed before. And of that conversation, the less said the better.

  11. My comment was for the owner of this site not indoctrinates (atheistic evolutionists) such as yourself. Terry Hurlbut i was under the impression this site is run by YEC. Are you a YEC? My comment was for you.

    • Absolutely. “Honoring those who honor God’s Word.” And by that Word, this earth cannot be older than seventy-five hundred years (based on best manuscript evidence).

      • But the manuscript evidence only goes back to 250ish BCE which leaves 50 centuries unaccounted for.

        • Wrong date. We can date the Book of Daniel positively to the era in which Daniel lived, from stylistic nuances that no “forger” in the era you named could match. And by the way: drop the “E.”

          • Who mentioned Daniel? I’m was referring to the lack of any extant biblical manuscripts whatsoever prior to 250BCE. As for Daniel, there are a lot of scholars who would dispute your “positive” dating.

            And why drop the E? “Before the Common” makes no sense.

          • Before Christ, of course. And I am well aware of the conventional lie-agreed-upon that The Book of Daniel was a patriotic fable of the Alexandrine Era.

    • Sammy,

      I grew up in a very christian household and was indoctrinated in my parents’ religion until the age of about 17. It was only when I started asking questions that I began to realise that all was not as I had been told. So I read very widely over many years (and continue to do so) and came to very different conclusions to those of my parents.

      Is it not the case that someone who has cast his intellectual net widely is less likely to be thought of as indoctrinated than another whose entire philosophy is baed upon a partial reading of a single book?

  12. Two points:

    1. I do know the difference between sophistication and sophistry. It is the same difference as that between my arguments and yours with the added advantage that my arguments bear some resemblance to reality and not make believe.

    2. Kent’s anti-evolution arguments are as sophisticated as the legal arguments he has put before various courts over the past few years and we all know where they got him.

    P.S. I understand that Mr Wilson is the Professor of Chemistry at DBU and not Ide Trotter as you wrote in your recent article.

  13. “I know your real name, which of course you spell out in your e-mail username. You and I have conversed before. And of that conversation, the less said the better.”

    So? My name is no great secret; indeed, I’ve had the same one all my life and it’s even on the bottom of every personal cheque I write.

    It seems that our previous conversations were more memorable for you than for me as I cannot remember their content. Whatever it was I hope that it has been of use to your continuing development.

    But this conversation is not about past conversations. Why are you running away from this conversation by referring to previous conversations you also ran from?

    • Mostly because I have better things to do with my time than to argue God’s Creation with one who will probably never “get it.” At least, you’ve shown me no indication even of an open mind.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply