Nathaniel Jeanson has posted a AiG YouTube, Evolutionists Do NOT Want You to Know This, where he purports to answer the critics of his book purporting to account for the genetic history of mankind going back to Noah. Daniel Cardinal has in turn responded with Responding to Critics: Jeanson Answers the Critics of Traced…Sort Of on his Creation Myths channel.
Jeanson’s video is a pure double down that adds nothing in terms of evidence to his previous presentation. He starts with the criticism that he conflates genealogy with phylogeny, where he responds with two tactics YEC use to deflect. One, he states that the objection has already been addressed. This is common. Any ridiculously inept article, once posted, is subsequently referenced as some final answer, and without actually dealing with the original shortcomings, is held to anticipate and preempt all further discussion on that topic. Two, he mischaracterizes the basis of Cardinal’s argument with a silly discussion of a textbook illustration. This is a rhetorical calculation that fits with AiG’s actual objective.
When you have no grounds for your model, what you do is choose other, more advantageous ground for your fight, and this pervades all of AiG’s output. The discussion of the textbook is to frame the debate as opposing faith positions. Here is Jeanson at 26:30 of his AiG video:
This is the bombshell. What is his justification? It’s a textbook reference. He saying it’s wrong, what I’m doing is wrong, because it disagrees with the textbook. Apparently, evolutionists have a holy book that you can’t question. Apparently mainstream science has sacred ideas, perhaps not engraved on stone, but in ink, on paper, that define the rightness or wrongness, of a scientific idea. You would think the textbook itself, if it was scientific, would be open to testing, falsifiability, and everything else that defines science, but not according the Dr. Dan. Which again, these are the leading people responding to what I’m saying, and the big problem, his words, is that I’m conflating geneology and pylogeny, and the textbook says otherwise. Amazing, evolutionsts, by their own behavior, have a religion, and you can’t question that religion. You can’t do science in disagreement with that religion.
So here Jeanson entirely avoids dealing with his incompetent premise, and shifts the conversation to one that will resonate with his actual audience, that being the equivalence of YEC with mainstream science as dueling worldviews based on faith in holy books, where interpretation dominates over evidence, and proof texts count as evidence. And therein lies the mission.