Hovind's Misuse of Scientific and
Ultimately Serves Atheism
Dr. Kevin R. Henke
Dr. Kevin R. Henke
The following material may be freely copied and distributed as long as it's not altered, edited or sold.
Because geochronology, geology, biology, cosmology, chemistry, astrophysics, astronomy, and other legitimate sciences refute their obsolete interpretations of the Bible, Kent Hovind and other young-Earth creationists (YECs) often ridicule these sciences by erroneously referring to them as the "religion of evolution." For example, at How Would You Answer Critics who have written bad things about you? , Hovind claims:
"Evolutionists often try to divert attention from the legitimate points I bring up about their religion."
"The problems the creationists cannot explain or the unintentional errors in their books or speeches are very minor compared to the mountainous problems the evolutionist is overlooking or ignoring in his own religion."
(For a response to Hovind's numerous errors and fallacies on this web page, see: Analysis of Kent Hovind)
At the same time, YECs attempt to elevate their dogma to a level of respect with the oxymoron "creation science." For example, the name of Hovind's organization is the "Ministry of Creation Science Evangelism."
Ironically, by misusing the terms "science" and "religion," Hovind is just playing into the hands of his atheistic opponents. Namely, Hovind is demonstrating that having an agenda labeled as "science" gives the impression of awe, reliability and respect, whereas anything with the "religious" label is supposedly inferior, inconsistent, bogus, unreliable, and subjective. Does Hovind REALLY want to demean religion? Does he REALLY want to use "myth" and "religion" in the same sentence, even if he believes that the terms only apply to "evolution"? Once people realize that young-Earth creationism, including "Biblical creationism", is a bogus religious cult and that biological evolution is a legitimate science, Hovind's own misuse of the terms "science" and "religion" will undermine what little respect he has left. Hovind would be better off properly defining "evolution," "creationism," religion and science; proclaiming any virtues of his religion and stressing how science and philosophy/religion deal with different issues. Otherwise, he is only weaving a vocabulary that will eventually strangle him.