No, Nathaniel Jeanson was NOT Lying About Recent History

They're Lying About History, Too
Creation Myths | 26 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUuVpkr3O4Y

3:20 Yes, "religion taught as science of history cannot be part of the curriculum" = the claim that true science and true history cannot coincide with a claim of religion.

That's the official motivation, it's as much of an anti-Christian claim as "man developed slowly from a kind of now extinct apes" is.

What Jeanson did was go behind the official motivation, which is an anti-Christian claim rather than a neutral juridic stance, and ask about the real motivations.

You can qualify that as conspiracy theorising, but when the officially stated motivation is a blatant anti-Christian claim, you can certainloy be excused for that.

shassett79

@shassett79

I don't think anyone has any problem discussing the history of various religions in school. The problem starts when the instruction involves only one religion and happens in science classes.

Mohammed didn't split the moon, Krishna didn't lift a hill, and Jesus didn't create the universe. These are stories humans tell. And while they might have historical and anthropological significance, none of them should be taught in schools as fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@shassett79 "The problem starts when the instruction involves only one religion"

Creationism is not just one religion, because loads of Christian religions agree with it and some non-Christian ones too.

Evolutionism is one religion, and a pretty new one.

"and happens in science classes."

So history is OK?

Would US schools be OK saying "by 1500, the Catholic Church was corrupt"? That's a religious claim, for Protestantism, but false history. The actual extent of corruption was more like Rome and surroundings (not even all of Italy, there was a preference for Trent in Italian parts of Tyrolia over Rome, when the Church called a council).

But seriously, your view means an establishment clause inverted for the science class. No part of the US Constitution says all young people shall even be exposed to Science class and you treat it as sacrosanct and holy and Creationism as a sacrilege.

The current state means Science class is mandatory and the religion of Evolutionism is a mandatory part of it.

Can you seriously say you were exposed to a curriculum very different from that?

3:24 The Establishment clause 1) was way before there were any schools, and 2) speaks of the Federal Congress, not of individual states.

So, that idea about why the "religion taught as science of history cannot be part of the curriculum" would apply for legal reasons is also bogus

shassett79

No, the establishment clause applies to states via the fourteenth amendment. This is settled law and you're simply wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 "via the fourteenth amendment"

I looked it up.

First, it's from 1868. This is before many of the states had compulsory education. The states took this measure between 1852 (Massachusetts) and 1918 (Mississippi). So, it's not obvious the establishment clause would have any direct bearing on curricula.

Second, as to content of the 14th:

The amendment's first section includes the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. ... The second section superseded the Three-fifths Compromise, apportioning the House of Representatives and Electoral College using each state's adult male population. In allowing states to abridge voting rights "for participation in rebellion, or other crime," this section approved felony disenfranchisement. The third section disqualifies federal and state candidates who "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion," but in Trump v. Anderson (2024), the Supreme Court left its application to Congress for federal elections and state governments for state elections. The fourth section affirms public debt authorized by Congress while declining to compensate slaveholders for emancipation. The fifth section provides congressional power of enforcement, but Congress' authority to regulate private conduct has shifted to the Commerce Clause, while the anti-commandeering doctrine restrains federal interference in state law.

Not obvious that the 14th amendment extends establishment clause from congress to states.

3:49 White and O'Connor were both Episcopalians, i e theologically non-conservative Anglicans, which by the 1970's were already deeply compromised with Evolution acceptance.

That they could be motivated to do a hatchet job on what they would deem Evangelical (or Catholic) "fanaticism" is not beyond possible.

5:02 I can refute Flat Earth by conferring voyages that are historically or currently verified.

Can one reach US from West Eurasia over the Atlantic? I did.

Can one reach US from East Eurasia over the Pacific? Apparently a John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco did.

You cannot make a similar verification of Homo Erectus Soloensis developing from a kind of Australopithecus.

And genetic drift, mutations, selection aren't denied by Creationism.

Mark Nieuweboer

@marknieuweboer8099

You cannot make a similar verification for "and God said" either. At the other hand researchers from the University of Montana and the Georgia Institute of Technology have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism. This is operational, repeatable science. Macro-evolution from one kind into another is an observable, scientifically verifiable fact. Search De Novo Origins Ratcliff.

shassett79

By your standards, you can't verify that any particular thing happened in the past, or even that the whole universe didn't pop into existence as-is and in-progress fifteen minutes ago. Good luck with that outlook! 😅

Seán Pól

@seanpol9863

Flat Earth is easy to disprove with real-world travel, but human evolution isn't that kind of evidence. We can't watch species change in a few centuries, but we can study fossils and DNA. Homo erectus and Australopithecus are linked by many fossils showing gradual changes in skulls and tools. Genetic studies also show humans share common genes with earlier species, proving shared ancestry. Creationism accepts small changes, but it denies the large-scale evolution the evidence clearly shows.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@marknieuweboer8099 "You cannot make a similar verification for "and God said" either."

I can for Moses seeing it happen in a vision and Moses speaking for God. The Exodus event and Moses writing Genesis is history like John Maximovich is history.

"have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism."

Define multicellular in this context?

"Macro-evolution from one kind into another is an observable, scientifically verifiable fact."

Are you confusing "kind" with "species"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 "you can't verify that any particular thing happened in the past"

Yes, I can: by human testimony. That's the only way in which I know the Pacific has been crossed between the US and China.

So, human testimony is part of my standards.

"fifteen minutes ago"

As human testimony is part of my standards, so is human memory, including mine.

I recall, very many more days ago than fifteen minutes ago today, a certain channel you are commenting under (as am I) comparing Creationism to Last-Thursdayism. Dan refused to confirm he had made this much of a comparison, the one you just did, on the video.

So, no, the world didn't pop up 15 minutes ago, didn't pop up 1968 when I was born, didn't pop up 1900 when grandpa was born, didn't pop up 2000 years ago when Jesus lived, and didn't pop up 1510 years before that, because that's when the Exodus happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seanpol9863 "Flat Earth is easy to disprove with real-world travel,"

Parts of which are known to most people only through human testimony. I've never seen the Pacific any further West than the water in Newport beach, reaching to the waist of a nine year old boy that I was, and waves toppling me over, which I found fun.

So, Perú to Polynesia or LA to Australia or US or Australia to China, I only know them by human testimony.

The real world is in a very high degree known by human testimony.

"we can study fossils and DNA."

Indeed, which proves that Neanderthals and Denisovans are human.

"Homo erectus and Australopithecus are linked by many fossils showing gradual changes in skulls"

Which skull shows a gradual development of Broca's area?

"and tools."

In fact, the best reason to think a certain tool comes from an Australopithecus rather than a man is, the dating of the layer is the same (in either case not carbon dating, but it may for instance be sandwich dating). There are models I find credible (I've sketched out one myself) on how this fits with Noah's Flood and the tools obviously not being by the Australopithecus that was found there.

"Genetic studies also show humans share common genes with earlier species, proving shared ancestry."

Shared genes do not prove shared ancestry rather than a shared creator.

shassett79

@hglundahl No, human testimony doesn't help you here, because that testimony could be mistaken or false. And memory isn't relevant because memory is deeply flawed and, at best, you could only know things you directly experienced to form a memory.

The exodus and the life of Jesus are religious dogma, subject to all the issues of human cognition as well as the obvious corrupting effects of religion.

But genetics, geology, fossils, etc. seem to be pretty darned concrete! Approaching the natural world with empiricism, any two people can independently derive the conclusions of evolutionary biology.

If you removed every biology text from existence and launched all of the subject matter experts into the sun, some day, someone would reach the exact same conclusions about our evolutionary lineage. But if you removed every copy of scripture from existence and launched everyone who knows the dogma into the sun, nobody would ever hear of Jesus or the exodus again.

Does that tell you anything?

Seán Pól

@hglundahl "Shared genes do not prove shared ancestry rather than a shared creator."

Now the burden of proof is on you to prove God's existence outside of scripture and personal anecdotes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and God falls into that category.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 "No, human testimony doesn't help you here, because that testimony could be mistaken or false. And memory isn't relevant because memory is deeply flawed and, at best, you could only know things you directly experienced to form a memory."

Thank you for showing that YOU are the radical sceptic. I am not.

By the way, you just threw science out of the door, because on that view, you can't know that the experiment with the Magdeburg hemispheres was performed.

"The exodus and the life of Jesus are religious dogma,"

Which doesn't exclude them from being testimony and memory.

"as well as the obvious corrupting effects of religion."

The one obvious thing is your bias.

"But genetics, geology, fossils, etc. seem to be pretty darned concrete!"

If you dug up a fossil yesterday, you still know that today only through your memory. If someone else dug it up, you are trusting human testimony.

"Approaching the natural world with empiricism,"

To which memory and testimony belong.

"any two people can independently derive the conclusions of evolutionary biology."

Except the premisses of evoutionary biology ("common genes prove common ancestry" or "evolution has gone on for millions of years") are not empirical at all.

"someone would reach the exact same conclusions about our evolutionary lineage."

No.

"if you removed every copy of scripture from existence and launched everyone who knows the dogma into the sun, nobody would ever hear of Jesus or the exodus again."

People have tried, and according to prophecy will try again. Somewhat cruder means than throwing people into the Sun, though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seanpol9863 "Now the burden of proof is on you to prove God's existence outside of scripture and personal anecdotes."

The common creator of men and bananas?

That proves God's existence precisely as well as "the common ancestor of men and bananas" proves amoebas developed into plants or animals.

Or how about ... we see, empirically, that the universe goes around us, Sun, Moon, other planets, fix stars, each day.

Atheists are today so unable to explain that they resort to Heliocentrism!

In all seriousness, when two explanations are contrasted, the one doesn't suddenly get a walkover because the other is excluded by a burden of proof.

Unless the so one excluded is very much less obvious. Which Heliocentrism actually is.