Thanks for the video links, Liulian! I didn’t notice before, but Jeanson actually quoted Michael Denton in one of his slides.

Yes, we can say that. The question is human-chimp distance vs. human-yeast distance, not human-yeast distance vs. chimp-yeast distance. Lying SOB.

These links may be useful to you.

Here’s the excerpt from Jeanson’s talk

on cytochrome c.

Also, part of his talk about calcium regulation and irreducible complexity.

Here’s the excerpt from Jeanson’s talk on cytochrome c:

Also, part of his talk about calcium regulation and irreducible complexity:

Aaron,

I’m not sure he plans on having one. I think he might have done this as a favor to the pastor. This might have been his church, as they meet down the block from Harvard Med School, where he worked. Also, I suspect he didn’t think that many scientists would show up.

If he does intend to lecture publicly, he’ll probably choose friendlier venues. He’s just moved to Dallas; he’ll have no problems finding like minds there!

The best that could be said is that God told Moses to write it this way, which at best makes it hearsay evidence and not admissible in a court of law

Scientific evidence is not the same as legal evidence (my beef about Johnson’s book “Darwin on Trial”).
However, Moses could have got it all wrong. Because of “Free Will”, God could not dictate scripture to Moses or use automatic writing, but could only “inspire” him. And there are no corrective footnotes in the Bible when someone got it scrambled.
(Umm, not that Moses actually did write the books attributed to him.)

When I explained to him that the correct way to look at it was by comparing common ancestors and not by comparing extant organisms, he was unwilling to go there. He said he didn’t want to look at it that way, to which I replied that the only reason he didn’t look at it that way was because he didn’t want to look at it that way because he was unable to accept the conclusion that the correct way of data analysis showed. I said he only wanted to dispute a straw man idea of evolution, not real evolution. That when entire genomes are looked at, each and every sequence of each and every sequenced organism fits into the phylogenetic tree that evolution predicts. I then said that hundreds of whole genomes had been sequenced with tens of thousands of genes with each and every one of them fitting exactly where evolution predicts them to fit.

I did get the pastor of the church to admit that the Bible was not an “eye-witness” account. Adam did not write his autobiography. The pastor even said that Moses probably wrote the first several books of the OT, and that Moses wasn’t around during creation or during the other events that pre-dated his life, so he couldn’t be an eye-witness to them. The best that could be said is that God told Moses to write it this way, which at best makes it hearsay evidence and not admissible in a court of law.

True, but as always, creationists are slippery, often being careful to keep plausible deniability on their sides. Since only Harvard can answer to his actual course list, and there’s further contention even on which department he was in, I’m hesitant to call that part definitive. However, the reports above of him repeating refuted claims between sessions is obviously more damning.

Regardless, great review. Thanks for sharing it with everyone.

@Discombobulated: It wouldn’t really surprise me if a course like that is where Jeanson got the n-dimension idea in the first place. If there’s anything a Harvard education can contribute to a creationist lecture, it’s a bigger vocabulary and more complex diagrams (all used, naturally, to confuse rather than enlighten).