What our friends are not admitting is that even if Hovind is wrong on some things, he's is either right on much of what he says, or at least has a viable/sensible argument for many of his alternative interpretations of what is observed scientifically.
why does he use textbooks as an example of why evolution is wrong? he tells people that scientists think we are related to rocks!
the guy distorts science to make it look like a joke and get audances that have no clue about science at all and makes science look foolish
As for Hovind's education, well, he's educated, having done a lot of homework and just maybe not as programmed into some questionable mainline interpretations of science observations as all those who've been through the mainline assemblyline of conventional science all the way from grade school through doctorate.
he has a paper mill phd, he claims to know about science but has no understanding of how science works! he claims to have been a teacher but even teachers have to understand basic science
™ Version 4.2
