Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

Hypothesis: Ben Carson Believes in Giants

9/14/2015

7 Comments

 
PictureBen Carson: thinking big . . . but how big? (Image source: http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/1393785/)
Dr. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate, believes in giants.

That's my hypothesis, anyway, and I think it's a pretty strong one.  I'll explain how I developed it in a moment.  First, I'd like to explain (to Carson and anyone else who might not get it) what science is and how it works.  It became apparent to me while watching Carson speak that he either really doesn't get it or he really does but just doesn't want you to get it.  It's hard to imagine as president a neurosurgeon that doesn't understand what science is, but we twice elected a Yale graduate who couldn't pronounce "nuclear" correctly, so anything's possible. If you already know how science works (and why archaeology and paleoanthropology are sciences), skip down a few paragraphs.

Science is the systematic study of the natural world.  That's a broad definition.  It has to be, because exactly how you do science depends on what you're studying.  You can't really study distant stars, for example, in exactly the same way you study cancer cells.  You can't study radioactive isotopes in the same way you study human geopolitics.

But different things can all be systematically studied in ways that harness the power of scientific inquiry to build on itself.  Astronomers, biologists, chemists, and political scientists can all do the same thing at a general level: use evidence to evaluate competing ideas about the world and make a determination of which of those ideas is more plausible, more credible, and more likely to be true.  In a classic scientific framework, this is done by formulating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified.  The winnowing out of incorrect ideas is what allows science to be cumulative.

Archaeology, paleoanthropology, geology, and paleontology are sciences that deal with trying to understand what happened in the past.  These are challenging fields of study because of our inability to directly observe the phenomena we're ultimately interested in.  As George W. Bush famously said: "I think we can all agree the past is over." You can't turn back the clock, alter a variable, and re-run the system to see what the outcome is. That's very different than what happens routinely in sciences like physics and chemistry where you can use controlled experiments to evaluate your understanding of cause and effect, your explanation of a phenomenon, or your ideas about the nature of the relationships among variables.

The fundamental inability to observe what we're studying makes archaeology, by necessity, a theoretical science.  No, "theoretical" is not a bad word.  No, it doesn't mean that archaeology is "just a guess" or that archaeologists have no way of knowing if they're right or wrong.  It means that archaeologists develop theory (ideas about why things are the way they are) and models (descriptions of how variables fit together). From that theoretical framework, we derive expectations that we can compare to archaeological data (which generally consists of material remains of human cultural behavior).  If our archaeological data contradict our theoretically-derived expectations, then something about our theoretical framework is wrong (assuming the data are correct).  Then it's back to the drawing board to adjust the theoretical framework to account for the data. Then we can derive new expectations and attempt to test them. Once we're in that inductive-deductive loop of falsification, we're doing science.  Outside of that loop, we're not. Ideas that are impossible to falsify just aren't that useful.  A crazy, unfalsifiable idea could actually be true, of course, but we can't ever know because there's no way to test it.  We have to have some way to know if we're right or wrong about something.

On it's good days, paleoanthropology -- the study of the human past through fossils -- is also a theoretical science. Paleoanthropology is tightly entwined with the theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides it with a theoretical description of the processes and mechanisms of evolutionary change.  Fossils and other sources of data (including archaeological data and, increasingly, genetic data derived from fossils) provide the direct evidence that can be compared to our ideas about the past.  Paleoanthropology is just as much a science as astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics. 

Which brings us to Ben Carson, finally, and my hypothesis that he believes in giants.

This morning I watched Carson discuss his views on creation and evolution in this 2011 presentation.  It's no secret that Carson is a creationist.  His trademark soft-spoken, humorous approach to connecting with audiences is on full display as he spends 45 minutes glibly reciting Creationism 101's greatest hits to the friendly crowd, weaving in anecdotes designed to convey how great of a surgeon he is and how dumb all the "evolutionists" are. Most of his points regurgitate the same silly nonsense we've heard before: "life is too complicated to have been an accident;" "where are the transitional fossils?;" "how did the eye evolve?;" "a global Flood explains the Earth's geology;" etc. It's painfully apparent that he either misunderstands or is willing to misrepresent evolution, evolutionary theory, and fossil evidence (in fact he actually says that Darwinian evolution comes from the Devil).  Twice he poses the profound question (and I'm paraphrasing here): "If evolution is so efficient, how come we don't just split apart like amoebas to reproduce?" 

Dr. Carson, you have clearly demonstrated that someone in the creation-evolution debate is dumb, but I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree about who exactly that is.

Except for his explicit statement (around 19:40) that he doesn't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, much of what Carson said reminded me a lot of the talking points I had recently heard in an interview of Young Earth Creationist and convicted criminal Ken Hovind. Particularly striking was that Carson, like Hovind, used the word "degenerated" when talking about the human present as compared to the human past (starting about 28:35):

"Do you know, your brain -- and this is a conservative estimate -- could take in one new fact every second for over three million years before you'd begin to challenge its capacity?  . . . And that's our brains in their degenerated state.  Can you imagine what they were like before?"

As I discussed in my post about Hovind, the "degeneration doctrine" is the idea that the clock has been running down since creation, resulting in humans and animals that are smaller, simpler, and farther from how they were created (i.e., as perfect).  Compare Carson's statement to Hovind's:

"But he was probably off the charts IQ compared to us today. So Man started off smart, and we're getting smaller, dumber, and weaker as time goes by, I believe."

The degeneracy doctrine is an extra-biblical idea (where does it say in the Bible that Adam was really tall?  Or really smart? Or had better DNA?) that is connected to creationist belief in giants.  Based on a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what the theory of evolution actually is, creationists like Hovind suppose that demonstrating the existence of giants would simultaneously prove biblical creation to be true and the theory of evolution to be false.  That's why they're so interested in finding giant human bones: they really want to show them to the world as evidence. But so far they have been able to produce none (the lack of actual bones led
Joe Taylor to produce and sell a sculpture of a 47" femur). The complete lack of positive evidence is a real bummer for giant enthusiasts of all stripes.

I think Carson believes in giants because he subscribes to the degeneracy doctrine.  His use of the term "degenerated" is, I think, evidence that the idea of "devolution" is submerged somewhere in this thinking. If so, it is logical to presume that he believes human used to be taller in the early years following creation.  I would also guess that Carson's biblical literalism would lead him to interpret Genesis 6:4 ("There were giants in the earth in those days") as consistent with that.

This hypothesis is easy enough to falsify: someone just needs to ask Ben Carson if he believes in giants.  The answer will be interesting either way, won't it? 

According to recent polls, Carson and Donald Trump are leading the pack to be the current nominee. A recent tiff over who has faith and who doesn't comes as the pair begins to court Evangelical voters in Iowa, where the first primary will be held.  I think the "do you believe in giants?" question would be an excellent one to ask at the debate in California this Wednesday.  Do we want a president who believes in giants?  Or, alternatively, can we afford to have one that doesn't?   

I'm an archaeologist. I am trained to observe patterns, create a model that explains those patterns, and attempt to test that model by developing expectations that can be compared to empirical data.

Ben Carson believes in giants. That's my hypothesis. I have surmised the existence of a degeneracy doctrine that is a component of Young Earth Creationism and I have associated that doctrine with a belief in giants and a misunderstanding of evolution (and science in general).

What do you say Dr. Carson?  Do you believe in giants?



Update (9/25/2015):  A brief discussion of some writings of Ellen G. White, founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, relevant to understanding the "degeneracy doctrine" and the idea (espoused by Carson) that humans were bigger, better, stronger, and smarter in the past.
7 Comments
dr hl
9/14/2015 05:57:56 pm

I'm not sure that it matters if he believes in giants. I suspect that everyone has a belief or two that is false. I have heard many an archaeologist mispronounce Spiro, Oklahoma. You are treading into an area here and not realizing the implications.

Reply
Andy White
9/15/2015 06:14:58 am

I'm not sure what that last sentence is supposed to mean, but I think it is a legitimate question to ask how the would-be chief executive of the country regards science, scientific evidence, and scientific research. Carson says that Darwinian evolution is from the Devil and that people who work on evolutionary problems are dummies, so what's the harm in asking if he believes in giants? They're mentioned in the Bible, after all, and the lack of positive evidence for them hasn't stopped many others from insisting they were/are real. Should the NSF fund research on giants? What are Carson's criteria for deciding what is "research" and what is not? Where do those criteria come from? Those seem like fair questions to me - the man is running for public office, after all.

Reply
busterggi (Bob Jase)
9/15/2015 05:47:34 am

Because his bible tells him to. Wonder where he found the map of the brain in the bible.

Reply
Jules M.
11/23/2015 06:17:42 pm

Carson's comments on vaccines are about politics. He was on the board of Vaccinogen. He was distinctly pro-vaccine until he wanted to run for office. The Democrats are taking the position that vaccines are un-questionably safe and effective, which is not, in fact, supported by a single longitudinal study or even basic common sense. All vaccines have side effects which are being under-reported and suppressed.

His bizarre comments arise out of the need for Republican candidates to espouse vaccine choice to get on the ballot for 2016. Libertarians and Republicans are taking a stand against mandatory vaccines. So it's not about whether or not he's anti-science. The man is a scientist. It's about the fact that he's challenging the accepting mainstream rhetoric about vaccines, which itself amounts to faith based science. For example. No studies have ever been conducted to establish the safety or effectiveness of the DTaP or the Flu Shot on pregnant women, yet the CDC is recommending BOTH for expecting mothers, even scaring them into getting the shots.

Please keep in mind when looking at vaccine "research" and "science" outside your own field of study, that respected former editors of both the New England Journal of Medicine and (I believe) the British Medical Journal (it may have been JAMA) have estimated that about half of all "scientific" research at this point is junk science sponsored by commercial interests. Namely, in this case, pharma.

Reply
Andy White
11/24/2015 01:53:08 am

Hi Jules.

Thanks for the comment. I don't think I even touched on the vaccine issue in this post (it was written well before that became a prominent issue after one of the debates). This one was about Carson's ideas about the human past, which are drawn from Young Earth Creationism (YEC). YEC (and "creation science") certainly qualifies as "pseudo-science," and claims about the past certainly fall within my area of expertise. He has no business calling people who study evolution "dumb" or "evil," as his position is dictated by religious belief rather than science. It is surely possible to be a good practicing surgeon and to have a set of beliefs about the past that is completely misguided. That means that being a doctor doesn't automatically qualify you as a great scientist, or someone that we can trust with our national scientific infrastructure. Carson demonstrates that fairly clearly, I think.

Reply
Johnny
2/14/2016 05:25:20 pm

Ben believes in creationism, I don't really see big issue with that. Many of our presidents have claimed to be Christians without being bashed. Creation or evolution both have to be taken on faith depending on what you believe. Science has yet to provide one single fossil record of a change of kind, such as a Monkee to human or dog to a bear, not one single piece of evidence of millions of fossils. A bird growing a longer beak isn't a change of kind, still a bird. So Imnot sure why your faith in evolution is any better than creationism. Some of the worlds top physist are now supporting some kind of creator now, just a little researchand you can find it for yourself. I apologize for typos and grammar hard to write on a phone. Johnny

Reply
Andy White
2/16/2016 07:50:41 am

Thanks for the comment. I'm not even sure where to begin addressing it. I guess I'll just say that's it false to assert that the fossil record does not support evolution. The theory of evolution is a scientific framework that explains the history of life on earth - many independent lines of evidence converge incredibly strongly on the idea that the earth is much much older than 6000 years. Carson's brand of Young Earth Creationism ignores all those lines of evidence and asserts that anyone who accepts them and the conclusions of science and scientists is stupid and/or in league with the devil. That's a bizarre (and notable) position for someone running for President, in my opinion.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly