Hovind says that he made a choice to "believe the Bible until it's proven wrong."
...Speaking as a former Christian, this is precisely why I lost my faith and couldn't get it back even when I tried.
The two greatest weaknesses of the fundamentalist platform when it comes to "faith" are...
1. The complete belief in the inerrancy of the Word of God, and the belief that the Bible is the Word of God.
2. The complete belief in the complete, unchanging "perfection" of their own deity.
The first weakness is basically just a way for the manipulators (which are not always the people in authority - sometimes they are deceived, too) to sway people - when you can convince them the Bible says X, they believe it to be utterly true.
Its weakness is that when someone comes across something that cannot be explained, doubt grows. And in the fundie world, doubt is a weakness instead of a building block. This creates a cycle of depression for the doubter due to being shamed into denying they have any doubt.
And thus the believer becomes an unbeliever given enough time.
The second weakness is an outright problem of dogma. It's almost uniquely Abrahamic, based on Zoroastrianism, the idea of a perfect deity without flaw. It is this specific belief that creates a logical paradox. God is perfect and pure, and humans should strive to attain purity. But at the same time, God holds many double standards - things he allows himself to do that no human is allowed to do.
Humans should strive to be as pure and good as God is, but at the same time, emulating him is a sin because the things he does are sins when done by humans.
Ironically, rejecting both of these weaknesses can creates a more resilient faith, which coincidentally has a correlation with more progressive and good beliefs such as gay rights, tolerance of other religions, and positive activism.
Basically, the more hard-ass one's religious beliefs are, the more conservative they are, the more fragile they are. The more fragile they are, the harder and more violent the fundie must fight to protect them.
ETA:
Also, if you think about it, a deity that cannot change is, by definition, not all powerful, because an all powerful being must, by definition, be able to change.
Which creates a hell of a paradox in that absolute, overall perfection is unattainable because God is simply too much of a Marty Stu. A more realistic written God is much more believable and, in all honesty, much more likable. A God that makes mistakes and owns up to them more so than a God who commits terror and is justified simply because he is God.
