An Evangelist
Confronts Hovind
14 June 2001
Dear (Name withheld),
Since our last conversation
regarding Kent Hovind, I've looked at several of the Internet sites that
critique his work, and have also visited Hovind's own web site (which I had not
done previously).
As you noted, some
anti-Hovind sites are merely hatchet jobs, but others present serious and
apparently competent critiques of his videos. More disturbingly, several
contributors allege unethical and deceptive conduct by Hovind. An
examination of Hovind's own web site provides independent reasons to doubt his
credibility.
I believe that becoming
involved with Hovind would be detrimental 1) to Hovind himself; and 2) to the
potential salvation of people who currently scoff at Christianity because (at
least in part) of the prominence of people like Hovind among Believers. I
realize that many Believers dismiss the scoffers as people who reject the
Gospel because they wish merely to indulge their own sinful desires (a belief
based upon 2nd Peter 3). However, it should be noted that I used to be a
scoffer. I became a Believer in spite of the Hovinds.
I've divided the remainder
of this letter into two topics: Examination of Various Websites, and Concerns
for Hovind and the “Scoffers”.
EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS
WEBSITES
Hovind's own website (examined 9 June 2001)
It's distressing that Hovind's website, which could be used to
correct his videos’ errors and to post retractions, instead repeats many of the
same flawed arguments, invalid techniques, and misrepresentations of others’
work. A particularly striking example is Hovind's citation of ages of the
earth as calculated from the composition of seawater. (I’ll comment
further on this subject later in this letter.) Hovind persists in
presenting such material despite being aware of the specific, detailed
refutations presented on various websites and in other sources. (See, for
example, http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
[this web site] which is the source of the attached article “Analysis of Kent Hovind: The Professor and Mr. Hovind”.)
This examination of
Hovind's website makes me wonder whether the accuracy of his assertions and the
soundness of his arguments matter at all to him. In addition, he claims
to speak knowledgeably and authoritatively on subjects of which he is
shockingly ignorant. Having observed all this, I would not consider him
credible on any subject.
Sites documenting
unethical or deceptive behavior
Several websites allege
unethical or deceitful conduct by Hovind. I've attached two accounts that
are specific, detailed, and apparently credible: 1) Dr. Vlaardingerbroek’s
letter documenting communications with Hovind regarding the $250,000 Challenge,
and concluding that it's a bad-faith publicity stunt; and 2) Dr. Bartelt's
analysis of Hovind's Ph.D. thesis, and Hovind's claims regarding it. If
either of these accounts is false, then Hovind should have little trouble
refuting it; he could refute Vlaardingerbroek’s by producing his own records of
correspondence with him, and Bartelt's by showing you a thesis of the length
and date that he (Hovind) claims.
CONCERNS FOR HOVIND AND
THE “SCOFFERS”
Concerns for Hovind
Hovind's own website
(independently of any claims by Vlaardingerbroek or Bartelt) gives ample basis
for concluding that the truth doesn't matter much to Hovind. He needs
Brotherly counsel, and I'm concerned that further distribution of his material
will only encourage his untruthfulness.
Concerns for “Scoffers”
I mentioned above that I
would return to a discussion of a) Hovind's citation of indefensible
information such as ages of the earth as determined from composition of
seawater, and b) how materials like Hovind's are detrimental to salvation of
“scoffers”. The link between these issues is that while we Believers
assert that we seek, receive, and follow the will of God (occasionally
receiving words of knowledge from Him), scoffers rightly wonder why such divine
guidance fails to aid us in detecting Creationists’ factual errors.
A good case in point is Hovind's material on age of the earth as calculated
from seawater composition. One of the sources cited by Hovind is a 1985
book by Morris. It's almost certainly the same book that I read 15 years
ago, when I was a very determined detractor of Christianity. Among the
ages calculated from concentrations of different chemical elements in seawater,
Morris presented, without comment, several ages shorter than 2,000 years, and
at least one shorter than 150 years! Moreover, my recent, very cursory
examination of websites turned up at least two that debunked the seawater
method. Yet despite these reasons to laugh the method off the Internet,
Hovind's website presents it as valid, neglecting even to mention those ages
which, if true, would demonstrate that Christ never walked the earth and the
Civil War never happened (1).
Scoffers are justified in
asking how it is that large numbers of people with access to divine guidance
cannot, in 15 years, discern errors and inconsistencies that atheists detect
almost instantly. Do Believers not seek the divine guidance to which we
supposedly have access? Do we seek it, but not receive any on this
subject? Do we receive it, but not recognize it as such? Do we
recognize it, and not follow it? Or is a more-plausible explanation found
in a belief held by many scoffers: that Christianity is a hoax, or at best a
delusion, and that Believers have “accepted Jesus” by one of the following
routes:
1. as brainwashed
children;
2. as
gullible adults;
3. as
adults who know better than to believe such a conflicted doctrine, but
nevertheless do so because
a.
it
gives us comfort; or
b. it justifies forcing our subjective,
personal morality upon others, in the guise of an “absolute” morality that is
“God's standard”?
Not
terribly flattering to us, but a reasonable explanation nonetheless to people
with little or no experience of the divine. Scoffers (or at least most of
them) believe that we waste our time and talent pursuing nonexistent divine
guidance, to the neglect of developing the human abilities by which the
scoffers themselves detect our errors fairly readily.
Therefore, the scoffer sees
it as no great mystery that the Hovinds persist among us (2).
While we Believers might well benefit from asking ourselves why access to
divine guidance doesn't result in rapid correction of errors and debunking of
frauds, the scoffer needn't bother. Why should he or she be surprised
that the nonexistent is also ineffective?
All of this makes the
scoffer very challenging to the missionary. But that's not the end of the
problem, or even the worst of it. Remember that the scoffer is a human
being who has his or her share of hurts, shame issues, and injuries suffered at
the hands of authority (which may include the church, or relatives who are
religious). In addition, the scoffer probably has a considerable
knowledge of the church's historic wrongdoings, and a ready supply of anecdotes
concerning hypocritical Believers of his acquaintance.
It's easy for such a person
to feel superior to Believers intellectually and morally. He or she will
draw upon those feelings of superiority when evangelized, especially when
evangelized by a shaming, name-calling evangelist. I have seen this
pattern frequently in conversations with unbelievers, and in atheists’ forums
on the Internet. I admit to my shame that I, myself behaved this way as a
nonBeliever.
Remembering the scoffer, too, is loved by God, it's incumbent upon us to
consider how harmful a Kent Hovind is to the scoffer’s hoped-for acceptance of
salvation. There's no doubt that a Hovind is ruinous in this regard: his
dishonesty feeds the scoffer's feelings of superior morality; and the scoffer's
feelings of intellectual superiority grow as he or she listens to Hovind's
ignorant, mocking dismissals of great scientists’ finest works. Hovind
adds to the disaster by saying that the scoffers refuse to accept the Gospel
because they choose to be willfully ignorant of it, in order to indulge their
sin natures. Being called sinful and willfully ignorant by Hovind only hardens
the scoffer against us further—who wouldn't be offended at being called such by
a Believer who is himself not only ignorant, but untruthful? (3)
In summary, Hovind's videos
will undoubtedly invigorate many Believers here, but will also misinform them
and hinder efforts to evangelize the scoffers. Materials like Hovind's
came very close to putting me permanently beyond the reach of evangelism.
I hope that this will not happen to the scoffers here.
Yours in Christ,
Jim Smith
Footnotes:
1 Some Believers may object that
radioisotopic dating gives spurious dates, too. Even if it were valid,
this objection would miss the scoffers’ point. Scoffers claim no divine
guidance, but we do. Therefore, failure to detect errors and interminable
citations of long-discredited claims is damning to our case, but not
particularly harmful to theirs.
2 And perhaps the Ron Wyatts as
well. Please see attached printouts regarding his finds. [http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=9924157&pid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=Ron+Wyatt&SUBMIT=Search+Tentmaker]
3 Of course, there are plenty of
dishonest, ignorant scoffers too, but pointing this out to the scoffer
accomplishes little: one of his or her strongest points is that despite our
claims of salvation, etc., our behavior is no different than that of the godless.
Go
back