Does anyone think that Kent Hovind (provided he wasn't in jail) would be brave enough to debate?

Question

say, Richard Dawkins on evolution? Why or why not?

Answer 1

He has debated other fairly well known and knowledgable evolutionists. His idea of debate is to spit out straw men and equivocate endlessly. This rightfully flusters his opponent who realizes it isn't a legitimate debate, and ends up making Hovind look good in the eyes of his intended audience, which is creationists.

Any objective observer would see right through this tactic and if the debate was scored, Hovind would lose terribly for it, but his objective is not a real debate. His objective is simply to baffle fellow creationists with BS.

Answer 2

Actually, it's the evolutionists who refuse to debate HIM!. He goes all over the country asking to speak or debate at universities, but the evolutionists refuse to debate him. Only a handful of scientists have been willing to do so. I have watched some of these debates, and all I can tell you is that the evolutionists are completely ATE UP and have no defense for their theory. In fact, they will debate in front of a forum full of jeering college students at first, but by the end of the debate, 99% of the students are giving Dr. Hovind a standing ovation, whereas only about 2 or 3 students are politely clapping for the evolutionist. I think intelligent people know truth when they hear it.

Answer 3

No.

He's well known for choosing his venues carefully and would only engage Dawkins in meaningless soundbites and his usual degree of ineptitude. He's very good at spinning out answers to questions that sound good...but when they get transcripted you realize that he didn;t really say anything of substance.

His "debate style", if you can call it that, is to hurl out so many asserions and wild claims that an opponent would have to spend a couple of hours uninterrupted to refute them all.

I suspect that even if he did debate Dawkins, he'd claim victory afterward regardless of how badly he got run over...and his mouth-breathing fans would applaud.

Answer 4

I doubt it. It seems he likes to avoid any type of intelligent debate about the things he writes about, but puts up a front for show. I still don't understand why some people follow his writings and teachings as if they are actually credible in the field of science.

Answer 5

if Richard asks him, of course. he is very knowledgeable in many science topics. but i don't think Richard would be brave enough to debate. it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation.