Show me a major religious denomination that fully backed or endorsed Hovind.
Scientific journals have published a lot of crap through the years. The list of science mavericks that were ridiculed by scientific journals and were refused publishing is actually quite long.
So, I'm curious about something. Since your items include several key features of astrophysics, does this mean that you accept the 13.7 billion year old cosmic-inflation Big Bang universe?
And, BTW, you do realize that your logical fallacy is that all of these items you list were innovations that challenged previous concepts. None of them were the discarded, supernaturalist relics of a profoundly ignorant past.
And another thing, by the standards that those lists are based, Charles Darwin and evolution no doubt should be included. In its time, it was evolution that was the ridiculed, cutting-edge science. Heck, a lot of people are still trying to catch up with 1859...
The real problem with your list of initially rejected theories is that as evidence for them accumulated they were adopted. Some, such as Gold's theory of abiogenic oil, still don't have evidence.
In order for an idea to function as a theory in science it must have traction. In other words, it must suggest lines of research. If it is a forensic theory -- a suggested history -- it must do what forensic theories do, which is speculate about the means, methods, and timeline of the actors in the history. It must suggest additional evidence to be sought.
There is only one forensic theory of life. No one has suggested an alternative narrative that can be researched.