Back in the 1990s, I published a magazine called the AntiShyster. That publication focused mainly on criticizing lawyers and the judicial system, but I also touched on issues of religion. I’d also sometimes touch on extraneous subjects that simply impressed me as interesting and important.
One of those subjects was Kent Hovind’s arguments in favor of Creationism–the idea that man really was created by God in the way described in Genesis. According to Hovind, man is not the result of evolution.
At the time, I was in my 40s and regarded myself as semi-educated and reasonably intelligent. Therefore, I knew that the Theory of Evolution was rational, scientific and undeniable. I wasn’t a “holy roller,” and I dismissed Creationism as a myth unworthy of consideration.
And then I read one of Kent Hovind’s articles that both advocated Creationism and also pointed out great logical flaws in the Theory of Evolution. I was amazed. I no longer regarded Evolution as rational, scientific and undeniable. I could see that while “evolution” meant “change” and offered a very logical theory as to how animal “A” changed/evolved into animal “B” which, in turn, changed/evolved into animal “C”–the theory of evolution cannot explain how animal “A” was created and came to be in the first place.