Eating Rocks on a Gas Giant: An Analysis of Kent Hovind's Doctoral Dissertation
"Hi, I'm Kent Hovind" (p.4/102) 
Yeah, that's how it starts.
Kent Hovind, love him or hate him, has been a polarizing figure in the creation/evolution debate. An ardent Neo-Ussherian leads people to be very interested in the scholarly nature of his doctoral dissertation.
Hovind maintains his controversial status in the Christian community as well. He has followers for sure, but many Christians, of the Old Earth Creationist or Theistic Evolution variety, heavily critique Hovind's ideas. This is to be expected, however, even fellow Neo-Ussherians (Young-Earth Creationists) are distancing themselves from Hovind as of late.
Without any further ado, let's analyze some select portions of Hovind's dissertation.
Hovind has an interesting origin story for the theory of Evolution. He states:
"Satan, in the form of a serpent, brought the doctrine of Evolution into the garden of Eden." (p.15/102)
Contextually, he is referring to Satan's statement "ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5)
Needless to say, this is not a helpful comparison. Hovind has to imagine that evolution in some way or another teaches that we shall become gods. This is nonsensical, sure you can say perhaps atheists use evolution as a reason not to believe in God, but to attribute the origin of a scientific theory or the seeds of it to such a specific area is hyperbole and/or rhetoric at best, fear-mongering at worst.
When talking about Augustine, Hovind states:
"He would be the equivalent of a theistic evolutionist today"(p.28/102)
There really is no way to determine that as developments in evolutionary theory were not exactly as they were today. We can speculate what Augustine would believe, but to just straight out say "Augustine is basically a theistic evolutionist lol xd" is shoddy scholarship.
He consistently refers to Evolution as a religion, again, anyone can treat any idea with religious devotion but his use of terms only confuses the reader instead of elucidating the points in a succinct way.
"Bring me a Mars rock or a Jupiter Rock, I'll eat it or lick it"(p.74/102)
Contextually, he is referring to the idea that there is no life on any other planets, therefore there wouldn't be any harmful bacteria on the rocks. However, you can still be harmed by substances that aren't living, so it's still probably not a good idea to lick or eat something from another planet that hasn't been tested. Also, to point out the obvious, there are no rocks on Jupiter, it's a gas giant.
"Jesus would be a liar if Evolution is true" (p.102/102)
This is an unhelpful false dichotomy. We need not put immediate stumbling blocks in front of unbelievers. I have no problem with someone really studying objections to evolution, in fact, scientific dialogue is a good thing and we should encourage it.
However, when you just come out an say, It's either Jesus lied and Evolution is true, or Jesus was right and Evolution is not true you're giving a false dichotomy. There are a wide range of beliefs about how science and the Bible reconcile, to limit ourselves to only one seems unnecessary. There simply is not enough from the text of scripture to be this dogmatic about it. You think evolution is wrong? Fine, no problem. But do not insinuate the intentions of your brothers and sisters in Christ, that they're just a bunch of compromising Christians, but not like you who stands firm on Ussher's chronolo....I mean the Bible.
I think you should read Hovind's doctoral dissertation, it is worth reading. Not for intellectual pursuit, but for a laugh and as a reminder that anti-intellectualism in the Christian culture needs to stop. Listen to the words of Augustine.
 The PDF form of Kent Hovind's Doctoral Dissertation, released by Wikileaks.
 The Literal Meaning of Genesis