However, Dawkins wrote, “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact.” Nothing to debate! What about the origin of everything? How did “nothing” create something that became everything? How did life first begin on Earth that was solid rock? What about the Cambrian Explosion? What about all the frauds perpetrated by fanatic evolutionists in the last 100 years? What about the now discredited “horse series”? What about the absence of transitional fossils? What about peppered moths? What about the scandal of radiometric dating with the vast inaccuracies and discrepancies? What about the origin of the various laws of “nature”? No, nothing to debate!

The New Atheists throw a hissy when Creationists suggest that belief in the Bible is necessary for a foundation of morality. They maintain that an atheist can be as honest, decent, kind, gracious, etc., as a Bible believing Christian. But then those atheists who are kind, gracious, and honest have been influenced by Bible teaching for a lifetime. For those interested in Dawkins’ integrity they should punch in their computers, “Dawkins stumped.” Because of his deception even fellow atheists have broken with Dawkins. My new book, The God Haters deals with that incident.

To accomplish their desired results, a world without religion, New Atheists deny, denigrate, distort, and seek to destroy anyone who believes God “did it” instead of “nothing did it.” After all, if the Bible is not true then Christians are without a story, succor, or a Savior. With the atheists’ farcical attempt, they prove they are disingenuous, deceptive, and dishonest lowlifes.

Richard Dawkins ran off the rails when he wrote, “there is no good historical evidence that he [Jesus] ever thought he was divine.” Dawkins really stepped in deep doo-doo here. He would have non-thinkers believe that highly intelligent Christian believers willingly went to the stake and to the wild beasts of the arena believing that their Leader was a mere human and remained in the grave! Nonsense! Dawkins is brilliant in his field of biology but out of his field he is dumb as a sack of hair from a barbershop floor.

Jesus said in John 14:9, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” Also, John 5:58, “Before Abraham was, I am.” In John 10 Christ declared, “I and my Father are one.” Moreover, Dawkins is so uninformed that he doesn’t know that Christ was crucified because of His profession of deity! There is no reason to pile on supporting texts in this regard.

Furthermore, only a sovereign, omnipotent God can forgive sins. The Apostle Paul surely taught Christ’s divinity in I Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” I think that settles that.

Dawkins declared that the Gospels are not reliable accounts “of what happened in the history of the real world.” He clearly asserts that they were written “long after the death of Jesus.” He tells us that they were written after Paul’s epistles. I have dealt with this elsewhere but will provide one proof that it is Bible haters who are dishonest or uninformed. Dr. John A. T. Robinson launched the “Death of God” movement (taken from Nietzsche), so he was far from being a conservative; yet, even he confessed that the complete New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: “One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and cli¬mactic event of the period–the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple–is never once mentioned as a past fact.” It is impressive when a major enemy confirms the validity of your belief!

The destruction of Jerusalem and the most magnificent Temple in the world is not mentioned in the New Testament books because they were written before that world-shattering event! Dawkins and his New Atheist comrades are wrong; probably intentionally wrong.

Then Dawkins takes a hatchet to Luke’s Gospel, where he deals with the birth of Christ, claiming that there was a local census but not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Roman world. Therefore, the Bible is unreliable. No, it is Dawkins who is unreliable. Augustus decreed three empire censuses during his 40-year rule. Dawkins asks, “Do these people never open the book that they believe is the literal truth? Why don’t they notice those glaring contradictions?” Those “contradictions” are not glaring contradictions and Dawkins makes a fool of himself by using anti-biblical arguments that have been answered for hundreds of years.

He says “rapture Christians” yearn for nuclear war since it (“this Armageddon”) will bring on the Second Coming of Christ. In my entire ministry I have never met one per¬son who yearned for Armageddon nor have I met one who believed that that great battle will hasten Christ’s return to rapture His saints. The battle of Armageddon does not precede the Rapture of the saints but the Revelation of Christ; however, Dawkins evidently has never heard of the two aspects of Christ’s coming. Dawkins is much more reliable with bugs than with the Bible. What Dawkins knows about the Bible would fit into the navel of a flea.

I document scores of Dawkins’ and his fellow-atheists’ mistakes in my book, The God Haters: Angry Atheists, Shallow Scholars, Silly Scientists, Embattled Evolutionists, and Pagan Preachers Declare War Against Christians! It is shocking, startling, and surprising that scholars would be so careless, clueless, and crazy to make so many mistakes in their polemic against God. It seems these people who call themselves the “brights” (as opposed to us dims!) are more evangelistic in their hatred of a God “who doesn’t exist” than those of us who believe in Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls!

New Atheists would say that they are trying to set the record straight and correct everyone’s false thinking; however, they don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Peter Pan, and the Tooth Fairy yet they haven’t mounted a crusade against those iconic figures. Dawkins and his buddies know the aforementioned characters don’t exist but they know God does, hence their declaration of war against Him.

Their war is a lost cause.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

Evolution, while perhaps being conceivable, has not been confirmed and never will be. But most evolutionists are not interested in testing the gradualism of Darwin but rather in protecting their dubious hypothesis. You can imagine the academic chaos if most scholars would admit that evolution never happened!

World famous scientists Sir Fred Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe admitted, “The general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth.” One chapter in their book is titled, “The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve,” and they provide a long list of biological objections to evolution, then claim, “These conclusions dispose of Darwin.” But not for the fanatics in their ivory towers and news rooms.

What would it do to every secular university science faculty if creationism were accepted and evolution proved a fraud? Evolutionists would finally be recognized as unscholarly, unwanted, and unnecessary. And maybe they would become unemployed! They would fall into the same category as flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers and snake handlers! (That is exactly my attitude toward the soothsayers of science.)

The museums of the world would have to make some major changes in their displays and propaganda. Their pitchmen would have to memorize new “facts” for their canned speeches.

Public schools would have to retrain their science teachers, and most of their science films and textbooks would have to be destroyed.

Bigoted judges who have ruled in favor of the myth-tellers would feel the sting of public embarrassment and join the ranks of the unemployed. Most likely, they would simply open up shop as attorneys and that’s what we really need–more attorneys!

With evolution in disfavor, scientists would no longer seek to confirm the theory of evolution (now presumed to be a fact before beginning an investigation!), and they could get on with the business of true science. Scientists would no longer see only what is “respectable and acceptable,” and would look at the evidence, making judgments based on that evidence even if it contradicted popular theory. They would decide that truth is more important than denigrating, denying, and denouncing Creationists.

Clergymen and theologians would sheepishly have to apologize to their followers for leading them into the swamps of theistic evolution, day-age theory, gap theory, and other unscriptural nonsense. Such religious leaders might once again preach that the Bible is reliable in toto as Creationists have been saying for many years.

Publishers of evolutionary tripe would, well, go out of business or start publishing New Age ranting, oriental religious musings, or the sexual fantasies of the latest pop star. Or, better yet, Barack Obama’s Things I Did to Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize qualifying as the shortest book in literary history.

I can see an assortment of prestigious scientists, clergymen, professors, publishers, film makers, media personalities, and others holding a televised news conference where they apologize profusely to the youth of the world for teaching fraud, falsehood, fakery, and foolishness while calling it fact. Many of the mainline media would have to apologize to Carson and other Christians who declare that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Now, a word of advice: Don’t hold your breath for that news conference to take place. It won’t, because many evolutionists are vain, venal, and venomous people. They are especially venomous when dealing with or discussing Creationists. If you don’t think so then read what the number one atheist/evolutionist in the free world Richard Dawkins declares. He foams at the mouth in his hatred for God and wiping away the foam he wrote, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homo-phobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” He adds that the God of the Old Testament was “an evil monster.”

Dawkins is so acrimonious, angry, and abhorrent that some honest atheists are ashamed to be identified with him as I document in my just published book, The God Haters.

Dawkins is dishonest in that he misstates and mischaracterizes Christian beliefs in order to take a shot, but then he usually fires a blank as when he declared that if you really take the Bible seriously, you will “strictly observe the Sabbath and think it just and proper to execute anyone who chose not to.” He knows that is an outrageous lie but he continues to parrot it and is too lazy or incompetent to correct it. Or he is too dishonest to admit his lie. Take your choice: lazy, incompetent, or dishonest. Has to be one of the three.

Dawkins, like most New Atheists and many evolutionists, is a brash, boastful, bully who needs to find a new way to make a living–confusing young minds is not a principled thing but it is profitable.

Dawkins and most evolutionists will not admit that evolution is a fraud since that is their claim to fame and their meal ticket. The demise of evolution would move them from their ivory towers to the unemployment lines and a repudiation of their life’s work. They are interested in promoting myths, not correcting them. They won’t even try to correct the enduring myth (started by Washington Irving’s best seller about Columbus in 1828) that almost everyone believed the Earth was flat until Galileo. Scholars and the general public knew the world was a sphere long before the birth of Christ! However, most schools, public and Christian, still teach Irving’s myth today!

Principle would also require atheists to refuse any further book royalties and that they will not do. When evolution is dead the gravy train stops and evolutionists will have to look for work!

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published Oct. 14 by Barbwire Books and to get your copy click here.  An eBook edition is also available.)

Dawkins appears to be an immature child who must have public exposure even if it means walking around without any trousers. You know, everyone knows that he can’t help himself. So he comes up with senseless statements now and then so the media will turn the spotlight on him. He gets another brief 15 minutes of fame then runs back to his ivory tower where he rolls up in a ball, sucks his thumb and whines about those evil young earth Creationists.

Dawkins took to Twitter last week to declare that, though he makes it a habit not to hate ideological opponents, there’s an exception when it comes to young earth creationists. He opined, “I said I’d never despise individuals, just their views,” Dawkins added, “But there are limits, and YE Creationists who refuse to look at evidence pass mine.”

Richard, while professing to be a scientist willing to look at every side of an issue, refuses to look at the case for a young earth! But then, even if one is convinced of an ancient earth, that in no way supports the silly molecules-to-mollusks-to moles-to monkeys-to man evolution. Or irreverently put: goo-to-you evolution.

Evolutionists pretend that they are the “experts.” That’s anyone with a briefcase, slicked down hair, a goatee, and tenure. However, there are thousands of highly trained scientists who believe evolution is a farce, a fraud, and a falsehood while others voice major concern about it being a fact. But that embarrasses evolutionists and makes them uncomfortable. How can an education person not believe in evolution?

One does not have to believe in a young Earth to be a Christian but Christians should take the biblical position on everything. Origins of the Universe and the Earth are very important. We don’t need to trust in radiometric dating or even natural “clocks” to determine whether the Earth is young or old. The Bible is very clear on that issue but that’s another column.

Some thoughts concerning a young earth:

Rabid evolutionists have determined the earth is about 4.5 billion years old as supported, according to the myth, by fossils and radiometric dating. However, in my new eBook, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? I dealt with the mistakes, uncertainties, ambiguities, contradictions, and general unreliability of radiometric dating of fossils. The dates produced by many modern methods are often dates that are called “scientifically correct” but are embarrassingly inaccurate!

It is a fact that the radioactive ages of lava beds laid down within a few weeks of each other differ by millions of years for which evolutionists have no answer.

Geologist Dr. Henry Faul (who specialized in dating rocks) wrote concerning one of those “reliable” dating methods–uranium dating: “…widely diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot.” Different dates from the same spot! That fact was confirmed by Joan C. Engels, in the Journal of Geology: “It is now well known that K-Ar [potassium-argon] ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant.” That’s about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost!

Fredreck B. Jeaneman declared in Industrial Research and Development, “this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [the dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” Oops, that means a major segment of evolutionary teaching could be an error.

Curt Teichert admitted in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, “At present, no coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings.” But inflexible, incoherent, and insecure evolutionists keep trying–without success.

The Great Barrier Reef is not millions of years old but less than 4,200 years old. That later date is ascertained because we know the growth rate for the last 25 years.

Geologists know that each stratum of sedimentary rock laid on top of each other shows no signs of erosion as they were allegedly laid down over “millions” of years. Everyone knows that exposure of stratum over millions of years would have resulted in massive erosion. However, the record shows the opposite. That is because “millions of years” is a myth. The strata were laid during and after the Flood so there was no time for erosion.

Another indication of a young Earth are large trees (which pass vertically through several rock layers) that could not have stood upright for millions of years without rotting while they were slowly buried. Those polystrate fossils were buried during and following the Flood.

Massive, thick layers of “rock” bent almost double without fracturing, indicate that the rock was soft when bent and no doubt happened following the Flood of Noah. Firm strata will break but they will never bend except in the evolutionary textbooks.

There are many other natural proofs of a young earth such as rather quick stalactite and stalagmite formation; red blood cells found in dinosaur fossils that are allegedly more than 65 million years old; the petrification of wood in a few years; the small amount of sodium in the ocean; the small amount of sediment in the Gulf of Mexico; the small amount of top soil all over the earth; the shrinking of the Sun indicates that if the Earth were ancient, it would have touched the Earth in only twenty million years; the number of people on Earth indicate a young Earth; and on and on and on.

Evolution is founded, not on science, but on distortions, myths, poor scholarship, circular reasoning, faulty premises, and a generous dose of wishful thinking. In plain English, it is pure quackery but none dare call it quackery!

You can stand with the atheists/evolutionists if you want as they belch their kooky, pseudo-scientific nonsense but I plan to continue standing with the One who created the Earth “in the beginning.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Richard Dawkins and his rabble are fearful of this coming encounter. Some evolutionists are even preparing excuses for Nye’s defeat: “He only has a bachelor’s degree.” “He’s an engineer, not a biologist.” Others have said that Nye will treat the debate as a joke, but if so, the joke will be on him.

Dawkins has interjected himself into this debate by pontificating: “They [creationists] want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists.” Only a fool, a falsifier, or fanatic declares that all scientists are in agreement on the issue of origins! One major, obvious disagreement is between Neo-Darwinists and punctuated equilibrium devotees. Of course, the huge difference is between those scientists who believe in evolution and those scientists who believe in creationism–there are thousands of them!

Dawkins has said that “Scientists should not debate creationists. Period.” In that, Dawkins is right, at least from their perspective because they almost always lose the debates!

Dawkins added incorrectly, “They [creationists] may not win the argument–in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had.” Sorry, Dick, you are in a dream world. Dawkins got wounded when an Australian film producer asked him a question about the origin of information and Dick was silent for 19 minutes (not 11 as reported) before he came up with an answer that did not relate to the question! Now, he is denying it happened! And Dawkins has the audacity to say of creationists, “Their dishonesty stops nowhere.” I think Dawkins’ honesty has never started.

Concerning evolution/creation debates, famous evolutionist Niles Eldredge confessed in his book, Monkey Business, “The creationists nearly always win….Creationists today–at least the majority of their spokesmen–are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence.” So, it’s no surprise that evolutionists are concerned about the “Shoot-out at the O.K. Corral” in Kentucky.

Since Ken and I are on the same team, I will provide him some unsolicited advice (although I’m sure he is “loaded for bear”) on how to handle “the science guy.” Scientific creationism has been discussed, debated, denigrated, denied but never disproved; and the “science guy” will discover that when he visits Kentucky. My advice to Nye is to run away from this debate as if his hair was on fire!

Ham should challenge Nye to declare that he does or does not believe the unsupportable, even outrageous teaching that nothing created everything. Ham should promise not to laugh out loud, maybe only a snicker or two. If Nye follows the path taken by others, he will try to flimflam common people with scientific jargon, psycho-babble, and gibberish. He should be pressed to make his points in clear, concise, and common English. He may try to laugh it away but Ham should not permit him to get away with that.

Ham should demand an explanation as to how all the scientific laws such as gravity, inertia, the First and Second Laws, laws of planetary motion, and others came into existence. After all, “laws” cannot evolve. Were those laws operating before or after the Big Bang?

I would then ask Nye to produce evidence that an explosion has ever resulted in order. Nye may then try to declare that evolutionists don’t believe the Big Bang was an explosion but Nye is lying or is uninformed if he defends that myth. Press him, kindly, of course.

I would then ask how life first formed on a planet made entirely of rock! Then force him to admit that he believes in spontaneous generation that no sane person believes! Press harder.

I would then ask why, if the earth is billions of years old, no meteorites are found in “ancient” strata. That was zero, nil, zip, nothing! Everyone admits that meteorites have always fallen so where is the evidence if the earth is ancient?

I then would ask which evolved first, the mouth, the stomach, the digestive system, or the elimination system. After all, what good is a mouth if you don’t have a stomach? No sensible person says they all evolved together. Yes, evolution requires miracles but only one every few million years. Not four miracles happening at the same time!

I would then ask about DNA. Since everyone admits that DNA is a code, ask who wrote the code. Books, codes, messages, letters, notes, emails, etc., do not self-compose, well except in the fairytale world of the evolutionists. Who wrote the DNA code? Press real hard!

I would then demand to know how blind chemistry created mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality. The “science guy” will probably sweat, squirm, stutter, and stammer about here.

I would then ask him to explain the symbiotic relationship between wild creatures such as the Nile crock and the Egyptian plover that walks into the crock’s mouth to clean out parasites then walks out without any harm. How does such evolution happen without the crock getting an easy, tasty meal and the plover getting dead?
I would ask how it is possible for fresh (not fossilized) blood cells to be discovered in dinosaurs that are alleged to be more than 60 million years old. That doesn’t happen in the real world.

Evolution is simply a humanist, materialistic religion that seeks to explain man’s origins. It’s not a very good religion. It doesn’t even have any holidays except April 1, although most evolutionists get rather pious on the anniversary of the founding of the ACLU.

Every evolutionist I have met and observed and read after brings up the “creation is religion and evolution is science” axiom as if that settles the matter. But how can evolution be science when it can’t be observed, tested, or demonstrated? The fact is, evolution is as scientific as a voodoo-rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost!

Evolution is like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat–that isn’t there.

Press on, Ken, press on.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch my eight-minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota, “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Kent’s enemies have painted him as a greedy tax resister when he has said repeatedly that he has always paid any taxes he owes. He could not get any response from the IRS nor did the judge, prosecutor, or anyone else inform him why his ministry was not exempt from taxes as are hundreds of thousands of similar organizations. Therefore, he has spent six years in the Big House. That’s where they send killers, traitors, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, and other Very Bad Guys.

Well, not always. If you are a celebrity entertainer, liberal politician, or sports figure, you can usually get probation; only a slap on the wrists. Sometimes a fine.

Note that Senator Ted Kennedy, while driving drunk, with a young woman in his car, drove off a bridge and swam away leaving her to die a slow death as she used what oxygen was available. Justice? He sat in the U.S. Senate the rest of his life and some fools actually took him seriously. My friend, Kent Hovind is still in prison!

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, an admitted pervert, confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987. So, Barney’s lover-boy was using his apartment as a callboy ring to make a little money on the side. Barney did not go to jail, and did not lose his seat in Congress. I’m not sure if he passed go and collected $200.00. Maybe his lover can tell us that. However, Kent Hovind sat in prison while Barney retired from Congress from making laws that you are expected to obey.

The late Massachusetts Congressman Studds plied a sixteen-year-old male page with liquor and seduced him, and tried to seduce two other male pages. After admitting his seduction of the male page and taking him on an 18-day trip to Europe (where they had sex every two days) Studds was reelected to Congress 6 times! He didn’t spend a day in court or jail! He sat in Congress but Kent Hovind has spent six years in federal prisons.

But it gets worse!

Andrew James of Vermont molested a four-year-old at least ten times, admitted it and walked away with probation and a $22 fine! He had three other convictions and Judge David Howard could have sentenced him to life in prison and a $50,000 fine. The judge is a jerk!

Mark Hulett, a 34-year-old, pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault on the daughter of a friend from the time she was 6 to age 10! The prosecutor asked for 8-20 years in the slammer but Judge Edward Cashman gave him 60 days! That esteemed judge has esteemed rocks in his head.

I could bore you with numerous cases of schoolteachers who took advantage of their position, seduced students, and walked away with probation, although usually the men go to prison and the females go free! And have you noticed that screaming feminists are not demanding equal treatment between male and female predators?

There are recent cases where rapists and killers walk away with probation and Kent Hovind sits in prison for ten years! Folks, there’s gotta be more to it than meets the eye. Your Federal Government wanted to “get” an outspoken Christian and they did. All right, so Kent made a mistake in judgment, and even if he is guilty, don’t sane people think his sentence is excessive? After all, didn’t Kent tell them he would pay any taxes they showed him he owed? Is it possible that they got him, not for taxes, but for religion? The Feds didn’t like his outspoken brand of Christianity.

Yes, Lady Justice is blind, dumb, stupid, and bigoted as is obvious in the case of Dr. Kent Hovind who sits in prison as I write this piece. And if it could happen to him, it could and might happen to you or me. Maybe Bible believing Christians should do as Chinese Christians and keep a small bag packed with personal things waiting for that ominous knock on the door. “We’re from the Federal Government and we’re here to get you.”

The feds “got” Kent and it’s past time for him to be released. Maybe the Pensacola judge or IRS agent could take his place in prison. Well, it could happen; after all, it is a time of miracles.

(Rewrite of 2007 column)

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

From the Escambia County Jail Dr. Hovind told me on Dec. 10 that he is “not a tax protester”; he simply insists on the Federal Government enforcing the laws as they are written. Some will say that he is trying to pin a nicer label on himself; however, I don’t think so. He told me “The tax laws very clearly give some ‘exceptions’; and some ‘exemptions’ for certain individuals and certain ministries, including 508 (c) (1) (a) church ministries.” He told me “I have corresponded with the IRS on numerous occasions asking them exactly what laws apply to 508 (c) (1) (a). However, they never responded to any of my letters. The agents themselves testified that they did not ever respond to any of my letters.”

That is astounding and outrageous! Repeatedly he sought clarification and received no help! Do IRS officials think they have no obligation to correspond with lowly peons who pay their salaries? Is this arrogance, defiance, or obstinacy? Or all three? This fact is not known by Kent’s critics. Some critics are so filled with loathing and hate that it will make no difference. They are very pleased to see a creationist in jail whether he deserves it or not! Yet, many Christians take the same position!

So the Hovind case involves a taxpayer who disagrees with Federal authorities (not a Federal crime) and requests clarification of those laws. And it should be added that many attorneys and tax experts agree with Hovind! So, why didn’t the government answer his questions and why didn’t the trial judge speak to the exceptions in the code?

Furthermore, he told me that he never boasted about beating the tax system. Then either David Gibbs was wrong because that is what the papers reported or maybe the news accounts were wrong. Even if he did boast about beating the system, that isn’t a crime in itself. It is not a Federal offence to boast, belittle, or even beat tax laws (as long as beating the laws is done legally by use of legitimate tax shelters, trusts, etc.) I have heard Kent say two or three times that he pays all taxes that he owes. He does not recommend tax protesting.

Kent told me that he “believes that everyone should obey the tax laws—including the government.” Do Gibbs, Horton, and Kent’s other critics see anything wrong with that statement? Why not hold the feet of Government officials to the fire? Haven’t they been aloof, arbitrary, and arrogant long enough? Why not chain them down with the laws they are supposed to obey? Or is it now a one-way street where only citizens are held accountable?

It is interesting that in Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer’s closing argument, she said, “Nobody likes to pay taxes, but we do because it’s the law, and he is not above the law.” I want to remind that attorney that Federal officials are also required to obey the laws! Too often, government officials, in a desire to put another notch on their gun will deliberately skew the facts, lie, manufacture “evidence,” misquote an innocent victim, etc. since after all, “he is obviously guilty.” While we don’t have any evidence that happened with Kent’s trial, it has happened many times.

Most Americans have an innate sense of fairness, and don’t like seeing an ordinary citizen mistreated, especially when some rapists and killers walk away with probation! Surely if violent felons can walk free with probation then it is only reasonable that Kent receive the same consideration. Just last week, a black entertainer was charged with tax fraud–12 million dollars, yet he is still free on bail! Kent is in jail. It is also interesting to note that the entertainer still has his passport and is free to travel. It is such imbalance and unfairness that make so many American citizens critical of the judicial system.

I do not question Hovind’s motives. I do not believe he has ever been motivated by greed. After all, for many years he has permitted people to duplicate his videos and pass them on to other people! Obviously, avarice is not part of his nature.

He did not try to hide what he was doing about taxes. I understand, in tax matters, intent is very important and while no person on earth can always ascertain another person’s heart, I am as certain as possible that Kent is genuine.

Assuming he is correct about the IRS code, I think he was unwise to risk his and his wife’s freedom as well as his ministry. However, there is a possibility he will be considered a hero in a few years for standing for proper enforcement of laws. Some of the very people who are critical of Dr. Hovind think Henry David Thoreau was a highly principled man!

Thoreau, in 1846, was arrested in Massachusetts and spend some time in jail for refusing to pay a poll tax. His friend Ralph Waldo Emerson visited him, and peered through the bars, and asked, “Henry, what are you doing in there?” Thoreau replied: “Waldo, what are you doing out there?” I wonder if Kent feels that way? Maybe in a few years some of us on the outside today may realize that we should have been on the inside with him.

Thoreau took a stand against slavery and what he considered an unjust war with Mexico. He wrote, “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” Maybe, just maybe some of us should be on the inside looking out rather on the outside looking in.

One thing is sure: State and Federal officials had better understand that they are not above the law and must start enforcing laws equally. Moreover, they should be more concerned with what is right rather than what is legal. “Right” never changes while man-made laws are in constant flux.

Fair minded citizens are getting weary of seeing celebrities walk free or getting a slap on the wrist while Christians are punished with glee, often when there is no guilt!

Yes, Lady Justice is blind but it is outrageous that she is also bigoted.
Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Evolution is a confused, convoluted, and contradictory theory that is unreasonable, unscientific, and unbiblical. And in trouble! Creationism has been denigrated and denied, but not disproved. Evolutionists know that if God created everything, it means they will one day give an account to that God whose laws they have dismissed and disobeyed. So the battle continues.

The hypocrites on the left are very dedicated to the principles of diversity and tolerance except in a few matters such as abortion, homosexuality, and scientific creationism. There, diversity is unnecessary and tolerance unthinkable. The loonies on the left tell anyone who will listen that ideas can’t hurt children, even in the lowest grades, so expose them to vulgarity, immorality, perversion, anti-Americanism, etc., since it is good for children to hear different views. However, that does not hold true when it comes to the above hot-button issues. Wonder why? That is one reason why I believe that liberals are the biggest hypocrites in America.

Almost all evolutionists want to start the debate with Darwin’s warm little pond where the process is alleged to have started: slime to slug to sloth to scholar. Or to put it another way, from molecules to mollusks to monkeys to man. However, it all didn’t start at a warm little pond (for which there is not a scintilla of evidence), but with the universe. When, where, and how did energy, matter, and time start? After I hear a few evolutionists tell me, “Well, we don’t know,” then we will go to the mythical pond and discuss man’s origin.

Major journals have cranked out hysterical propaganda to do damage control for the Americans United for Separation for Church and State (who recently had their annual meeting in a New Jersey telephone booth), PAW, National Center for Science Education, ACLU, and assorted atheists, agnostics, and associates. Galloping to the rescue of overwhelmed evolutionists came Time, Newsweek, USA Today, New York Times, and others spouting untrue, unfair, unscientific drivel to con the gullible public into believing the humbuggery of evolution and that those who advocate creationism are Bible thumping fanatics. (I almost never thump my Bible and when I do it is not really hard.)

Evolutionists trot out weary accusations against creationists, implying all are “fundamentalists” (gasp!), always denigrating them, often suggesting a belief in a flat earth! Really desperate evolutionists even suggest that we carry a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday! I am shocked, shocked that educated scientists would stoop so low. This is further proof, if it is needed, that many scientists are asinine, arrogant, and audacious bigots in defending their religious philosophy called evolution. Of course, bigots are as easy to find in a secular university as a bowling ball in a bathtub.

ScienceWeek (Jan. 23) displayed obvious bigotry (note their title) with their editorial “Creationism vs. sanity” when they accused creationists of being primitive thinkers who “believe the Earth is as flat as a pancake,…resting on the backs of four giant elephants.” To think they killed a tree to print such tripe. How could a responsible scientific journal permit something like that to be published? Of course, it was in defense of their religion—evolution.

Last week, another USA Today writer suggested people of faith could justify “anything in the name of dogma. Let’s not teach our children to burn witches, please.” That is outrageous plus inaccurate. Not one witch was ever burned in the U.S. Witch burning took place in Scotland, England, etc.

Also New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd mocked a classy 25-million dollar Creation Museum being established near the Cincinnati airport by Answers in Genesis. Mocking Christian creationists is acceptable but mocking a religion of hate is anathema. Wonder why?

Andrew Kantor, columnist for USA Today.com expressed sorrow for the Cincinnati area, calling the creation museum a “national embarrassment,” using buzz words such as “lies,” “distortions,” “gullible,” “scary,” and “silly.” Responsible journalism, huh?

Oxford biologist, Richard Dawkins, a famous proponent of diversity, balance, fairness and civility opined that creationists were “ignorant, stupid or insane—or wicked.” He called us feeble-minded, pathetic, and intellectual cavemen in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In a November 1983 article, published in the Times Literary Supplement, Dawkins called us a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” There, isn’t that kind, fair, and civil? See what I mean when I say that many evolutionists are as mean as a junkyard dog.

Stephen J. Gould (evolutionist, Marxist, and Harvard professor—three strikes and you’re out!) now deceased and no longer an evolutionist, Marxist or professor, called creationists “kooky,” “yahoos,” and “latter-day antediluvians.” But Steve would never consent to debate one of the “yahoos”!

Isaac Asimov showed his hatred and bigotry (hatred and bigotry on the left!) when he wrote that creationists “…are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.”

With the above vicious libel of creationists, ABC News, after commissioning me to write an anti-evolution piece for their website, refused to use it because I was “too militant!” No, I was too accurate and had too much sting. They wanted a mild piece so they could point to it and say, “See, we are balanced. We provided a forum for the other side.” But they did not want a challenge to the “other side.” Evolutionists must never be presented as fools, fanatics, fakers, and frauds but creationists can be presented as inept, incompetent, and insane! That is dishonest and the major media wonder why they have been abandoned by thinking people!

Even an Oxford professor can understand the reason.