Any scientific theory needs consilience of evidence to make it a valid one, multiple lines converging to support a conclusion. Aside from the blatant non-sequitur-ish creationist tactic of "your theory is wrong, which automatically makes mine right," Jeffrey's method violates this principle- his whole method seems to be a linear process of building his conclusion from a series of assertions that have no evidence to support them, only the necessity for each to be true for the next to be true, and for the conclusion at the end to be right. I picture consilience as a spider's web, where each strand not only supports the theory at the center, but also cross-braces and supports other strands. Jeffrey has a chain which is only as strong as any one of its links.
And then, of course, there's the whole "I don't need no math!" and "scientists are brainwashed!" attitude; these, too, are assertions from necessity. You might say they're the most important links in his chain.
.
!
?
