Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Two new Pensacola News Journal articles

• "'Dr. Dino' wants sentence tossed," Pensacola News Journal, November 30, 2010:

Kent Hovind, 57, filed the motion Monday in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida which says that both the prosecution and his court-appointed attorney erred at various stages in his tax fraud case.

• "Tax evader wants sentence tossed out," Pensacola News Journal, December 1, 2010:

Kent Hovind, 57, filed the motion Monday in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida. It says that both the prosecution and his court-appointed attorney erred at various stages in his tax fraud case.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heekklyyy89 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article is clearly biased against Dr. Hovind. Please fix it. This is not an opinion article, it is an encyclopedia article. An example of this:

Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research.

uh...  :)

Please fix this article. Thanks.

UNCLENlNJA 00:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First, new sections at the bottom please.

Second, the lede is ideally without citation. It is just supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, which is where the sources belong and actually are, too.

Third, it is not a bias. It is a statement of fact. A rather excruciatingly obvious one.Farsight001 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry I'm new here - but I do know that something is wrong :)

It is biased. You just admitted it's biased. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be neutral.

What if I went to your evolution article and rewrote it so it matched my opinion of the subject? You wouldn't like that too much, would you? Er, no. But when you complained about the article being biased, what if I told you it was all true and it should stay that way?

That's what you're doing. I'm not saying you're evil :), but I don't agree with your view of an encyclopedia, and that sentence I quoted is very bold to be in the beginning of what is supposed to be a neutral article.

:)

note: I think Kent Hovind is rather creepy

UNCLENlNJA 23:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I never actually admitted bias. I see the article inline with NPOV policies. We report stuff neutrally. He just comes across looking bad because the facts are against him. I suggest for you a careful read of WP:NPOV policy, because it does not mean half good and half bad. It means that we reflect the weight of reliable sources, which we have done just fine here.Farsight001 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Neutral" does not mean "nice" or "complimentary". It is well, and easily sourced, that Hovind is a creationist, that creationism is nonsense, that Hovind's brand of creationism is nonsense, that he's a convicted felon, and pretty much everything else in the article. Complaints can be made about lacks of citations (but not for the lead as it summarizes the body), improperly summarized citations, information that is now erroneous because newer information corrects it, and that's about it. "Just wrong" isn't a valid complaint. I agree that the article is NPOV - and that it's strongly critical of Hovind because it accurately summarizes his life and beliefs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw thanks for fixing the indent - I didn't know if I was supposed to do that or not :)

I agree with you - Kent Hovind is dirty for tax evasion and I don't support him on that - at all. But you can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that creationists are bad. I read that neutral point of view article, which I didn't even know existed, lol, and I found this: The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. yet WLU says: that creationism is nonsense. Explain to me how that is not opposing creationism?

I think the rest of the article is fine - Hovind is a creep and deserves to be treated like one. However, I have a problem with that sentence I mentioned in my original post. That is really a hidden insult against creationism, and it doesn't belong in a neutral article.

UNCLENlNJA 02:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleNinja (talk • contribs)

Well, he says the science is a bunch of crap and scientists say creationism (by definition almost, but especially as he asserts it) is contrary to the scientific evidence. Are there scientists who don't think his claims go against mainstream science? I don't see anything in the article pointing to agreement, so a summary should not weasel the article content. DMacks (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Creationists are bad. They spread known pseudoscience to a credulous public, actively work to undermine science education, oppose the teaching of one of the most tested and supported scientific paradigms in existence, using dishonest arguments that have been refuted in some cases by CHARLES DARWIN. All creationists are bad. Creationism is nonsense, and the neutral thing to do with such a pseudoscientific fringe theory is to demonstrate how friggin' bad it is. Hovind's version of creationism is particularly egregious as it consists of young earth creationism that insists on biblical literalism, while attempting to co-opt real science for the purpose. Read Monkey Girl by Edward Humes, go to Talk.origins, go to the Panda's Thumb or watch Thunderf00t's excellent why do people laugh at creationists series. Read any of the refutations of creationism by scientists (or even informed laypeople). Creationism is smoke, mirrors, lies and deception. That's flat fact, there is nothing to support creationism or intelligent design and trying to defend it as having any value on wikipedia is inappropriate. Creationism is an insult to scientists that actually study evolution, and to all the people who believe there is any merit to it. It is lies, utter, utter dishonest, blatant, easily-refuted, frequently repeated lies told to an audience who trusts these hucksters, charlatans and duplicitous preachers. You can't read anything by a scientists about the creation-evolution controversy without realizing just how much creationists lie and how uninformed its defenders are. Creationism is by definition antiscience since it starts with a premise and lies, cheats, and distorts any evidence to support it. That's fact, that's how wikipedia discusses it, and if you want to promote creationism as anything but a mass of lies, you need to go elsewhere. On wikipedia, we adopt the mainstream position, and that position is that there is no controversy. It's a culture war, there's no debate within science. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You claim that the sentence "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is bias. however I can site many proofs that this is correct. Just for example, Hovind's views include that a ice commit crashed down from space freezing the poles and causing the flood, this is contradicted by physics and the mammoth remains (witch show signs of rotting instead of "freezing were they stood"), that there was a canape of water above the earth, this is contradicted by orbital mechanics, accretion, and basic physics not to mention his ice comment, and that there are distinct immutable "kinds" of animals, this is disproves by practically all of biology but specifically hybridization, ring species's and specialization events. The statement that "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is 100% accurate and not at all biased as Hovind's views are in point of fact contradicted by scientific evidence and research.71.174.43.172 (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would make a stronger statement in regard this article. Not only scientists, but creationists also say that Kent has nothing sensible to say in their belief system, so that even if you were to consider creationists to have a credible position, studying Kent would still be considered a net loss to intelligence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying, WLU, is that since evolution is so amazing the article can be biased about it. That's not what WP:NPOV says. It says that this sentence is okay: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z." yet the article says: Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research.. That's a much stronger statement! I think the article should say: Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific research. because scientific research ≠ scientific evidence, especially in the case of evolution, where some evidence is fraudulent. Not all - but some. In addition, you can't reproduce evolution (not microevolution - macroevoluntion; they are different ) - however the scientific method states that you must test your theory. I'm not going to edit it yet because I sense there will be an edit war :) UNCLENlNJA 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleNinja (talk • contribs)

No. Evolution is well supported scientifically, and completely and utterly lacks controversy in its basic postulates. Creationism, on the other hand, is a bunch of religiously-motivated nonsense with no factual backing that only exists because dishonest public speakers are willing to lie to large numbers of people who are insufficiently well-informed about evolution, deism and theology to realize they are being had. NPOV says that we give due weight to the majority opinion. Creationists are not the majority. They're not even a minority that would get mention on the evolution page. They're scientific laughing stocks. To give a sports analogy, creationists are criticizing scientists playing baseball for not using the rules of Olympic wrestling. That'd be the rules from the original Olympic games. In Ancient Greece.

The statement is correct. Hovind is flat out wrong. Research and evidence has proven, often decades ago, that Hovind is wrong. The statement is not going to change. If you want some discussion of Hovind, go here. For other specific points, you'll find all the information you need at the index to creationist claims. This talk page is not a forum and you're wasting everybody's time. Go read the weblinks I've provided before bothering to make any further comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I'm wasting your time because you believe in evolution strongly, which is okay. Although I do not agree that it's okay for a moderator that believes in evolution to undo all edits on a biased article making it more neutral, I will shut up about it. Perhaps I do not fully understand Wikipedia, and I apologize for my greenness. :( Sorry, and I apologize if I offended you - that's not what I wanted to do, but I got irritated at times. UNCLENlNJA 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleNinja (talk • contribs)

I agree with UncleNinja completely. Edits need to be made to make this article unbiased, regardless as to what I (or anyone else) personally believe. Creationism is indeed controversial, but this is NOT an article about Creationism. Please take arguments about that subject to that page. Evolution, too, is controversial, but again, this is NOT an article about Evolution. Again, Please take arguments about that subject to that page. THIS is an article about a particular man, named Kent Hovind, and his life, his teachings, his theories, etc. What any of us believe about those subjects is irrelevant. The facts are, here's who the guy is, here's what he says, here's some evidence that backs him up, and here's some evidence that refutes his teaching. It is JUST THAT SIMPLE.Astrohm (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Another WOW. To say "Hovind is a creationist, that creationism is nonsense" is indeed biased. I will have to dig up some sources, but I can tell you that I watch a LOT of Discovery and History channels, and shows on both are presenting evidence that the Big Bang Theory cannot be true, which points to a young earth, which points to not enough time for evolution. Yes, evolution theories are waning. But that does not mean that creation theories are true, all personal opinions aside. Here's [1] an article with Physicists claiming creationism is possible. The point is, this article is supposed to be unbiased, and the only way to accomplish that is to present sources for ALL sides of an argument, however many that may be.Astrohm (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What do peer reviewed journals and mainstream science textbooks (as well as scientific organizations) say? History and Discovery channels are entertainment, not science. Evolution theories are not waning, as more evidence rolls in that supports evolution on a daily basis. It is actually one of the best-supported theories in science. Lots of creationists attempt to use minor controversies or legitemate scientific discussions about details to portray the whole theory as if it were about to be turned over or rejected, but that's never the case. Arguing if there is horizontal gene transfer between single-celled bacteria is not the same thing as saying humans didn't evolve from a common ancestor as chimpanzees and apes. See here. Talk.origins is a reliable source, Kent Hovind's site is not. And a five paragraph blurb on Hovind's fundamentalist website is not sufficient to overturn modern cosmology. On top of that, Russell Humphreys is a creationist who started with the bible and tortured physics until it cracked; and his specific claim is actually dealt with at Talk.origins.

The article is unbiased by portraying all legitimate sides to an argument. Creationism isn't a legitimate side. See the index to creationist claims. Young earth creationism in particular is even worse nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should be limiting our view of "mainstream" opinions to journals and textbooks: This is not a site for scientists only. It is a site for the general public, whose mainstream views, once again, are equally Evolutionist and Creationist. BUT, as I said above, this is NOT a page about either Creationism or Evolution. It is a page about a man, his life, his teachings, support both for and against his teaching, etc. You cannot say that Creationism is not legitimate, any more than I am able to do so (no matter what I believe) until it has been dis-proven, which it has not. You cannot revert every edit that disagrees with your point of view. You cannot dismiss other sides of arguments (there are more than just Creationists and Evolutionists out there) simply because you THINK that they are "nonsense". Nonsense is not a scientific word, it is an opinion. This is not a page for opinions. It is a page to present EVERY side of anything about this MAN in particular, not Evolution. Not Creationism. None of that. Take those arguments to those pages. In no way am I trying to offend you, but must tell you that ARE offending me by not stating the facts & not allowing anyone else to state them, either.Astrohm (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, kids, this is all a bit off-topic. User:Astrohm, you asked to have the sentence that says that Hovind's work is contradicted by the best available science removed, because you felt it showed a bias. However, the best available science actually does contradict Hovind's claims, so there's no bias there, just fact. Your personal feelings of offense regarding that fact are unfortunate, but not really relevant to the article. This isn't exactly a page to present every side of a subject- you have a slight misunderstanding there- but to present the information that has been verified by the best available sources. The talk page of a rather obscure article isn't a good place to debate whether some deity created the universe; this talk page is only about what facts about Kent Hovind are verified in the best available sources. You tried to add a sentence that says that scientific consensus both supports and contradicts Hovind's work, but you didn't add a source that shows that. The web site "Creation Science Evangelism" is not the best available source of information about scientific consensus. If there isn't any other change you want to make to the article, there's nothing else this talk page can help you with; if you're interested in a general discussion about how you feel about religion and science, there are many web forums which welcome such discussions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, thank you for your insights. I think you might be misunderstanding me. I am NOT interested in such a discussion, and am in fact, trying to get others on this page to stop discussing it as well. This page is not supposed to be about those topics. It is supposed to be just the facts about this man, his life, and his work, no matter how any of us feel about him, his life, or his work. I never said I believed in either Evolutionism or Creationism, and never will say which I believe in (if either of them), because it does not belong on this page. I just want to be able to list the facts, with references, without people who have biases immediately reverting them simply because they do not like the facts.Astrohm (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want it discussed, just don't discuss it. Don't bother replying. If you advocate for a change to the main page, then you have to do so in compliance with wikipedia's policies.

Also note that there is no such thing as "evolutionism" or "darwinism". The theory (and fact) of evolution exists, but it's not an "-ism". As a scientific theory, it rests on evidence and the evidence base is ample. The facts do not support Kent Hovind's theories, hence the opposition to any sort of "tell both sides" approach. See the talk.origins page on Hovind for science-based criticisms of Hovind's claims. The very fact that you're claiming Hovind's position has any merit indicates you are not actually familiar with the science of evolution. It's really, genuinely that bad. Hovind's position is utterly unsupported. Start reading the talk.origins page, you'll see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As a minor pedantic note, evolutionism is a useful term for the various concepts of transmutation predating the acceptance of Darwin's natural selection theory and the modern synthesis, Darwinism is a rather ambiguous term with different connotations at different times and in different contexts. Still a well accepted term in the UK for natural selection theory, but much misused by Hovind and his ilk in the U.S. to the point where its use is now deprecated. As for "believing" in science, does Astrohm have a faith based belief in gravity? Perhaps intelligent falling? . . dave souza, talk 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

- I think this article is extremely biased. Alone the choice of words show it. I'm not going to debate it, because I don't have the time for it. I've watched several of his seminars, and many of the claims in this article is quite incorrect. - Lukan27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukan27 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What specific information in incorrect, and in what reliable independent source can we find the correct information? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

- I absolutely believe in evolution, but this article is biased. The very fact that, having read this discussion, I feel the need to include that information is evidence of your bias. Complaints from creationists have been dismissed, and although, again, I strongly disagree with their views, they are right in saying that even though you simply present facts, the facts you choose to present give the impression that Kent Hovind is wrong. Independently of whether or not the writer agrees with or even likes their subject, he or she has a duty to be impartial, and this is not the case here; the criticism section, in particular, appears to have been carefully constructed to suggest a legitimacy in the opinions of Hovind's detractors. I apologise for not formatting this correctly, I have never made a contribution to editing discussion before (which I think, in itself, demonstrates how egregiously impartial this article is!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.217.74 (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Hovind's claims are rejected by the scientific community, and even by some major creationist organisations. The article simply gives WP:DUE weight to the overwhelming rejection of his claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not a neutral position. Overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community? Well your views are overwhelmingly rejected by ignorant creationists, but that doesn't mean I should write an article citing multiple critical sources and few, if any, supportive ones to make it seem to the uneducated reader as if you are objectively incorrect. By reference to very basic rules of logic it is demonstrable that we cannot accept something as fact as a result solely of overwhelming support within the scientific community, or any other group (in the academic sphere at least, in practice we must assume fact in order to function). Therefore, in the interests of fair and impartial public education, articles like this cannot be allowed to exist "as is"; this kind of thing is what turns Wikipedia into a running joke in the world of academics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.217.74 (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Science does not reject Hovind's claims

Collapse soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article does not represent Hovind's true position. Nowhere does Kent Hovind claim "creationism" is scientific. The article claims science rejects Hovind's claims but no evidence is given, science does not contradict Hovind's claims, becuase remember Hovind is a creationist, he accepts his creationism is faith based, no creationist in the world claims creationism is scientific, the creation according to creationists was a one off event, it can not be observed now, there really is no difference between the theory of evolution (darwinism) and creationism both are based on faith. This is exactly what Kent Hovind points out in his lectures. Obviously people who have edited this article have never watched one of Kent Hovind's lectures on evolution. Kent Hovind is not claiming "Creationism is science" he is claiming his position is faith based, but he also points out evolution is faith based, hence why evolution is not science. Macroevolution (the theory that one specie such as a bird will evolve into a dog) has never been observed the only type of evolution which has been observed is "microevolution" with is just variation within species. There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information. “Macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist has never happened, it is impossible, it's never been observed in the lab or in nature. It falls outside of the scientific method, this is all Kent Hovind points out in his lectures. Kent Hovind may have got carried away with conspiracy theories and religion, but the points he brings up against evolution are very valid. Macroevolution has never been observed in the lab or in nature. Leading fundamentalist evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne even admit macroevolution can not be observed. So basically evolutionists believe in things they can not see directly, if you believe in "macroevolution" then that is faith based becuase it has never been observed. - This is the whole point in what Kent Hovind is trying to say. The evolutionist Jerry Coyne's in his book "Why Evolution is True" admits why macro evolution can not be observed. ""The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time, much less to measure whatever type of selection was acting to make feathers larger." Evolutionists admit macroevolution can not be observed. But when a creationist like Kent Hovind says macroevolution is not observable he is called "unscientific". Do you see the contradiction?. For the sake of the article i suggest somebody actually watches one of Kent Hovinds lectures. By the way i am not a creationist, i am not religious, just the article needs to be updated with the facts. The article is written from a biased perspective which trys to claim Hovind is trying to pass off creationism as science, as mentioned nowhere does Hovind claim creationism is scientific, he claims his views are faith based. Some of the article needs to be rewritten for accuracy. Liveintheforests (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

recent vandalism

There's been a LOT of recent vandalism, almost entirely from anon and new accounts (which subsequently get deleted). Is it time for protection on this article? SeanBrockest (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Compared to other aticles that get protection, there hasn't been a lot of vandalism. Only 3 or 4 instances in the last week or so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else I do have to admit though, the recent vandalism (more since my first post) is rather interesting. Some people do it to bash him (with rather odd profanity), others do it to either promote his theories or cover over the fact that he's also a conspiracy theorist. SeanBrockest (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Profanity and whitewashing? Pretty standard fare, actually. --King Öomie 16:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kent Hovind was a science teacher in a public school for 14 years which no teacher could not be hired for such a position actually as any kind of public school teacher without a college education. He was a science teach prior to him becoming a christian and receiving a degree from any type of biblical teaching school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.13.196 (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's true that no teacher could be hired in a public school without claiming a college education. The school district(s) might not check out the claim, or verify that the college was accredited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because a school isn't accredited doesn't mean you can't legitimately have a degree from it. Some employers maybe don't care about the quality of one's education so much as the rubber-stamp of having one (if HR departments reliably checked up on credentials, diploma mills would go out of business!). Having worked in the educational field for years, I can tell you plainly that "has degree" does not equal "has education" regardless of the quality of the school (both idiots-from-Ivies and geniuses-with-GED). That's why HR departments do things like interviews rather than simply hiring based on a scantron form. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

They care a bit more than you think. Every job application for a position that requires a degree that I've ever seen specifies a degree from an accredited institution. Laws even regulate this necessity for many positions, including teaching. As for Hovind's teaching experience, many question the truth of it, but we know in the least that where he taught was not at an accredited school, so despite whatever it is he may have taught his students, they went away from it without even a valid high school diploma and more importantly that it lacked the standards required of a normal school, which is why they hired Hovind without a valid degree.Farsight001 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research

From Michael Shermer's (a historian of science) "Why Darwin Matters" pages 87-88:

For example, my debate at the University of California, Irvine, the Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind announced as his opening statement ... Everything he said was irrelevant or wrong. Dogs come only from dogs. Variations do not lead to new species. The Bible is literally true in everything it says. Humans lived to nine hundred years. There is no right and wrong without God. Noah's flood explains geological formations and species distrbution. Dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously, dinosaurs on the Ark were very young and small, and dinosars that were large ("behemoth" and leviathan in the Bible) drowned in the flood. Radiometric dating is unreliable. Jesus said the universe is young. The theory of evolution is a religion that leads to atheism, abortion and communism. Evolutionists are liars. Scientists are arrogant (they call themselves "Brights"!). Creationists are not allowed to publish in scientific journals. ...
This is what the evolution-creation debate is really about- religion, not science- and Intelligent Design theorists should rightly be called Intelligent Design creationists to drive the point home. Science is what scientists do, and Intelligent Design creationists are not doing science. They are doing religion.

On page 123:

Belief in God depends on religious faith. Acceptance of evolution depends on empirical evidence.

As Shermer pointed out: Hovind's views are religious. Religion is faith. Science is based on evidence. His claims are wrong. There is are HUGE amoung evidence, contrary to Hovind's paranoia and tax cheating business, for evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deennis89 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You are equivocating, Shermer pointed out something different. He didn't say science, he said "acceptance of evolution" is based on evidence. Which it isn't. Because just looking at the evidence won't lead you to "accepting Evolution", but to conclude stasis. --41.151.48.243 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

protection template

Look, I don't see how hard it is, this article is about a living person, so pp-semi-blp with an expiration date indicated should be here so that this article is placed under Category:Wikipedia temporarily semi-protected biographies of living people. And because the protecting admin cited "vandalism" as reason the pp-semi-vandalism should remain. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is ABOUT a living person, yes. The vandalism, however, has nothing to do with blp violations. The vandalism was of removing longstanding and accurate information. In short, some IP hopping fan of Hovind is, on fairly regular occasion, trying to remove important information from the article that happens to present Hovind in a negative light. There's no blp violating happening. When you put that tag in and mouseover the little lock in the upper right corner, it says that it has been locked DUE TO blp violations, which isn't true.Farsight001 (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen many people trying to add information about Hovind- a few, but most of the vandalism has just been people trying to change the part that says that evolution is established science- and that part isn't about Hovind at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the picture of Patriot Bible University?

There used to be a picture of Patriot Bible University, Hovind's school, but it is not there. What happened to it? It needs to be re-added and made the page look better as having pictures on a long article is good (it currently has Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csevville (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There are pictures of Patriot on the school's web site, but I'm not sure that they would be helpful here. Pictures of Hovind and Hovind's work are relevant, but a picture of a building which conducted distance learning classes doesn't seem to me to add much. Hovind didn't create the school, or teach there, or even, as far as I know, visit. The only reason I can think of to include the picture is because it would reflect badly on Hovind, but that would be a violation of the neutral point of view policy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hovind owes more than $2 million in unpaid taxes since November 2010

So I looked at the current state of Hovind's property cases at http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx and it says there are three different liens, one for $2 million+, one for $1 million+ and another for $60,000+. How do you reference this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdbeeYeh (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't publish our original research, so we can only add it if it's been discussed in some independent source like newspaper or magazine articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how public records are original research and not a reliable source.04:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY describes the relevant policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is the support section missing?

Obviously this page is highly biased. Why has the section on support from Creationist organizations removed? Why is the update that AIG has retracted their criticism of CSE removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjbman (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what section you're referring to; what reliably sourced information do you want to add to the article, and what sources are you using? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as memory (and a quick check back through this article's history) serves me, there was never such a section (at least not in the last couple of years). The reason for this is that Hovind, as arguably the least intellectually rigorous prominent creationist, garners little in the way of public support from other creationist groups, who seem to view him as somewhat of an embarrassment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree this page is very bias! Someone please fix this ASAP. One of the 1st rules of pages about people is to be unbias! I'mnot asking you to agree... Just to be fair and list the pros with the cons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcppkep (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV more carefully, particularly WP:DUE. If there are not any prominent parties offering Hovind support, then this article cannot include material supportive of him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

List of reliable sources demonstrating that prominent creationists, or other prominent persons, support Hovind's views

[ Please add sources to the list for consideration ... Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC) ]

The "Hovind Theory" cleanup

After browsing this section per my comments above, it seems a little POV to me. Many of the sentences begin with "Hovind explained", which is a word to watch, followed by a statement of what Hovind believes happened, without the attribution, in wikipedia's voice. This goes on for a number of paragraphs without the clarification being made that his views are entirely spurious. I think cleaning up the wording, and integrating some of the criticism throughout the rest of the article into that section might be warranted. I'd also fathom a guess that some of the other nearby sections are in a related condition, and we could do the same there too. Thoughts?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis; the verb "explain" in this context seems to indicate that the information provided is factual. It's possible it could be changed to "Hovind explained his views as", or swap it for "stated". --King Öomie 15:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

• s/played/played by/ (There's only one instance of played, surprisingly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudokode (talk • contribs) 00:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the report! DMacks (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kent Transferred to Colorado

Kent Hovind has been moved to FPC Satellite Camp in Florence, Colorado.

Federal Bureau of Prisons: Inmate Locator

Legal Status on Kent's Blog

--Cms13ca (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Added. Doppelheuer (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ryguy782, 2 July 2011

Please change the second sentence of the opening paragraph that reads "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research." to "Hovind's views are argued against by evolutionist scientists." or remove the sentence completely due to bias because this man has his own scientific evidence and research as well. Ryguy782 (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a chance. See the talk page archives. Your specific wording hasn't been proposed before, as far as I know, but removal has been proposed, and there a very strong consensus that the statement is factual, sourced, and should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Most people haven't actually examined Hovind's "scientific" arguments, but I've read a fair bit of what he says - and it's so inept I can't decide whether it's funny or sad. It isn't "evolutionists" who oppose his scientific claims, it's just about everyone with some idea of science - including a lot of Creationists. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ryguy782: 'Science' is a different process from 'having ideas and writing them down.' It involves testing ideas, doing everything you can to avoid letting your own bias affect the results, and then inviting others to repeat those tests to verify the results. I was not aware that Hovind had done any science, and there's nothing about that in the article, so you'll need to cite your sources- the papers by Hovind published in peer-reviewed science journals. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another point perhaps worth bearing in mind is that it isn't just Hovind's views on evolution that are contradicted by scientific evidence and research. He has equally contested views on cosmology, geology, and all kinds of things. So even if "evolutionist" was not a loaded term, it would still be inappropriate, as the scientific evidence contradicting Hovind's views comes from a number of different disciplines -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad Creation Arguments?

The reference link to Dr. Dino's rebuttal (# 66 as of September 14, 2011, titled "bad creation arguments?") has been blocked by a robot.txt line. I have found a duplicate of the piece, but didn't want to mess with the current effort put into making an archived link of the original.

Here's the url to the piece as put up by "mirror website" www.godrules.com , for anyone who wants to update the link:

http://www.godrules.net/drdino/FAQcreationevolution1.htm

173.210.137.242 (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Made Beginning Paragraphs More Nuetral

The opening paragraph was not nuetral leaning toward one theory then the other. Altered it to state just the facts without rhetoric on what the writer thought was the correct theory. Lucky Foot (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to be neutral with respect to the fact that evolution is about as much in question as gravity by scientists. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Lucky foot: When it comes to pseudoscientific fringe "theories" like creationism, WP articles are written from the mainstream scientific point of view as presented by qualified experts in the field in reliable secondary sources per WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. It is not "neutral" to present fringe theories without mentioning them as such, and without presenting mainstream criticism of them. Your understanding of what "neutral" means on WP is seriously flawed. Please familiarize yourself with the WP policies listed above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: Sir, thank you for your response, but I do want to point out that Evolution makes about as many assumptions as Creationism does and Creationism doesn't count as a fringe theory as it's been around longer than Evolution. When it comes down to bare bones, Evolution makes as many assumptions as Creationism does about the origin of life and reality and so one cannot be considered over the other. That is how I approached my edit. Have a great day! Lucky Foot (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A flat earth hypothesis has been around longer than a sphere so.... Please read WP:FRINGE, we reflect sources, and the sources show over and over again that evolution is accepted. Time to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research." is not a neutral point of view (NPOV), and needs revision.MichaelDThorpe (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:WEIGHT. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hovind's views *are* contradicted by scientific evidence and research - it's factual and well-supported by reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Diamagnetism and The Hovind Theory

Since Hovind's theory is that ice concentrated near the poles because of it's magnetic properties, it would then seem relevant to mention that water (and thus ice) is diamagnetic. Diamagnetism creates an opposition to a magnetic field, thus the ice would have concentrated in all other areas of the earth except for the northern and southern poles, assuming Hovinds theory to be correct. Jarrod1937 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If we want to challenge his theory in that way, I think we'd have to find a reliable source making that actual challenge - we can't add our own reasoning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012

It is clear from the tone and text of this page that the editor of it really hates Kent Hovind. Please fix this page. If you, the editor, hold different views than Kent Hovind...then pass the editing of the page off to someone less hostile to the page topic.

71.96.9.60 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No specific wording proposed. Edit-protected clearly instructs you to give the actual text you want, not to merely state your opinion on the current text. DMacks (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to be more specific. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's New Web Site

Kent Hovind has a new web site called www.2peter3.com. --Cms13ca (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone's clearly selling Hovind merchandise, however it's not clear that its Hovind's website or connected to his son, who seems to possess copyright material produced by Hovind. The only identifying material on the website is "Bro. William's" email. The website looks very suspect, as well as the material on it. VLARKer7 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists."

This has been inserted in the lead four times in the space of 25 minutes by one editor to replace the pre-existing "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research." Edit warring of this sort is frowned upon as per WP:EW. Please discuss the matter here. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes clearly violated WP:NPOV and I have reverted them. Yobol (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST (as pointed out by some prominent evolutionists,) the statement, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a blatant POV violation. First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even an objective source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."

"Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST"- This sounds weaselly. The principals of origin of species are independent of religious belief. You may or may not believe in a creator, but your beliefs have no effect on the mechanics and principals of evolution theory.giggle 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

Sounds weaselly? No kidding. Most Christians do not have a problem with ToE; The Catholic church, the orthodox church most Lutheran churches and other churches have no problem with it whatsoever.Elvegaro (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?

Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence. Dimestore (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkorigins is biased (toward evolution, if anyone should ask), but is generally considered to be reliable. Your examples tend to discredit that, but the proper venue is WP:RSN, not vandalism of this page (by replacing the statement by statements not supported by any source) or discussion on this talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll take this up with WP:RSN. Dimestore (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're going to have difficulty raising a debate out of this:

1. Kent Hovind denies that the geologic column exists.
2. Talk origins says that other Young-Earth creationists say that it does exist, giving the example of John Woodmorappe.
3. John Woodmorappe says that he's been misrepresented as having been forced to admit that the geologic column exists and says he always said it did.

Note that Woodmorappe is not speaking about this Talk Origins page. He's actually supporting the what is said on the Talk Origins page.

Talk Origins is a reliable source in as much as it accurately reflects the position of scientific orthodoxy on the Creationism/Evolution debate. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you, Catfish. Are you saying Morappe is claiming the geological column exists? Because I have him quoted twice as saying he DENIES its existence. Talk Origins falsely used Woodmorappe as an example of a creationist who says it existed yet Woodmorappe plainly states he denies its existence. So it's really not a matter of debate. Woodmorappe denies the geological column exists, so Talkorigins using him as an example is very disingenuine. This is all the more reason why they need to be removed as a credible source for the POV statement that Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence. Dimestore (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the Woodmorappe paper that TOA cites? It's not impossible that Woodmorappe has simply contradicted himself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my bad... They're saying he admits its existence, he says he doesn't. They say that he admits:

that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!

They provide a reference to a paper in Creation Research Science Quarterly 18:46, which I have no direct access to as it's not a journal many serious university libraries hold, at least not in the UK. The abstract is, however, available online:

THE ESSENTIAL NONEXISTENCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY-UNIFORMITARIAN GEOLOGIC COLUMN: A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

JOHN WOODMORAPPE

This article is a systematic and quantitative demonstration of global distributional tendencies of the evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column. Maps have been drawn to show the worldwide distributions of all ten geologic periods on all seven continents, and such maps have also been drafted to show complete segments of the geologic column in place. Calculations have been performed to measure successional tendencies of geologic periods over the earth. For example, it has been found that two-thirds of the earth's land surface has 5 or fewer of the 10 geologic periods in place, and only 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic periods appearing in "correct" consecutive order. These and similar findings have been briefly related to the Creationist-Diluvialist paradigm.

He appears at least to say that 15-20% of the earth's land surface (which is an enormous amount) displays the geologic column extending over three geologic periods. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

would you be able to provide a link to that paper, Catfish? I can't seem to find it online. However, the trueorigins page where I got the Woodmorappe quote from makes the same point, too, but he also uses these same findings to explain why he still denies the existence of the geological column. I'm not going to reprint the quotes as they are already a part of this discussion above. But nowhere that I can find does Woodmorappe admit its existence, so my point that TOA falsely represented their case by misusing Woodmorappe as proof is disingenuous, and it needs to be removed as a reliable source, or at least change the sentence that currently stand in the article as it is a POV violation.Dimestore (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the part you're not going to particularly like, Dimestore. I don't think anyone really likes it, but we do have limitations. Even if the information is wrong, it doesn't necessarily get removed. Our job as editors is to report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say that the moon is made of cheese, we report that the moon is made of cheese, even if we know otherwise. Talk origins may have gotten this tidbit wrong, but even the best of sources don't get absolutely everything right. That doesn't make it unreliable, only imperfect. Top newspaper outlets, which would qualify as reliable, get so much wrong that they have a retraction section in every Sunday paper for correcting errors printed the rest of the week. The point is - TO qualifies as a reliable source and it reported this information, so we report this information, provided it is relevant, and it is.

Truth be told, if you take this information to the Talk origins people, provided your nice as they don't respond well to jerks and its very easy to come across as one online even if you're not trying to be, they might actually listen to you and print a small retraction and correct it, which I know has been done in the past. If they do that, we can then fix it here.Farsight001 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not whether or not TO is a reliable source, but rather using the linked info found on their page is POV and therefore does not prove with scientific evidence the theory of evolution. I have shown that they misrepresented Woodmorappe (who himself addressed how he has been misrepresented,) and have not brought forth infallible evidence for their theory, therefore they cannot be used as proof that scientific evidence has disproved Hovind's views. Thus, my original complaint that the phrase of Hovind's views being contradicted by scientific "evidence" is a POV violation is still valid as the TO footnote does not in anyway shape or form (as as been demonstrated in this discussion) prove the evidence of evolution. My correct statement that Hovind's views are challenged by evolutionists is a valid one, and in no way does it diminish or elevate TO's standings. It is perfectly NPOV and coincides well with the next sentence regarding fellow creationists disputing Hovind. Dimestore (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All the CRSQ abstracts are here. Woodmorappe states in the absract, in as plain terms as are possible, that the geologic column exists sequentially over three geologic periods over 15-20% of the earth's surface (!). I imagine there's a table in the article where he expands on this. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would need to see the actual quote. I know you linked me a page with a bunch of links. If you can tell me which one in particular it is, it will make my search easier. But what you're saying he said coincides with what he stated in his trueorigins page, where he also goes on to say that since no complete geological column exists today we cannot prove it ever did. It still not a good example used by Talkorigins to somehow prove their theory.Dimestore (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather silly calling it "their theory". The theory of the geologic column demonstrating ancient Earth and past eras belongs to many scientists, including very prominently the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, who as it happens was very much opposed to theories of evolution. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I pasted the entire abstract above. There is no further material available on the CRSQ website. The paper is referenced fully in the Talk Origins article, they even give the specific page on which Woodmorappe gives examples of instances where the geologic column extends from the Cambrian to the Tertiary. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proponents of Theistic Evolution would disagree with the assertion that "evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST". --grummerx (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is blatantly false to say that "...evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has gone far afield. "Evolutionists" is not a word (at least, not one that anyone but creationists use), so it won't be added to the article- the word itself is a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Right now, the best available scientific consensus is that Hovind's views are contradicted by evidence and research. It isn't a violation of the neutral point of view policy to report the scientific consensus; science is the best available source of information on... well... science. Hovind is making claims about science. Those claims are contradicted by all the available evidence. That Hovind is wrong is not Wikipedia's fault. If you'd like to remove this sentence from the lede, all you need to do is demonstrate that the scientific consensus has changed. If you just want the article to indicate that Hovind might be right, we can't do that unless there's good reason to think that's true. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's not only atheist "evolutionists" or scientists anyway. A large number of the world's Christians accept evolution and believe Hovind is wrong. For example, I'm not sure of the RC church's official position, but it's been reasonably good at accepting scientific progress (albeit perhaps a bit reluctantly and belatedly), and I certainly know a good number of UK Catholics (and UK Anglicans) who accept evolution. In fact, even a lot of Creationists believe that a lot of what Hovind says is blatant nonsense, and find him an embarrassment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be missing the main issue here... the statement is in the lead and has probably had the references appended as a result of a {{citation needed}} tagging. There is no need to have a statement in the lead referenced if it is a summarization of text in the main body. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence summarizes points raised in "The 'Hovind Theory'", "Hovind's $250,000 offer > Responses", "Criticism" and "Controversial Remarks > Science". I agree the sourcing in the lead can be removed, once the page is unprotected. I think it was likely added because it is extremely common for creationists to come onto this page and attack that sentence, particularly if it doesn't have any refs close by. However, given the large amount of space we've given in the article to expanding on the specifics of that statement, the appropriate response should be "read the article".   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

“Evolutionist” is a derogatory term, so even assuming a legitimate beef with the prior statement or reference, the new wording would be unacceptable.… — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 10:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so. What is a chemist? Or a biologist? I do not think evolutionist is a derogatory term. It is simply someone who is concerned with evolutionMmallico (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you say Hovind is an evolutionist? He seems quite concerned with analyzing and discussing it and claiming to study things related to it. But it more direct response, our article on evolutionism even has refs to support that the term "evolutionist" does have connotations other than the direct meaning when used in topics related to creationism. Which this article is. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no such professional title as evolutionist. You present chemist and biologist? You have clearly not bothered to learn what the BIOLOGICAL definition of Evolution is. The closest thing you might get is zoologist. Creationists use the term EVOLUTIONIST to mean anyone who accepts any science which contradicts their claims or views (i.e. religion or politics) which do not meet theirs EXACTLY. They then lump all this into a "world-view"/religion they call EVOLUTIONISM. Even if someone does not accept all aspects they still label them EVOLUTIONISTS and claim "well then you must believe .....". Oddly you can be a Christian but not accept a young Earth. It's a derogatory term. Spin it anyway you like but your Palin/Bachmann-esque revision will get you nowhere fast. Lastly, coining the term EVOLUTIONISM was an attempt to classify it as a religion and get evolution thrown out of science classes. 75.92.195.155 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Chugiak (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)This article is so negatively skewed regarding Mr. Hovind, it calls into question the legitimacy of the article. How about allowing views positive to Mr. Hovind, to balance the subject? I regard Educational Degrees as showing very little about a person's wisdom or objectivity. I have personally seen Mr. Hovind speak & have a lot of his material: I have found it to be very simple & straightforward application of science to the text of the Bible.Chugiak (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What specific information do you think should be added, and what reliable sources verify its accuracy? It's hard to discussion your suggestion for improving the article until you are a little clearer about what change you are suggesting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To begin with; correct the worst line "contradicts scientific evidence" to "contradicts certain scientific assumptions". Granted I have concerns with Dr. Hovind's meteor theory & agree the mammoth preservation may be due to glacial outburst floods during the ice age. He does propound it as a theory (or if one prefers) a hypothesis. Q: What were the accusations against Dr. Hovind and what was his defense? The following are from http://www.kenthovindblog.com/?page_id=391

A:

1. Failure to withhold employee-related taxes:

Explanation: From the start of the ministry, Dr. Hovind sought legal counsel on the proper way to compensate those who would serve with him in the ministry. He was told by several attorneys that as a 508 organization, CSE was not required to withhold taxes and that each person serving would be responsible for paying their own income taxes. For seventeen years the ministry operated without incident, and no notice was ever given to CSE or Dr. Hovind that the IRS wanted any changes made on this issue until the day the charges were brought.

2. Structuring cash transactions in order to evade bank reporting requirements:

Explanation: Up until 2003, CSE withdrew cash in order to compensate those who served at CSE. There was no knowledge of bank secrecy laws and never any intention of evading Internal Revenue Service regulations.

3. Threatening and impeding the investigation of a government agency:

Explanation: Because Dr. Hovind filed papers questioning actions of the IRS, which was his legal right, he was charged with “impeding” the agency. They also believed he “threatened agents with bodily harm” by praying for those involved on public radio.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration!Chugiak (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

First, most of your requested changes are without a WP:RS compliant source. With no source, we can't really do anything. Now to address your points.

1) Changing the line to "contradicts certain scientific assumptions" is not a correction. It is currently correct - his ideas to contradict current scientific evidence. It is not assumed, but has been tested many many times over. His ideas contradict scientific evidence not only of evolution, but biology in general, geology, chemistry, and physics. So we can't make such a change.

2) Regarding failure to withhold employee-related taxes - this assertion by Hovind's website is simply not true. I happen to be familiar with the court case a bit, and documentation most certainly was provided in this regard. There was even a 30 minute recorded conversation from Hovind in jail just after being arrested(so certainly after he was informed of his crimes) talking to his wife and kids in which he tells them flat out what he did and that they should do it again. I don't know if it still is, but it was once available on youtube if you are interested. Furthermore, it doesn't matter that he didn't know. Ignorance of the law is not license to violate it, so whether Hovind knew or not, and no matter how many or few times he was warned or notified, and no matter what his lawyers told him, he was still in violation of the law. Ignorance of the law can be presented as justification to reduce the sentence and/or fine given, but never to find one not-guilty entirely.

3) Again, lack of knowledge of the laws is not justification for breaking them. Whether he knew about them or not, he was in violation of them and is subject to the sentence or fine that they incur. Many people have been sent to prison for structuring even though they didn't know they were structuring at the time.

4) His impeding an investigation most certainly had nothing to do with making a request to the IRS. It had to do with him literally, angrily, threatening people personally. Impeding the investigation is a result of him intentionally trying to hide his assets from the government, which was also clearly laid out in the recorded conversation on youtube that I mentioned earlier.

I hate to just come out and say it, but Hovind is, as evidenced by his crimes and what came out in court, a lying sack of crap. His website is likewise as trustworthy and forthcoming with the whole truth. Hence I suggest an alternative source.Farsight001 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chugiak (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)I appreciate the information, & hope to check it. I would like to know the truth. I still insist the "evidence" is not evidence, but conclusions reached by starting with different basic assumptions, which cannot be proved, & are therefore based on beliefs rather than evidence. Therefore it would be balanced to grant a modification of the line in question due to different beliefs influencing the conclusions. If one believes evolution is fact, they would have to show mutations causing greater complexity & order, rather than decreased complexity & damage to DNA. No evidence has ever been presented, that I'm aware of, which shows increased integrity of DNA, it is always degradation, which on rare occasion is beneficial, but still leaves damaged DNA. Another question you have raised regarding legality, is that of natural law. Did Kent Hovind defraud the US Taxpayers of what rightfully belonged to their government. Laws which punish people not guilty of harming others are corrupt & unjust.Chugiak (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chugiak (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)I have checked the U-Tube videos on Mr. Hovind's jail discussions: It is merely discussions of him pursuing legal means to to address the illegal use of power against him. I don't suppose any of us has been angry when we've been oppressed, but I find Mr. Hovind's constraint to be admirable.Chugiak (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter isn't relevant unless you're a biologist published in reliable sources (nor is mine). There is absolutely no doubt in the natural sciences (i.e. the experts on the subject) that evolution is a fact and as an encyclopedia we echo that. Even if you managed to prove right here and now that it was wrong, WP would not print that because that is not how it works here. SÆdon^talk 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Chugiak (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)This is exactly what Ben Stein ran into when filming "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_AllowedChugiak (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant as Stien is not a biologist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I always find it odd that people will point to some person with some such degree (in Stein's case I believe that would be economics) and act as though they're qualified to speak on a completely different subject by virtue of...what exactly? SÆdon^talk 02:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I seriously doubt that Stein ran into the same problem, because the problem here is that no reliable sources exist to support the above statements, and that's a WP rule. Stein's problem was that he was trying to discuss a topic he doesn't understand and didn't like that those who do know what they're talking about told him he was full of shit. SÆdon^talk 02:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked back in to see a response; User:Chugiak offered two suggested changes, but neither of them seems to be verified by the sources that are already in the article, and she didn't offer any new, more reliable sources. "Contradicts scientific evidence" seems to be a more accurate representation of what the best available sources say than "contradicts certain scientific assumptions;" the latter would add an inappropriate bias to the article. Right now, the best available sources say that evolution is established and verified science- they don't say that it is an 'assumption.' The suggestion to add Dr. Hovind's own lies about what he was doing is not a problem for me, if reliable sources discuss what he said. It would only be a problem if the article was changed to indicate that what Dr. Hovind says is what really happened, when the best available sources seem to say that he was lying when he said that. Sadly, people do lie sometimes. I don't really know what Ben Stein or the film 'No Intelligence Required' have to do with Kent Hovind; Hovind didn't have any involvement in that film, did he? We do have an article about Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, so discuss about Ben Stein would go on the talk page there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

neutrality of biography and the general topic at hand

I find it far too dismaying to constantly find this page about Dr. Hovind and other's concerning what is often derogitorily called "fringe" science. While I do not espouse belief in aliens, ufos, scientology, mysticism, and many other "fringe" ideas, I would never belittle anyone or any topic of these ideas on an open forum that is meant to be encyclopedic. There are numerous web sites with forums and one-sided wikis available out there for that form of criticism.

I humbly observe that Dr. Hovind is a persecuted man who is a victim of blantant government overreach and a victim of anti-creationist bigotry. But such opinionated treatment of Dr. Hovind, whether in the positive or negative has absolutetly no place on Wikipedia. The facts are the facts. The conjecture, if mentioned, should be allowed ONLY when it claims that it is conjecture or supposition or opinion; and, only when it is appropriate for the discussion.

An example of non-appropriate conjecture on this wiki page is from an excerpt from the first paragraph of this page: "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence ..." In this excerpt, there is a pronounced bias against Hovind via a negative critical verb 'contradicted' in conjunction with the noun 'evidence' when this 'evidence' is promulgated as fact in conjunction with the adjective 'scientific'. While it is generally accepted by the majority of scientists, 'pseudo'[sic]-scientists, and various other pro-evolution commentators (and, to be fair here, also by some non-creationist deists), that biological evolution, big-bang cosmological origins, and many of the evidences that have been surmised to assume that these interpreted points of view are proven facts, when viewing with pure objectivity, from a scientifically methodological point of view, one cannot make any claim that non-observable events can, in fact, be legitimately interpreted as fact.

While I will not waste time in this talk as to the validity of the evidences for those 'facts', I must point out that thorough scientific methodolgies have not conclusively proven that any of those main-line theories are irrefutable. At best, the evidences are 'well'-interpreted to indicate those theories are likely to be true. At worst, the evidences are 'poorly'-interpreted to confirm biased suppositional rationales for attempting to generate ideas to explain origins when the proper use of the scientific method does not allow for proofs of origins to be properly interpreted. In other words, you cannot observe the past without a witness of the past and key markers or records to divide segments of the past into quantifiable portions that can be measured via appropriate metrics for any particular era that those metrics appropriately belong in and apply to. Here, I make no claim as to how valid red-shift theory is to quantifying the distance of stars from our point of view, but I must say that while that theory may indeed be true, we have not the ability (at this time, at least) to validate it and confirm it because we cannot accurately measure the distance between stars by any earth-bound metrics. If we ever achieve interstellar space travel and are then successful in measuring the actual distance between a minimum of at least three separate stars, then, and only then, will we be able to confirm, fully, the validity of red-shift theory for interpreting stellar metrics. At that time, if red-shift theory is then proven to be true, then the theory will become relevant for measuring distances between stars that we, as a species of earth, have not visited.

To make any claims that red-shift theory is true is nothing more than a theoretical espousement and a proclamation of faith in that idea. The same is true for evolution, the big-bang, the size of the universe, string theory, extra-dimensional concepts, and any other ideas promulgated with unobservable evidences.

Back to Dr. Hovind. The excerpt read earlier in this talk should be edited to say "Hovind's views are contradicted by [generally-accepted] scientific [theories] [!evidences] ..." This would look like: "Hovind's views are contradicted by generally-accepted scientific theories ..." The same form of edits should be used on all 'fringe' ideas. Also, the reverse is true for all main-line ideas. On wiki pages that are about, for example, evolutionary topics, the writings should not state the theories as facts based on proofs but as views or opinions (whether fairly believed or not) based on favorable interpretations of evidences or assumed-to-be-valid evidentiary articles of proofs.

Unfortunately, because a solid majority of actual scientists do not follow the scientific method fully, it is very difficult to convince many, if not most, of these scientists to fairly write and speak of these theories as theories and not as facts. But, I guess when one has a faith in an ideology, whether it be about evolution, creationism, God, man, or any other topic, whether controversial or not, that person will not be inclined to present their information in a non-biased vernacular.

If the chief editors and moderators of Wikipedia wanted to be at the fore-front of setting a new standard in fairness and objectivity, they would initiate a thorough program of editing all of the Wikipedia pages to remove all forms of bias whether for or against all topics throughout the entire tome of Wikipedia.

For those who are looking to see if I have any biases here, please be informed, that I do have biases as a pro-young-earth creationist and as an engineer with a Bachelor of Science educated at an accredited secular institution. I am a fundamentalist, born-again Christian who is bold enough to proclaim the truth as I see it. But I am also an honest and upfront writer who can and does put forth purely-objective reasonings where appropriate (such as for this talk). You may claim to identify biases in this talk but, apart from this paragraph and at other out-of-objectivity places as appropriate, I feel that none will be successfully found.

Razzuria (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Chugiak (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Razzuria: Well put! We don't understand the rules here. The Editors are the only ones who seem to have their feet planted in reality: but I think you & I have made our points. It was this kind of reasoning that put Mr. Hovind in prison. I am of the same biases as you; & I too have a BS; in Mechanical Engineering from WSU. If they persecuted Jesus Christ, they'll persecute us.Chugiak (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Razzuria, welcome to wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the article topic. If you have improvements for the article, please succinctly propose what exact wording you'd like changed, the new wording you'd like it replaced with, and sources meeting WP:RS which support the change. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to let Jess's response stand, as it is quite on the mark, but I did notice that you, Razzuria, brought up a few specific issues, which I'll address. First of all, the first paragraph of the article is the lede. It is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article and, ideally, is unsourced because, being a summary, the sources for all the statements are below in the article body. Hence, the statement that "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence" is in no way conjecture and is supported by the article body below. In addition, it is not just cosmology that Hovind's views contradict. For example, one of his beliefs that he explained in a seminar is that a giant ball of ice hurtling through space struck the north pole and cooled the planet. This ignores the fact that if this ball of ice was going fast enough not to simply bounce off of the atmosphere, the friction caused by its movement through the atmosphere would cause it to heat the earth, not cool it. The ice meteor itself would be heated so quickly it would vaporize before hitting the surface. Nearly every claim if his is likewise fundamentally flawed at the most basic of levels. So you can begin to see how "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence" is a spot on assessment. To make half his claims viable, not only would we have to ignore what scientists say about stars and space, fossils and the geologic column, but also about cells and atoms and the very laws of physics that hold everything together.

Second, in scientific parlance, something that is observable is not necessarily something that is seen with the eyes. For example, we cannot literally observe with our eyes gravity, but rather only see its effects. Third, we can, in fact, accurately measure the distance between stars. I could go outside with a child's telescope and a calculator and do it right now (err...once the sun goes down). It's actually fairly simple.

Let me lastly point out that there is an audio file on youtube that you can listen to in which Hovind directly tells his family to illegally hide his assets so they aren't taxed, which is the very thing he was jailed for. Right about science or not, Hovind very very clearly committed tax fraud and was jailed for it. Even if the government is out to get him, that doesn't change the fact that he belongs in prison for fraud.

P.S., in case you didn't know, he's not actually a doctor. The degree is fake. So there's no need to use the title.Farsight001 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Chugiak (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Farsight001: You sure know how to extrapolate a curve from a point. Of course if I parted my hair just right, you could see my point. (That's supposed to be self deprecating humor for comic relief)Chugiak (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This entire article is one of the most blatant POV articles I've ever read. In practically every paragraph Hovind is being accused of something. Not to mention the mug shot at the top. I suppose wikipedia better comb through every prominent individual that ever went to jail and replace their photo with a mug shot. You could start with Wesley Snipes. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources point out he is a criminal, a young earth creationist, and other points made in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kent Hovind is not "known" for being a criminal. That is nothing but character assassination. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No one said he's known for being a criminal. But he is one. He committed fraud some 57 times and is doing an entire decade of his life in prison. It's a big part of his life and is therefore worthy of mention in the article. In no way is it a character assassination.Farsight001 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You have not read the article. From the bio: "KNOWN FOR: Advocate of Young Earth creationism, convicted of tax-related crimes" The general public only knows about Hovind through his science and creationist-related teachings. If he were simply convicted of an alleged crime, nobody would know about him. Adding this into the Bio is giving his conviction equal weight to what he has spent most of his life teaching. It is completely bias. One could point out hundreds of Wikipedia articles where any eventual criminality of a famous person is not given equal weight to their life's work. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the sources, he is quite known for being a criminal. He is a convicted criminal. He is known for advocating pseudoscientific BS and for being a convicted criminal. You may not like that, but that is life. There is no problem here, move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the article. You were addressing other people and suggesting that one of them said he was known for being a criminal. I corrected that. You never said you were talking about the article. Either way, my point stands - one of the reasons he is famous enough to have a wikipedia article is his fraud convictions. the bio is about his life. His time in prison is a large chunk of his life. It is completely appropriate. Would you rather the article contain no mention of his conviction?Farsight001 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah taking it out would be akin to removing the 'legal issues' that OJ Simpson has had because he is known as a football player.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick response to the ice meteor portion of this talk. First, the proposed ice asteroid would have to have broken up in our solar system because of the various gravitic force stresses. By conjecture, it would have had to have been super-massive with most of it's mass not reaching our planet specifically to cause the system-wide effects across many of our planets as proposed by Hovind. Third, the portions that reaches the earth would have had enough slowing prior to reaching orbit over our planet to break up even further. Fourth, most of the astronomical bodies that would impact the earth from a slower-moving mass would in fact not be impacts from direct-line-of-sight targeting, but would rather be course-corrected towards the planet from a much wider trending-field of extraterrestrial bodies. In other words, grivity would steer much of the nearby trajectories toward braking-maneuver paths which would bring otherwise-non-impacting masses into slower, failing-orbits which would have plenty of time to break up without burning up toward the poles. Fifth, this is purhaps the funniest flaw in your argument, but your idea that the friction would heat up the planet fails to take into account that evaporation actually reduces the heat in the surrounding environment, this effect would actually be amplified by the aforementioned braking maneuvers done upon most of the impactable masses. Razzuria (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you can find an RS in support of your ridiculous, yet amusing, caricature of the laws of physics, you might be able to add something along these lines. Until then, there's no point.Farsight001 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Using a mug shot for the lead image? Seriously?

If you're going to completely slander and misrepresent this man and his arguments, you might want to be a little more subtle about your obvious raging bias. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a better free image out there? I had no idea it was a mug shot until you pointed it out. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, first, slander is an attempt to defame/cause monetary loss to someone by telling lies about him. Everything in this article is well cited and is not a lie. Second, it's not like he's holding that little rectangle with name and prisoner number in the picture. Don't tell people it's a mug shot and no one will know. Third, it's a clear and obvious and recent picture of him that is fair use and a good pixel size. If you have a better one, show us, and we might switch.Farsight001 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a caption stating it was a mug shot... it has been removed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Using terms like "slander" in respect to WP violates ourWP:NLT policy. I suggest you retract that wording. SÆdon^talk 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I don't agree that it's slander, but expressing that opinion does not constitute any sort of legal threat. Especially since (presumably) the poster would be in no position to sue over slander to Hovind's name. Phiwum (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how slander applies. In writing, it would be libel, not slander, and that's only if the statement is false. Is the claim here that Hovind is not in prison? Naturally, if there's a better image available, I wouldn't have any problem with replacing the picture. Is there a free image available that shows his face as clearly or more clearly? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

From NLT: "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." While FQ rightly pointed out that libel would be the correct word and not slander, the point remains. SÆdon^talk 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean a specific lie is cited here, just that the entire article in general is framed around making Hovind look crazy because he threatens the religion of evolution. For instance under "Science" over a third of the content is dedicated to a single error he supposedly made about Lucy's bones, out of a large collection of other material that no evolutionist has been able to refute (as evident in his debates). How many errors has the doctrines of evolution made and not a single instance or even a criticism section listed in the human evolution article? Not trying to debate here, just showing how unfairly biased this article is. It's quite obvious when Wikipedia is demonizing something or someone to protect something else(can I say demonizing, Saedon?) 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it your claim that he did not ever state that Lucy's bones were found scattered over half a mile of land? That Hovind did, in fact, stop making this claim after he learned that it was false? Or that Lucy's bones really were scattered over half a mile of land? What sources verify your claim? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point you can say what ever you want so long as it's not legalspeak, but when you use terms like "religion of evolution" when talking to people who are well educated in the sciences (when you are clearly not) you just guarantee that no one will take you seriously. I realize that from your perspective, having been lied to about what science is and isn't, that this may seem condescending, but there is simply no other way to put it: you're out of your element and have no idea what you're talking about. Take a couple intro bio classes at your local community college if you want to actually want to understand the subject. SÆdon^talk 00:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Framed how? Everything in this article is supported by reliable sources. It's all known, factual information. Perhaps it is not that this article's goal is to make him look bad, but rather that his actions make himself look bad. I want you to seriously think about that for a while. What way is there to report on the fact that he's in prison for 10 years for fraud without him coming out looking bad?

If, after you've mulled this over for a few days, you still have a problem with the presentation of this article, then pick a sentence or two, explain what you think is wrong with it, offer a fix, and we'll discuss it. And when we're done with that one, we can move on to another issue you have. We can't really fix "the whole article is bad", because we don't really know where to begin. One step at a time.Farsight001 (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To Saedon: I'm not sure that insinuating the poster doesn't know a damned thing he's talking about is particularly faithful to WP policy, either. How about keeping that in mind? Phiwum (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the truth is harsh and there's nothing in policy against being blunt. SÆdon^talk 19:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The truth is that you're being an arrogant and silly pain in the ass, chiding others for their ignorance a scant two paragraphs after looking foolish over the nature of legal threats. Normally, I wouldn't speak so bluntly, but I've just been told that it's not against policy. Phiwum (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't read what I pasted from the WP:NLT policy so here it is again: "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended."

But it's not really relevant anyway; it's simply a rhetorical attempt to draw a parallel between a perceived misunderstanding of policy (which again, I didn't, it's quite common for NLT to come up when users use words like "defamation" or "slander") and misunderstanding an entire academic subject while attempting to attack it. It's a poor analogy. People who are not educated in evolution should not spew forth ignorance on the subject as though they have any sort of intellectual authority. When they do it should be pointed out. If pointing out the obvious fact that the OP doesn't understand the subject is "arrogant" in your definition then I'm fine with the characterization; unlike the OP, I am qualified to speak on the subject, what with being a biologist and all. SÆdon^talk 03:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, if it's irrelevant than why do you keep bringing it up? Apart from that all you're doing is acting like a child and basically calling me names. "Go take a bio class, moron." Give me a break.

FisherQueen, again, I'm not saying the point about Hovind making an error about Lucy's bones is false. I'm saying this one little error has been cherry-picked out of hundreds of other points he's put forth that apparently no evolutionist has attempted to refute.

How come, in the case of Kent Hovind's article, it is okay to pick out a single error he made and put it up on a pedestal for all to see, yet in an article like Human(MACRO) Evolution that makes enormous claims, Wikipedia does not so much as offer a Criticism section, not to mention the long list of errors that have been made in that school of thought? There's really no getting around the fact that there is a serious BIAS issue occurring here. And I think it is worthwhile to point it out. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Because Evolution is a well-defended theory, damn near universally accepted by those competent to judge biological theories. Hovind's work, on the other hand, is damn near universally rejected by the same people. Expertise and reliability in sources matter. Phiwum (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Then, again, why the need to cherry-pick a single error Hovind made? It just comes off as a desperate attempt to make him look bad. Hovind has a list of scientific claims that refute macro-evolution theory which he uses in every documented university debate. Why not list some in the article?

Because science is self correcting. When an error arises in a field of work it is disintegrated from the theory or the theory is changed to reflect new information (the opposite of how religion treats evidence). The YEC defecated from Hovind's brain is completely and utterly without merit or evidentiary backing and is static because it has to conform to a book written by goat herders thousands of years ago who thought the Earth was the center of a young universe made just for them. The above is not a cherry picked example is it just a good one, one of many. There are, however, no known errors in evolutionary theory. There are gaps, there are things we don't know, and the point of science is to research and discover the things we don't know. But any errors that are discovered are (obviously) removed from the theory. If this is incorrect then by all means gather some scientific sources and head over to evolution, but know that religious nutjobs are not considered reliable sources.

And no, I don't think you're a moron, I just know you're ignorant (as would anyone with at least a layman's understanding of biology). That's fine, everyone is ignorant of 99% of human knowledge and ignorance can be corrected by learning, being a moron not so much. The problem arises when the ignorant attempt to speak on complex subjects of which they have no knowledge. There is a difference between calling someone names and pointing out a factual aspect of them. You also misunderstood the above: what I called irrelevant was Phiwum's statement that I misunderstood our WP:NLT policy, Phiwum was attempting a red herring.

Lastly, you are right about one thing: this article is biased. Every article on creationism, every article on science, on WP, is biased, towards science, because we're a fucking encyclopedia and not a bible republishing company. I know it's easy to conflate "neutrality" with "unbiased" but that is not what's neutrality means on WP; neutrality means representing reliable sources in proportion to their prominence among experts in a field; in other words, neutrality is a bias towards reliable sources, take a careful look at WP:NPOV. You'll want to read up on our WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policies as well as this page falls into their purview.

As to Hovind refuting macroevolotion: no, just no, and this is yet another example of your shining ignorance. SÆdon^talk 20:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As to your comment on Evolution, it's easy to defend something when you don't allow for a voice of dissent, and when you piggyback your theory on top of other branches of science.72.224.189.211 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither you nor Hovind are a voice of dissent when neither of you actually understand the subject. Are there experts in the field who dissent? No, because they understand it. Evolution doesn't piggyback on other branches of science, evolution is biology; nothing in biology makes any sort of sense without evolution, which you will know if you take my advice regarding your local community college. SÆdon^talk 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon says "Because science is self correcting. When an error arises in a field of work it is disintegrated from the theory or the theory is changed to reflect new information (the opposite of how religion treats evidence)."

But Saedon, this isn't a scientific article, it's a bio on a person. I am referring to claims Hovind has made in every debate. Just because you feel they are unscientific, why should that matter? This article is about Kent Hovind, not a branch of science. Seems you're letting your eagerness to attack Hovind get ahead of you.

Anyways, the article already lists claims made by Hovind in his debates, so unless somebody wants to come off as a hypocrite, I should see no objections to adding a few of his other claims, ones that weren't cherry-picked for their inaccuracies.

And Saedon, what about dissent by evolutionists themselves? Darwin himself held major criticisms to macro-evolution. "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

It's too bad Wikipedia's Evolution editors are not honest enough to treat a theory like any other theory with a section on criticism and controversy. Instead it's the same worn-out tactic that you're displaying here now: "Evolution is doing Science! Anyone who questions it is doing Religion!" Really, a child could see that your main shtick is to simply bully out dissent and slap an anti-science label on it.

72.224.189.211 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is an entire article relating to people's objections to evolution. Also, your Darwin quote is quote mined. Darwin would very frequently pose a rhetorical question and then answer it. As Darwin did go on to explain precisely why the geological record isn't perfect, your quote is an example of that same sort of rhetorical question-filled writing style. State of Love and Trust (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

1. “This article is about Kent Hovind, not a branch of science.”
   Hovind made a career out of trying to debunk evolution. An article on Hovind must necessarily discuss this.
2. “unless somebody wants to come off as a hypocrite, I should see no objections to adding a few of his other claims, ones that weren't cherry-picked for their inaccuracies.”
   Might be a good idea. What you might come up against, though, is people might remove them because they’re not notable. Still, I say give it a shot and see what comes out of it.
3. “It's too bad Wikipedia's Evolution editors are not honest enough to treat a theory like any other theory with a section on criticism and controversy.”
   Actually, that’s not the norm, because theories are generally well tested and known to be true. You’re thinking more about hypotheses (there’s little distinction between the two in common speech, but in science there’s a huge difference).
4. “"Evolution is doing Science! Anyone who questions it is doing Religion!" Really, a child could see that your main shtick is to simply bully out dissent and slap an anti-science label on it.”
   Well, hold on a second. We’re still talking about Hovind, aren’t we? His diplomas are in Religious Education and Christian Education, from unaccredited Christian schools. He founded an evangelical ministry. He founded a Genesis-themed “Creation Museum”. So he is “doing religion”. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 18:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents. I believe the photo is appropriate and is not slander/label.

As far as listing Hovind's claims against evolution, they have been debunked and can be found at the TalkOrigins web page at the end of the article, so it is unnecessary to list them.--Cms13ca (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)