# A Dialogue with Nathaniel Jeanson?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Society\
**Created:** [June 15, 2020, 11:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935 "2020-06-15T23:39:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2020, 11:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/1 "2020-06-15T23:39:06Z")

</div>

This is noteworthy. Look at [this video](https://www.facebook.com/AiG.UKE/videos/2363085980659304/UzpfSTEwMDA0MzkzMjg1MTI0NjpWSzoxMDE2MDI3NTAxODkzNDEyOQ/) today by Nathanial Jeanson (Answer in Genesis).

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6ead517cb7769f2ca0bf0dfc2648ebab7cb82590.jpeg "Does Fitting the Animals on Noah’s Ark Lead to "Hyper-evolution"? (with Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWqtVzOPOoU)

## Accusing Joel Duff of Scientific Misconduct?

Dr. Jeanson accuses (about 1 hour in) @Joel_Duff and @David_MacMillan of “ **Scientific Misconduct** ” (in red type on a slide) and “ **lying** ” (verbally).

> **[Dissent with modification: how postcreationism’s claim of hyperrapid...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12052-020-00124-w)**
>
> The development of creationism to its multiple modern forms has been made possible in part by its appropriation and misuse of mainstream scientific terms. Here we illustrate how anti-evolutionary advocates have redefined the terms macroevolution and...

## Peaceful Science and BioLogos

Also of note, the Peaceful Science forum appears at the end of this video. Seems like Dr. Jeanson is a reader (Hi Nathan!). Though we should be clear, I also am not anti-creationist. By the way, thank you for correcting the host and clarifying that I am not with BioLogos.

## An Invitation to Dialogue

At 1:13 in, he addresses me. I asked if he would be willing to dialogue with me. He asks why I didn’t not cite him in my book, and asks me to read his work before we dialogue.

> [Nathaniel Jeanson](https://www.facebook.com/Nathaniel-Jeanson-123524917800280/?hc_location=ufi), thanks for picking up my book. I did actually cite biblical scholarship from AIG, and it was quite helpful to me. I even cited work by Ken Ham positively. I don’t know how you could have missed that.
> 
> I didn’t cite your scientific work in my book, because it is just not relevant to my point. The Genealogical Adam and Eve is not an argument for evolutionary science, as you well know. So your work is just not relevant.
> 
> And yes, I’ve read both your book, and several of your articles. So I’m caught up on your thoughts, and have a clear explanation of why I disagree. Perhaps you can show me what I misunderstood. Much more likely, you haven’t read what you need to from me. In fact, you’d know I’ve read work work and interacted with it quite a lot.
> 
> So, sounds like its a good time for dialogue. If you’d like we can start in private first.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 12:40am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/2 "2020-06-16T00:40:58Z")

</div>



---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_MacMillan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/david_macmillan/32/2362_2.png) [@David\_MacMillan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/David_MacMillan)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 5:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/3 "2020-06-16T05:23:27Z")

</div>

Fascinating watch. Jeanson is masterful in his delivery.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 5:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/4 "2020-06-16T05:33:17Z")

</div>

I refer to Poe’s law. I cannot tell if you are being straight or sarcastic in that line.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_MacMillan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/david_macmillan/32/2362_2.png) [@David\_MacMillan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/David_MacMillan)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 11:43am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/5 "2020-06-16T11:43:07Z")

</div>

Oh, I’m sincere. It was a masterfully delivery. Utter bullocks, but masterful nonetheless.

I confess I am a little pleased to be counted among “the leading anti-creationist voices,” though.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Toni\_Torppa](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/toni_torppa/32/9797_2.png) [@Toni\_Torppa](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Toni_Torppa)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 11:43am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/6 "2020-06-16T11:43:14Z")

</div>

_ **I didn’t cite your scientific work in my book, because it is just not relevant to my point. The Genealogical Adam and Eve is not an argument for evolutionary science, as you well know. So your work is just not relevant.** _

Here you are wrong, because when it comes to Adam and Eve, it would be specifically scientific to disprove alternative explanatory models. So science works by disproving competing theories. Now that you don’t even take a stand on the right scientific model of young earth creationists that Jeanson presents, you haven’t disprove the truly explanatory model of creationists for Adam and Eve. In other words, if you claim the creationists of a young earth are wrong and the theory of evolution is right, then you should show how the creationist model is not explanatory. Now you haven’t even commented on it in your book. From the perspective of our creationists, you have now only criticized the straw man. In the next short video, Nathaniel Jeanson explains in more detail.

Why scientists believe evolution - [https://youtu.be/KR6gX\_7MCcU](https://youtu.be/KR6gX_7MCcU)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 11:45am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/7 "2020-06-16T11:45:50Z")

</div>

> [@Toni\_Torppa](#):
>
> Here you are wrong, because when it comes to Adam and Eve, it would be specifically scientific to disprove alternative explanatory models.

Do you even know the premise of my book? It explores whether or not Adam and Eve is compatible with mainstream science. Jeanson’s book is far outside the mainstream, as even he would agree. For this reason, there is absolutely no reason to cite him.

More interesting, it seems, is that even other YEC scientists do not cite Jeanson. Why do you think that is?

> [@Toni\_Torppa](#):
>
> Now you haven’t even commented on it in your book. From the perspective of our creationists, you have now only criticized the straw man.

That is just uniformed @Toni_Torppa. My book does not criticize young earth creationist models of Adam and Eve. So it can’t be possibly criticizing a straw man model of something it doesn’t criticize.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 11:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/8 "2020-06-16T11:46:36Z")

</div>

> [@Toni\_Torppa](#):
>
> Why scientists believe evolution - [https://youtu.be/KR6gX\_7MCcU](https://youtu.be/KR6gX_7MCcU)

I explain why I changed my mind here: [Livestream: How I Changed My Mind on Evolution](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/livestream-how-i-changed-my-mind-on-evolution/10326)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Toni\_Torppa](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/toni_torppa/32/9797_2.png) [@Toni\_Torppa](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Toni_Torppa)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 12:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/9 "2020-06-16T12:11:50Z")

</div>

If you don’t even consider the creationists ’most scientific explanation for Adam and Eve (the model presented by Jeanson), then the whole premise of“ whether or not Adam and Eve is compatible with mainstream science ”is irrelevant from a scientific point of view. So ironically you compare Adam and Eve to mainstream science and at the same time you reject the principle of scientific argumentation, which should take into account competing models and try to show why they are not the most explanatory.

_ **My book does not criticize young earth creationist models of Adam and Eve.** _

But that is precisely my point that it should be criticized so that the premise of your book can really be justified by scientific critique.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 12:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/10 "2020-06-16T12:15:51Z")

</div>

So, basically, your argument is:

> You wrote about topic A, but it should have been about topic B instead.

Sorry. You don’t get to choose the topics of the books I write. Maybe I will write a book on B (disputing Jeanson’s work) in the future, but at this point I’m not sure the point. It would have a pretty small audience.

If you’d like to know how I changed my mind on YEC, you could listen to the video I linked above:

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> I explain why I changed my mind here: [Livestream: How I Changed My Mind on Evolution](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/livestream-how-i-changed-my-mind-on-evolution/10326)

Or read this if you prefer: [https://peacefulscience.org/swamidass-confident-fatih.pdf](https://peacefulscience.org/swamidass-confident-fatih.pdf)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 12:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/11 "2020-06-16T12:24:34Z")

</div>

@Joel_Duff have any YEC scientists referenced Jeanson’s Adam and Eve work yet? Why not?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Toni\_Torppa](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/toni_torppa/32/9797_2.png) [@Toni\_Torppa](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Toni_Torppa)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 12:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/12 "2020-06-16T12:58:39Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> So, basically, your argument is:
> 
> > You wrote about topic A, but it should have been about topic B instead.

That was not my argument. My argument is that your comparison of Adam and Eve with mainstream science is not scientifically justified because you disregard the most explanatory non-naturalistic scientific model. This is how you look at the whole thing from only one limited perspective, and that is why the presentation of your book is very flawed and in fact compares the already fundamentally misinterpreted notion of Adam and Eve to naturalistic models.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joel\_Duff](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/joel_duff/32/159_2.png) [@Joel\_Duff](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Joel_Duff)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 1:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/13 "2020-06-16T13:05:48Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> @Joel_Duff have any YEC scientists referenced Jeanson’s Adam and Eve work yet? Why not?

Not that I know of but I don’t have a subscription to CSRQ anymore and so can’t see the most recent issues. But I do regular searches and the silence is pretty deafening. No reviews of his book from other creationist organizations. Also, there were several salient papers written for ICC 2018. Lightner (e-kinds project), Sanford (Adam and Eve paper) and Carter (Y chromosome paper). Each include a reference to a 2016 or 2017 paper by Jeanson but do not reference his book. Even the references they used where not to significant points from his papers. They surely knew about his book at the time and did not see it necessary to include it. ICR certainly doesn’t agree with much of his book or Jeanson’s other work. CMI has Rob Carer who has probably been the main person to review Jeanson’s book but then I don’t see Carter using Jeanon’s ideas in any of his writing though he hasn’t published much. So it’s not like the YEC community has been rallying around Jeanson’s work as the answer to Adam and Eve and the origins of biological diversity from a YEC perspective.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 3:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/14 "2020-06-16T15:34:23Z")

</div>

> [@David\_MacMillan](#):
>
> Jeanson is masterful in his delivery.

Yes, he is.

I watched most of it. Jeanson came across as sounding very persuasive. Yet he did not present any scientific evidence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Toni\_Torppa](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/toni_torppa/32/9797_2.png) [@Toni\_Torppa](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Toni_Torppa)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 3:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/15 "2020-06-16T15:34:37Z")

</div>

> [@Joel\_Duff](#):
>
> ICR certainly doesn’t agree with much of his book or Jeanson’s other work.

This is a pure lie. The document DNA Battles - were Adam & Eve historical -https: [//store.icr.org/dna-battles-were-adam-eve-historical.html](https://store.icr.org/dna-battles-were-adam-eve-historical.html) interviews ICR researchers, including Jeffrey Tomkins, who says Jeanson’s research is awesome . The documentary features Tomkins, Carter, Sarfati, but Jeanson is the lead performer and others support his views. Jeanson has also worked at ICR for years as a researcher and collaborating with Tomkins. They also co-authored an article: "Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve"by Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on April 1, 2018 [Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve | Answers in Genesis](https://answersingenesis.org/adam-and-eve/genetics-confirms-recent-supernatural-creation-adam-and-eve/)

So your claim just doesn’t match the evidence. When you have such a misconception even about how creationists see it, then why do you think you got the rest of your material on the subject right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 3:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/16 "2020-06-16T15:35:03Z")

</div>

For those of us who aren’t up on it, could someone outline Jeanson’s A&E scenario?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joel\_Duff](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/joel_duff/32/159_2.png) [@Joel\_Duff](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Joel_Duff)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 4:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/17 "2020-06-16T16:48:43Z")

</div>

Pure lie? Certainly you disagree with my representation which is fine. Of course they agree of many things but the primary models of how diversification happened? Certainly not. ICR has written consistently over the past year about how natural selection is not a real thing. Jeanson and Lisle have had huge differences with what some at ICR have been saying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Toni\_Torppa](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/toni_torppa/32/9797_2.png) [@Toni\_Torppa](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Toni_Torppa)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 6:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/18 "2020-06-16T18:08:59Z")

</div>

When the interviewer refers to Jeanson’s book in the documentary and asks if his evidence is of Good Quality, then ICR Zoologist Frank Sherwin replies that “Jeanson is brilliant … i do appreciate all the work that Dr. Jeanson is done”. In a documentary [DNA Battles: Were Adam & Eve Historical? - Institute for Creation Research](https://store.icr.org/dna-battles-were-adam-eve-historical.html) that is now on its way to you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 6:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/19 "2020-06-16T18:10:49Z")

</div>

That is not an endorsement of his model. In fact, those precise words can be the prelude to explaining why you disagree with Jeanson on hyperevolution.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joel\_Duff](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/joel_duff/32/159_2.png) [@Joel\_Duff](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Joel_Duff)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 8:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935/20 "2020-06-16T20:00:31Z")

</div>

Those are nice words but not, as Josh says, an endorsement of the correctness of the model. This is not much different than the three endorsements on the back of his book. None of them say they agree with his conclusions only that “the arguments made in this book are unique and fresh” or that is is “thought-provoking” and “presents challenges to the model of random chance origins.” Those are nice things to say but I could have written these endorsements of his book even while disagreeing with his analysis and conclusions. It could well be that they all think that Jeanson is onto something with his ideas but I would like to see other YECs use his model and show independently with their own data that it has merit. Its a hypothesis at this point and one that has been seriously challenged more by others than myself. And it comes from a non-conventional view point with respect to the consensus knowledge of the scientific community. No one will or should take it seriously until at least a majority of YEC biologists agree this is a serious challenge to consensus views of origins models. If YEC can’t agree among themselves I can’t see why other would take the time to be concerned that this represents a real challenge to the consensus viewpoint. Sure, the majority of mainstream science doesn’t know the YEC literature and wont take the time to know it. There are books written every year by people that believe they a new way of understanding the word. The scientific community shouldn’t be expected to rise up and take all those books seriously. I personally have been sent books by people I have never heard of who expect me to read their work and it will change my mind about everything and these aren’t Christian perspectives I’m talking about. The point being, there needs to be a reason why the community should take Jeanson seriously, he has to create a better answer to the same data. His model must demonstrate some utility, an explanatory framework that helps the community better understand something that before. Convincing you is a place to to start. The next step is to get a consensus in his own community that this is a valuable model.

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-dialogue-with-nathaniel-jeanson/10935.md?page=2)