No, no he does not. He presents ideas for consideration and makes up some mumbo-jumbo that sounds vaguely historical while gesturing in the direction of historical texts, yes, but the ideas themselves are in no way, shape, or form based on the contents of those texts in any meaningful way.
Nothing! What’s wrong with pointing out the clear and obvious flaws in his arguments? That’s called the “peer review” process and is how science gets done.
What is it with the sorts of people who use phrases like
and thinking that everyone is offended by everything?
I’m not offended by Hancock, he’s just saying things that are very, very incorrect; doing so unchallenged on a TV show designed to lend his bad ideas credence is abad, because it helps entranch those ideas. When he presents bad evidence without properly backing it up on his own show, where the opposing side cannot challenge his claims, is bad. It is bad because it leads people to incorrectly say things like:
It raises the total level of human ignorance, which is bad. I’m not offended by that, I’m just pointing out that it is not a good thing for more people to believe things that are false because of how they are presented on Netflix.