If you do not know the name, Kent Hovind goes by the moniker Dr. Dino and he is an IBF member and someone who has …
Whatever you gotta tell yourself lol.
1. “We did wonder why Mr. Mitchell asked to interview BG for this documentary. We had to do some internet searching and found out the answer why.
Mr. Mitchell is as big an unbeliever as BG is. Mystery solved.”
Answer: Incorrect. I looked for anyone who had gone to Midwestern Baptist College, and specifically around the same time as Kent (Kent graduated in 1976, Bruce started in 1976).
So, they would have likely had the same teachers, and atmosphere, which provides a more accurate understanding of what Midwestern was like (as close as we can get anyway with it now being decades later).
I found a few others, but they either didn’t respond, or refused to be interviewed. Bruce agreed, hence why Bruce was the one interviewed. Instead of assuming, you could have just asked, man lol.
2. “Even though Mr. Mitchell said the documentary was not about an ad hominem attack, etc., on Mr. Hovind, the documentary was everything he said it wasn’t.”
Response: I’m not being condescending when I say this, because a lot of people don’t actually know what an ad hominem attack is. Do you know what that is? The simplest way to explain it is using an attack against your opponent’s character to win an argument. So, for example, if we were debating about whether or not the sky was blue, and I said, “Well, you cheated on your wife, so why should we believe what you have to say?” THAT would be an ad hominem attack. You’re using an insult, or slight against someone’s character to discredit the man, rather than the argument.
In my case with the documentary, this isn’t a debate/ argument. I am not looking to discredit him so that his claims about evolution look bad.
I am literally JUST presenting facts about the man, and then inputting my thoughts about him. This documentary has NOTHING to do with creationism, which you touched on in your article, and I will get to in another response.
3. “But those accusations only show how little the atheist knows about the truth and Christians. Once a Christian learns the truth, he or she is going to say the exact same thing as every other believer who has the truth and speaks out or writes about it.
It is not plagiarism or parroting.”
Answer: I’d say that’s incorrect. Plenty of Christians, and specifically Creationists, bring plenty of originality to the subjects they discuss. As I clear said in the episode, it’s one thing for your lessons to be INSPIRED by those who taught you, but it’s another to just say the act same thing. That is indeed parroting.
For example, are you actually going to tell me that a Christian can’t come up with multiple ways to explain God’s love? Of course, they can, and they do. Kent, however, doesn’t. He simply repeats what he was taught, rather than bringing his own voice/ perspective to the discussion. He parrots, but if you don’t want to acknowledge that, that’s on you, my friend.
4. “The only way for the unbeliever to attack the Christian is to create fictitious arguments and accusations.”
Answer: Except I didn’t. I’m not attacking Kent’s arguments, and even more to the point, I was pretty careful by prefacing any accusations with, “I can’t say for sure,” or “I believe,” rather than stating personal opinions as facts. I laid out facts about Kent Hovind, and from the facts, I inferred a few assumptions/ suspicions about his motives, but only after prefacing them that this is my inference being made. Which is entirely okay, just as you have done with me here, and that is also okay.
5. “Mr. Mitchell states in the documentary that he is trying to be a voice for Mr. Hovind’s victims but what can a film do that the law has not already done or can do if Mr. Hovind actually did something illegal.”
Answer: Um…you may have missed out on quite a few amazing films, man lol. A great recent example is the film Hidden Figures. Films/ documentaries do more than defend, they make certain things known to the public in a way that court transcripts cannot. Because of the film Hidden Figures, millions of people now know who Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, & Mary Jackson were, and their incredible contributions to the space program.
Or the docuseries Making A Murderer. Barely anyone knew who Steven Avery was, and now millions upon millions do.
I have no illusions that my docuseries will be THAT successful, but it’s something.
Which brings me to the point of why I am doing this.
It’s not about attacking Kent. It’s about protecting other creationists who may go to his ministry to help, and then be abused by Kent.
I have stated (publicly), before you were even aware of who I was, that this is entirely about protecting other creationists. THEY are the ones who are most at risk of being hurt by Kent. The final episode is not out obviously, but it will conclude with me speaking to any creationist watching that if they believe in Creationism, and that’s their calling, FANTASTIC. There are a multitude of good-hearted creationists out there who have the same creationists views as Kent but WON’T abuse them. Go help THEM. Go support their ministries, because you’re safe there. They aren’t safe with Kent. That’s why I, an Atheist, am doing this. This has NOTHING to do with Atheist vs Christianity, or anything of the sort.
6. “I doubt that we will be impressed just as we were unimpressed with his website.”
Answer: Did you stretch before you reached that far to try and make a dig at me? lol.
The website (currently) isn’t meant to be impressive. It’s just supposed to house my projects. I don’t run a business lol.
7. “We can only surmise that he is using this documentary to advance his career and harm someone who has done nothing to him.”
Answer: My boy lol, my career advanced long ago. My career is in marketing, assisting multimillion dollar companies, global corporations, & even little mom & pop shops if I believe in their company/ products.
What you are seeing on my YouTube channel is my hobby.
As for harming someone whose done nothing to me…it says a bit about you that you have to be personally attacked in order to care about the harm that has been done to others, but that’s a flaw on you, not me.
8. “We already know that the filmmaker is not being honest and his anti-God bias shines through which proves our point.”
Answer: I was being highly honest, and the citations for the docuseries will be available soon so that everyone can vet the info for themselves.
Further, I am in no shape or form Anti-God, so using that to “prove your point,” only proves that I was correct to tell you that you should have talked with me first. You should watch my interview with the Kindom Community that’s on my channel. My one and only concern when it comes to beliefs is if those believe influence you to harm others…like Kent. But I think religion is a natural part of life, & there are a multitude of beautiful things about religion. I don’t believe in God, but I am in no way anti-God. Seriously, you should have spoken with me first, man lol.
9. “Objectivity is missing as well and so far there is no attempt to present Mr. Hovind’s side.
That may be because Mr. Hovind and his friends will not talk to Mr. Mitchell.”
Answer: For one, pure objectivity is never the benchmark for a documentary. We are human beings with perspectives. A documentary that has NO subjectivity to it is the equivalent of a robot created documentary. That said, pure subjectivity is also a flaw, but I am being both.
I present facts, and even give Kent what is fair. For example, many have criticized Kent’s education at Patriot Bible University, and while I do feel that “education” is worthless, I did something most others never do. I acknowledged that relieving an education via correspondence is a perfectly legitimate means of higher education, & I showed the ORIGINAL building where the school started (when most just show the trailer it is in now). I ensured there was accuracy and fairness in that, and that same practice is found throughout the episode.
I have my opinions, I make it known when I am speaking an opinion, but I share the facts, & ensure I am delivering those facts in a way that is fair to Kent.
As for presenting Kent’s side, I have tried (for TWO years) to give Kent the opportunity to speak his peace.
I have an entire process in place that would ensure I could NOT edit Kent’s words out of context without getting caught, and even told him that I would have a series of questions but I wouldn’t challenge his answers. He would answer the questions, and whatever he says is what he says. The purpose is to give him his fair chance to speak in his defense, but he refuses to do so.
That’s on him, not me.