Thank the Lord Kent Hovind became a preacher

Because I have the feeling he was a failed stand-up comedian. Watching one of his videos on Creation and Evolution was quite painful. I was forced to listen to bad joke after bad joke waiting for him to actually talk about the main topic. After a lot of preaching, and even more bad jokes, he finally got to the topic of evolution. And just like every other fanatical Christian I’ve seen, he had a poor understanding of evolution and did a horrible job trying to debunk it. Furthermore, he implies a straw man argument: by proving evolution is false (which he doesn’t) he proves Gods existence (which he gives no evidence for).

Seriously, although I linked to the video, don’t even bother watching it. If you’ve seen Christians do a horrible job debunking evolution, then you’ve seen this before. I only blogged about this video because of how painful it was to watch his failed attempt of humor (even his Christian audience doesn’t always laugh at his jokes). On a lighter note, I found out he went to federal prison last year to serve a 10 year sentence for tax related crimes. Hopefully his inmates find him more funny than I did.

5 Responses to Thank the Lord Kent Hovind became a preacher

  1. Josh Wittner says:

    The logical fallacy in play is a false dichotomy and not a straw man.

  2. Jake says:

    That depends on the framing of the argument by Rev. Hovind. If he claims that evolution is false and that this supports the existence of God, it’s a straw man. If he claims that either evolution is true or that God exists then it’s a false dichotomy, or the Black-or-White fallacy.

  3. Kevin says:

    Hovind never actually directly states such an argument, which is why I considered it a straw man. Most of his arguments are of the type: “Evolution can’t explain this… but God can.” So his arguments, which are assumed and false anyway, pretty much point towards the gaps in science and God can fill those gaps. The more he proves science wrong, or more gaps he finds, the more it supports the existence of God. So although my phrasing was vague (in reference to his argument) and could be interpreted either way, I feel Hovind was definitely using a straw man argument.

  4. Josh Wittner says:

    I still claim that was he is using is a more vague version of a false dichotomy.

    From The NESS:

    Straw Man
    This is arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view. Therefore this consists of misrepresenting an opposing view in such a way that it is vulnerable to attack, because, for example, it is based upon flimsy evidence or invalid logic.

    Claiming that one argument is false and that that supports your argument is creating a false dichotomy because you’ve, however subtly, reduced the number of possibilities to two.

  5. Kevin says:


    From debating this in real life, I think we have come to an agreement. He was using a straw man argument to prove a false dichotomy. He made up beliefs about evolution, that evolutionists don’t really hold, that were easy to disprove. Then, by proving evolution false, based on his terms, he offered God as the only alternative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: