Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again

I would say science doesn’t ONLY work by falsifiability but if there is no conceivable empirical evidence that would be counter to your model then it’s difficult to see how that model may be tested as science.


It does seem that his model is inconsistent with the evidence, which would also seem to demonstrate that it is testable at least in this sense.

1 Like

It’s testable up to a point. When he says living things exist as discrete lineages that never shared a genetic ancestry or the earth is 6,000 years old those bare claims by themselves are testable and science has clearly soundly rejected both those ideas because they just do not jibe with the available evidence. But when his “model” eventually butts up against his belief that an inaccessible omnipotent supernatural agent created genetic diversity as part of some divine plan then that claim is not testable and not science. I’m fine with it however as an article of belief but it’s not science.


It goes to a deeper issue with creationism, I think.

One of the reasons I was so sold on creationism for so long was that it seemed capable of explaining everything. We always “had an answer” and that made me feel confident. It took me a long time (and a lot of exposure to real science) to understand that universal explanatory power is a bug, not a feature. A theory which can accommodate any evidence has no actual explanatory power.

If Jeanson’s proposed model is correct, then it should be useful. We could do things with it. For example, one prediction of his model might be that certain pathogens would have an inherent limit to how resistant they could become to treatment. If the speciation of Staphylococcus aureus into MRSA is just God’s “created heterozygosity” breaking down into smaller and smaller phenotypes, then eventually the S. aureus genotype would run out of available variation and lose its ability to resist new drugs and treatments. That’s just the first thing that comes to mind off the top of my head.

Perhaps not all predictions would be this dramatic, but surely he should be able to come up with something. He doesn’t, because he will not acknowledge anything that might actually falsify his viewpoint, due to his a priori commitment to YEC.

His model can be broadly disproven by comparison with evidence, yes. But none of the predictions he claims are proof of his model’s robustness are actually falsifiable.


Jeanson’s “model” is absolutely at odds with the evidence. Let’s remember what he does in his book. He at the outset says he’s not going to deal with paleontology, with geology, with any of the geophysical/geochemical evidence for an old earth but only focus on genetics (he gives a little lip service to biogeography but mostly ignores that as well). An old earth is not an idea that exists as any single isolated appeal to any single line of evidence but is a convergence of evidence from independent sources. Jeanson does one of the classic science denialist slight of hand tricks on asking you to pay attention to one hand while ignoring everything he throws away with the other. His claims are no more consistent with the available scientific evidence than the claims of anti-vaxxers or flat earthers and it’s time we start lumping him in with the likes of these other science denialists.


The old straw man suggests that if God is the source of created heterozygosity, then the model would not be scientifically testable.

It is not necessary to get God into the test tube, it is a question of how well the model of created heterozygosity explains the evidence. Jeanson has made many scientifically testable predictions and he put them in his book. When do you scientifically show that these predictions do not match the evidence?

No, he has not.

Can you provide any example of a prediction he made, which predicts evidence NOT expected under the mainstream model, which could be confirmed or falsified by actual experiment?


He makes predictions of the mutation rates that are different than the mainstream account. That is a key part of his proposal.


I have already pointed out

I would say he takes perfectly legitimate de novo mutation rates derived from pedigrees and then proceeds to misuse those metrics by using them as a stand in for the neutral substitution rates that the approaches he adopts rely on. It’s one of many acts of slight of hand that Jeanson’s uninitiated audience won’t recognize.


Except that there is no reason to suppose that an omnipotent agent could not have created biological diversity in such away that it would appear to be the result of common ancestry and evolution. That’s the problem with presenting appeals to beliefs in the actions of omnipotent divine agents. I could say that God created the universe 5 minutes ago with the appearance of having age and there would be no way to empirically distinguish that idea from any other. Jeanson is doing the equivalent by saying that a divine agent pre-loaded life with diversity that science would say suggests a history. There just is no place in science for appeals to divine omnipotent agency. That’s not to say there is no God however, just that appeals to God(s) are not useful as scientific hypotheses.


I am treading on @evograd’s territory here, but his mutation-rate claims are filtered through a mathematically faulty lens to convert mainstream data into something that looks like it fits YEC.

But that is a good point. If he wanted to show that his model was robust and useful, he could make predictions of mutagenic drift, base pair difference counts, and so forth in yet-unstudied species. These predictions would need to be different than the predictions of the mainstream model. They would need to be definite. They might take the form “My model predicst that once the genomes of (insert two species here) sequenced, we will find it has mtDNA BP differences on the order of 800, as opposed to the ~50 BP differences predicted by (insert actual mainstream research here).”

1 Like

I haven’t read Jeanson’s work. With that said, my first reaction wouldn’t be focused necessarily on how the evidence falsifies his claims but more on the swaths of observations in the field of genetics that his model would need to explain. I really don’t see how it could be done without resorting to a level of ad hockery that would make everyones’ heads spin. For example, how would his model explain the patterns of sequence conservation between kinds? Why do we see more differences in introns than in exons when we compare genes between kinds? Why do separately created kinds fall into a nested hierarchy? How do you explain genetic equidistance in phylogenies? How do you explain the patterns of transversion, transitions, and CpG substitutions in comparisons of species from different kinds?

All of this evidence is easily explained from first principles within the evolutionary model, but I just don’t see how YEC can explain it without resorting to “Well, God just decided to do it that way for . . . reasons”. The ability to falsify YEC is just the tip of the iceberg.


I’m not publishing my objections to his mutation rate calculations yet, but it is just categorically false to say he doesn’t make predictions different than mainstream science. He certainly does.

1 Like

We may be crossing purposes on the word “prediction”. I’m using it in the very limited sense of predicting a future discovery. It seems you are using it to refer to calculations of underlying past mutation rate.

Creationists who are adopting this hyper, post-ark speciation have really latched onto the Lamichhaney paper on hybrid speciation in Geospiza finches. But there is actually no small amount of disagreement on their conclusions. If Jeanson were actually familiar with the history of the literature on species limits in Geospiza finches he would know that not everyone agrees this is even a hybrid at all let alone a new species (see McKay and Zink 2014 Biological Reviews 90(3):689-698; Zink and Miranda 2019 Systematic Biology 68(2): 347–357; Zink 2002 Auk 119(3):864-871). This is the problem with Jeanson. He only reveals as much as he’s learned if he can spin it to suit his agenda.

Also, no one is saying that speciation can not occur rapidly and that any single case of rapid speciation is against evolution. There are excellent and unlike the Darwin’s finch case, undisputed examples of rapid speciation (across a single generation) particularly among plants. Jeanson’s claim is that ALL speciation is rapid (< 4,000 years). Clearly this is not the case.

1 Like

That first link is the worst excuse for maths I have ever seen from a creationist short of Hovind. Utterly preposterous.

1 Like

You completely ignored my point and question. That’s how it went in the debate between you and Jeanson as well.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you give the impression that once speciation occurs slowly, it proves evolution and when it happens quickly, then it will also prove evolution? The explanatory power of a theory is pure zero if it simultaneously explains the opposite events.

Let’s think for a moment however about what Jeanson is claiming. He is saying that there may be NO speciation events between sister taxa beyond a few thousand years. He’s saying that ALL speciation is rapid. We know this is false.

1 Like