As usual, I've got more things to write about than time to write about them. This week's energy got mostly sucked up by a book review for American Antiquity. Those kind of reviews (a limit of 750 words about a 360-page book) are not my favorite things to write. It was due today, and it has been submitted. So that's that. Now for some giants.

My recent explorations into the origins and development of ideas about giants and creationism suggest that modern Young Earth Creationism (YEC) has its roots in the Seventh-Day Adventist church (SDA) and the prophetic writings of Ellen G. White. The SDA was officially founded in 1863. The Millerite movement from which it developed dates back to the early 1840s. The Millerites do not appear to have been concerned with giants (they appear to have been more worried about the coming apocalypse than they were with details of creation). So there's something interesting to be understood about how/why the ideas of giants that were still around in the late 1800s became part of the doctrine of several indigenous American religious sects.

Ellen G. White's late 19th century writings about the Antediluvian Earth came after science had mostly discarded (through falsification) notions of a very young earth that had been affected by a catastrophic global flood just a few thousand years in the past.  The 1800s saw a dramatic shift in scientific thought as the results of empirical work replaced the Bible as sources of information about the past. Supporters of giants dwindled as our knowledge about the past (and about geology, paleontology, anatomy, etc.) increased in breadth, accuracy, and detail. 

I've come across a few "mistakes were made" accounts from the early 1800s that I wanted to share, mostly as a way to put them where I can find them again (and so I can close browser tabs on my phone).

The first example is a famous one: a skeleton of a pre-Flood human found in Tertiary slate. The correct identification of the bones as those of a large salamander, published in The Lancet in 1834 (page 625-626) by Robert E. Grant (M.D.) is scolding in its tone:

"I would impress you with the necessity of minutely examining those organizations which appear most different from each other, and of fixing clearly in the mind some one or more of the typical forms of the skeletons in each subordinate group. . . . In that case, if you had a previous exact knowledge of the typical forms which are common to whole groups of animals, particularly of the essential elementary parts of their skeleton, how readily you would be able to form an accurate judgment, even upon comparatively slender data, where another, with even more means of forming a judgment, but without the same previous scientific knowledge, would be guided by analogies the most superficial and absurd. The skeleton of the salamander . . . was mistaken for that of an antediluvian giant. It presents something like a human vertebral column; something like an expanded human occipital bone; but what knowledge of the principles osteology could compare this head, with large lateral openings, these expanded jaws and teeth, these scapular bones, these short, pointed ribs continued from the ends of the transverse processes of the vertebrae in this skeleton of a gigantic extinct aquatic salamander, or any one of its bones taken separately, with the corresponding parts of a human skeleton—the skeleton of a land animal organised to support the trunk in an erect position. Yet this is the supposed human skeleton, the famous homo diluvii testis of Scheuchzer . . . so long believed to be a remnant of our race, buried by the universal deluge." 

In a later lecture (also published in The Lancet in 1834 - I found it here and here) Grant discusses how fragments of tortoise shells have been mistaken for giant human skulls:

"From the flatness and arched form of these bones, and from the sutures which bind them anteriorly and posteriorly, they have been mistaken for parts of the human skull. And from the great magnitude of these bones, it was natural to imagine that such a skull must have belonged to a human being of enormous size—an antediluvian giant."

Anyone who has ever looked closely at animal bones knows how easy it is to mistake turtle shell for human cranial bone (unless you know what to look for).

Finally, a quote from from an 1826 article by the Reverend John Fleming (The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal XIV(28)):

"As science advanced, these theories of the deluge appeared in their true light; as unsupported by the statements in Scripture and as inconsistent with the phenomena of nature. The skeleton of the antediluvian man became that of an acknowledged reptile; while the grinders and thigh-bones of the giants were admitted to belong to elephants."

Those of you who would like to invoke a Smithsonian-Darwinian conspiracy to explain how evidence of giants "disappears" should note the early dates of these corrections (the Smithsonian wasn't founded until 1846 and On the Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859). As Reverend Fleming discusses, the melting away of a purely biblical understanding of the past -- which included recognizing fossil bones for what they were -- was a result of the cumulative, self-correcting power of science to replace bad interpretations with better ones.  It was not then a conspiracy to hide the truth, and it is not now.

The theory of evolution was a direct threat to the creationism inspired by Ellen G. White and espoused by George McCready Price, however, and continues to be seen as threat to fundamentalist creationism today.  In light of all that we know about the earth's past today, the evidence for giants is weaker than ever. Recyled claims of giants by "professionals" from the early 1800s is not impressive evidence, given their track record of making some pretty obvious mistakes (remember the 1845 giant from Tennessee?). If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Robert Grant. I do.

Last January, I wrote this post about the story behind the sculpture of the 47" femur that is on display at the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum.  The image of Joe Taylor posing next to his giant femur sculpture is a popular one on the internet, as is the one shown here of some guy standing in a hole holding the femur sculpture as if he just dug it up in his backyard (he didn't dig it up: he bought it from the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum gift shop for $450).

The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum website has changed since last January. Some of the links in my original post no longer work, and they've added a new section to address questions about the 47" femur.  Taylor writes:

"It is true that I sculpted a femur 47-1/2 (120 cm) based on a report in a newsletter where it was reported on by the construction engineer who found it and other skeletons the same height."

This is the first I can recall hearing about a "newsletter." On the page that reproduces the alleged letter, Taylor says

"Mr. Jack Wagner sent me the following article in 1996 and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in the Middle East."

Then he presents the same text (beginning "Dear Christian Friends") that I posted previously. 

I don't know who Jack Wagner is.  And, as far as I can tell, neither Taylor nor anyone else has ever provided the original source for the story. You've got to think if the story comes from a "newsletter" or an "article" that the publication should have a name and date so that we could track it down and perhaps learn something else about the original source.  Maybe the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum website could provide us with that information.

The story of the 47" femur is interesting not because there is any truth to it, but because it persists on the internet despite being recognized as bunk over and over again (e.g., see here, here, here).  Taylor is onto something when he he says (in this interview) that the story has power because the sculpture helps people “see the truth.”  The reason the 47" femur story has legs is that the simple image of an incredibly large femur is unambiguous and easy to understand.  It's a recognizable bone. And it's big.  Not just kinda big, but really big.  

The 47" femur sculpture helps people to make real something they desperately want to be real. In that circumstance the backstory of the sculpture (or the fact that it is just a sculpture) probably doesn't matter much, and pointing out holes and inconsistencies in the backstory won't matter much either. Taylor is correct in pointing out that museums use reproductions all the time.  But those reproductions are usually based on an actual original that cannot be displayed for a variety of reasons.  When you've got to imagineer your evidence from a textual description of uncertain origin, that should tell you something about the strength of your case.

At least the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum felt compelled to address questions about the femur sculpture.  That means people are asking questions about it. That's a good thing.

​Maybe the specification of a "newsletter" as the source of the tale is a small point given all the other inconsistencies in the story, but I would still be interested to see the publication.

I'm pretty happy with what I've learned about the history and origins of modern Young Earth Creationism (YEC) over the last few days.  I didn't really "discover" anything new (the story has been laid out by scholars before), but it feels like I did because my primary question had to do with belief in "giants" rather than changes in ideas about creation in general.  So I was coming at it from a different perspective. And I did most of my reading on a smartphone between bouts of watching kids and eating too much. It's got "win" written all over it. 

Last January, I wrote my first post about what I call the "degeneration doctrine" (the idea that humans have gotten dumber, smaller, and weaker since creation). At the time, I didn't know about the connections between that idea and the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) church. I became aware that there was some connection as I wrote about Ellen G. White, Ben Carson, and Clifford Burdick. Yesterday as I was writing about Kent Hovind's adaptation of Millerite/Adventist prophetic charts, I stumbled upon the missing link between the prophecies of Ellen G. White and modern, non-SDA ideas about degeneration and Bible giants. It turns out that a single person transformed Ellen G. White's 19th century visions of the antediluvian world (which the vast majority of Christians do not accept as relevant to their faith) into a doctrine that has helped fuel a bitter war about science, faith, public policy, and education in this country. There may really be a single person upon whom we can lay much of the blame for YEC as well as the "giants" that come with it. 
​
The name of that person is George McCready Price.

George McCready Price (1870-1963) was a Seventh-Day Adventist who turned Ellen G. White's visions into structured "scientific" arguments against evolution. This was no small task. White's visions were as voluminous as they were extra-biblical.  Here is a taste from her "1890 Statements Concerning the Flood" (taken from this compilation found on the Ellen G. White Estate website):

"Changes on the Earth’s Surface at the End of the Flood—The entire surface of the earth was changed at the flood. A third dreadful curse rested upon it in consequence of sin. As the water began to subside, the hills and mountains were surrounded by a vast, turbid sea. Everywhere were strewn the dead bodies of men and beasts. The Lord would not permit these to remain to decompose and pollute the air, therefore He made of the earth a vast burial ground. A violent wind which was caused to blow for the purpose of drying up the waters, moved them with great force, in some instances even carrying away the tops of the mountains and heaping up trees, rocks, and earth above the bodies of the dead. By the same means the silver and gold, the choice wood and precious stones, which had enriched and adorned the world before the flood, and which the inhabitants had idolized, were concealed from the sight and search of men, the violent action of the waters piling earth and rocks upon these treasures, and in some cases even forming mountains above them....
    The earth presented an appearance of confusion and desolation impossible to describe. The mountains, once so beautiful in their perfect symmetry, had become broken and irregular. Stones, ledges, and ragged rocks were now scattered upon the surface of the earth. In many places hills and mountains had disappeared, leaving no trace where they once stood; and plains had given place to mountain ranges. These changes were more marked in some places than in others. Where once had been earth’s richest treasures of gold, silver, and precious stones, were seen the heaviest marks of the curse. And upon countries that were not inhabited, and those where there had been the least crime, the curse rested more lightly.
    At this time immense forests were buried. These have since been changed to coal, forming the extensive coal beds that now exist, and also yielding large quantities of oil (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 107-8).

​To support the details of Ellen White's visions, Price published a series of books resurrecting "flood geology" (the idea that geological features of the Earth, such as rock strata and fossils, can be better explained as the result of a cataclysmic global flood event than as a result of uniform processes of change acting over long periods of time). As far as I can tell, Price's books contain most of the elements and arguments (and misunderstandings, misconceptions, and misrepresentations) found in current discussions of of geology and the fossil record by YEC groups.  You can read some of Price's books for yourself online: Outlines of Modern Christianity and Modern Science (1902); Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolutionary Theory (1906); Q.E.D.; Or, New Light on the Doctrine of Creation (1917); God's Two Books: Or Plain Facts about Evolution, Geology, and the Bible (1918); The New Geology (1923).

Ellen White's general ideas about degeneration are clearly expressed and presented by Price as expectations about the fossil record in Illogical Geology:

    "The fossils, regarded as whole, invariably supply us with types larger of their kind and better developed in every way than their nearest modern representatives, whether of plants or animals.
    This fact also is so well known that it needs no proof." (Illogical Geology, pg. 70)

    "And in summing up this matter regarding the size and physical development of species, we must confess that we find in geology no indication of inherent progress upward. Variation there is and variation there has been, even "mutations" and "saltations," but with one voice do the rocks testify that the general results of such variation have not been upward. Rather must we confess as great biological law, that degeneration has marked the history of every living form." (Illogical Geology, pg. 73)

Curiously, despite his inclusion of "every living form," Price only very briefly applies the idea of degeneration directly to humans:  

"But when, in addition to all this, we consider the fact that those human giants of the caves of Western Europe were contemporary with the animals mentioned above, and dis appeared along with them at this same time, while mountain masses in all parts of the world crowded with marine forms of the so-called "older" types positively cannot be separated in time from the others, it becomes as certain as any other ordinary scientific fact, like sunrise or sunset, that our once magnificently stocked world met with some sudden and awful catastrophe in the long ago" (Illogical Geology, pg. 84)

Price's allusion to "human giants" is almost certainly a reference to the remains of Neanderthals, which had been known from western Europe since the late 1820's and identified as a kind of human since the 1850's. In a section titled "Fossil Men," he does go into some discussion of human skeletons that appear to of Pliocene or Miocene age but it is the "modern" qualities of these fossils coupled with their position in supposedly ancient strata (therefore throwing a monkey wrench into the idea that the geological column shows an ordering of different forms of life through time) that is of interest to Price: 

"But in this fact, if it be fact, that Man lived under the wholly strange and different conditions of "Pliocene" or perhaps "Miocene times," is THE VERY STRONGEST POSSlBLE ARGUMENT that can conceive of for the necessity of complete reconstruction of geological theory" (Illogical Geology, pg. 74 [emphasis in original])

If you think about it carefully, this is a sleight of hand by Price (one that is still repeated by YEC proponents today). If we are supposed to have degenerated from antediluvian humans, why should we expect the remains of pre-Flood humans to be of "modern" appearance and size? If those human remains were incorporated into the the rocks in which they are found at the time of the Flood (i.e., as casualties of the Flood), shouldn't they look like pre-Flood people?

Price was a tireless advocate of Flood geology for decades. His ideas and arguments gained traction with Biblical fundamentalists of other denominations, and in 1938 he and other Adventists formed the Deluge Geology Society (here's an interesting post about it). Members of the Deluge Geology Society (DGS) included Henry M. Morris, an Independent Baptist and one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research (1972).  What happens next once again brings giants to the forefront of YEC thought and connects the remaining dots between Ellen G. White's visions and the YEC Bible giants of today. The following is from Ronald L Numbers' (1992) book The Creationists:

"In 1943, the DGS began soliciting funds for "ACTUAL EXCAVATION" of reported sites, and . . . the two other society members who formed the Footprint Research Committee--Everet E. Beddoe, (1889-1977), an Adventist minister, and Clifford L. Burdick (b. 1894), a consulting geologist--presented "an extensive field report on fossil human footprints," accompanied by casts and photographs.  Burdick, a graduate of the Seventh Day Baptist Milton College in Wisconsin, had embraced flood geology in the early 1920s, when as a recent convert to Seventh-day Adventism he had enrolled in an Adventist college to prepare for mission service and had there met Price. . . .
    From the beginning the DGS treated the footprint project with a mixture of grandiosity and paranoia, fearful lest competitors steal their thunder or enemies thwart their work. . . .
    Monetary need, however, ultimately overcame the fear of harassment, and in 1945 Allen, in an effort to secure financial backing for the project, publicly revealed the discovery of gigantic fossil footprints of humans far older than allowed by evolution, "thus at a single stroke defeating that theory." (pp 122-123)

I wrote about Burdick's (1950) article "When Giants Roamed the Earth" a few days ago.  That article discussed the main "evidence" and rationale for giants upon which some Young Earth Creationists (such as Carl Baugh and Joe Taylor) still rely.

It appears to me that Young Earth Creationism in the early 20th century was largely limited to Seventh-Day Adventists before it "jumped the track" by virtue of the wider membership of the Deluge Geology Society. Baptists ran with it after that and have retained many of the elements -- such as flood geology, degeneration, and giants -- that were part of Ellen G. White's prophetic visions.  I wonder how many of today's YEC advocates understand that their playbook was more-or-less written by a Seventh-Day Adventist committed to proving that Ellen White was right? It's fairly clear that Kent Hovind does, as he has practically modeled his career after Price's (complete with theatrical monetary wagers and fluffed up credentials) and surrounds himself with Millerite/Adventist regalia. The prophetic/apocalyptic concerns of the SDA church also appear to be present among many of today's believers in pre-Flood giants.

It's interesting that YEC interest in giants in America seems to have been completely divorced from the numerous accounts of "giant" skeletons being excavated from across the United States in the late 19th century. I would hesitate to say that the two weren't related in some way, but I haven't yet run across anything that establishes a direct connection (not from Ellen White, not from Price, etc.).  It may be that there is some overlap in whatever contributed to the content of Ellen White's visions and the contemporary "giant craze." Perhaps, for example, both had something to do with the discussions of giants and degeneration that were present in general Christian publications in the early 1800's (e.g., Bible dictionaries). 

I've been working on understanding the history of the "degeneration doctrine" in American religion and its relevance to Bible giants, focused on tracing ideas about the stature of pre-Flood humans. I've found the idea in Bible dictionaries from the early 1800's and in a handful of places post-dating the mid-1800s, including several associated with the Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA) church (the late 19th century writings of Ellen G. White, a 1950 article on giants by Clifford Burdick, and statements by GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson). The degeneracy doctrine clearly has some kind of association with the SDA church.

Kent Hovind, a formerly prominent Young Earth Creationist (YEC), is also a proponent of the degeneracy doctrine, as are associated figures such as Joe Taylor and Carl Baugh. According to his Wikipedia entry, Hovind is an "Independent Baptist" and not a member of the SDA church. So where do his ideas about creation, degeneration, and giants come from? Is Hovind's degeneracy doctrine independent and/or different from Adventist teachings, or is there some relationship?

I might be able to get answers to those questions by simply emailing Hovind.  But that's too easy. I'm an archaeologist, and I like try to explain  things by searching for and interpreting patterns. Archaeology can give you answers that go well beyond what one person may think about his experience. And it's more fun than just asking.

I haven't yet turned up any evidence of a formal connection between Baptists and giants, so I thought maybe Hovind's ideas about degeneration came from earlier in his life - perhaps he was raised in the SDA church?  I wasn't able to find much information online about Hovind's early years (this bio just says he became a Christian at age 16, as does this one). I did find, however, evidence for a significant amount of tension and in-fighting among various flavors of creationists and between the SDA church and other fundamentalist/literalist Christian denominations (see this, this, and this). In fact, it seems that the SDA church is often cast in a negative light in regards to their creationist doctrines. I don't pretend to understand it all, but I don't get the impression that Hovind and many other creationists look favorably upon the SDA church.

But that doesn't mean he didn't get some of his YEC talking points from them. (I'm still learning about the specific role of Adventists and the SDA church in developing what we now know as Young Earth Creationism - more on that later).

I grabbed the image at the left from one of Hovind's YouTube videos. It's the poster in the background that's interesting.  That and other similar posters are for sale on Hovind's website.

What's notable about the poster is that it is adapted from the prophetic charts used by the Millerites in the 1840s and later Adventist denominations (including Seventh-Day Adventists) that grew out of the Millerite movement after the Great Disappointment of 1844. Prophetic charts (you can see images of several in the collections of the Aurora University library) were used as visual aids to spread the message of the Millerites and the Adventists as they traveled across the county. The following is a quote from a 2012 lecture by Susan L. Palmer titled "Unraveling Adventist Prophecy: The History and Meaning of the Millerite Charts" (available here): 

"Millerite preachers used these charts to illustrate the complicated chronologies, calculations, biblical symbolism, and prophesies fulfilled that had led to Miller’s conclusions about the second coming of Christ. The most famous and popular chart of the time, the “1843 Chart” . . . measured about three by five feet, but others were larger, as they were to be used as a visual tool in large halls; the great, traveling, Millerite tent; and even in the open air, where they were sometimes hung on trees. . . . 
    . . . Even when traveling, a preacher would sometimes hang a chart while on a boat or ship (or in some other conveyance or public space). The arresting, often frightening images on a chart would invariably draw a crowd, thus affording a preacher yet another opportunity to spread the message of Christ’s imminent return."

Modern beliefs about the existence of giants in the past are multi-faceted.  As I touched on in the section introducing topics on The Argumentative Archaeologist site, I think there are three main threads: the "corrupt seed" giants (aka Nephilim); the "lost race" of giants (frequently associated with a resurgence of the Mound Builder Myth); and the "Bible giants" of Young Earth Creationism. There is some overlap in these threads, especially with what constitutes evidence.

've been trying to understand the history, development, and modern configuration of what I call the "degeneration doctrine" (the idea that the human career has been marked by "degeneration" from the bigger, better, smarter original state of creation).  Presidential candidate Ben Carson espouses the idea, as does Kent Hovind. I've found the idea all over the mid-19th century writings of Seventh-Day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White and in Bible dictionaries from the early 1800s.

As I was constructing The Argumentative Archaeologist, I came across a lot of interesting material relevant to Young Earth Creationist (YEC) claims about giants (there is a special fascination with supposed fossil footprints), and I became aware of a 1950 article by Clifford L. Burdick titled "When Giants Roamed the Earth."  The article,* in the Seventh-Day Adventist publication Signs of the Times (Volume 77, Number 28, pp. 8-9), clearly lays out the degeneracy doctrine as it is related to giant humans:

    "No wonder Methuselah lived so long. The rich soil was watered by gentle mists, that did not cut ravines and gullies and wash the forming soil into the ocean.
    With a withering earth we see a withering humanity. Not only has man decreased in stature from a magnificent specimen ten or twelve feet tall, to an average today of less than six feet, but his average life has shortened from many centuries to little more than half a century. Where do we find any human evolution here?"

The physical evidence that Burdick offers for giants includes several purported giant human footprints (some of which, I believe, I already have entries for under "Anomalous Footprints" although the names may differ - I'll do some cross-checking later).  The footprints of "giants" (some of which have been shown to be fabrications) are continue to be displayed in the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas.

The last section of Burdick's article is worth reproducing, as it nicely ties together many of the elements that are still a part of YEC arguments about giants:

    "The conclusions from these remarkable discoveries are crystal clear, but have far-reaching repercussions:
    1. Degeneration, not evolution has been the fate of the human race.
    2. Finding human tracks and dinosaur tracks in the same formation prove them contemporaneous, rather than separated by from 6o,000,000 to 120,000,000 years, thus collapsing the geological age theory.
    3. Evolution has always leaned on the geological age theory for its main support; therefore with the collapse of the geological age theory, the generalization of organic evolution also collapses." 

My investigation into the degeneracy doctrine and Bible giants in Industrial America is revealing a strong connection to the Seventh-Day Adventist church: I do not think it is coincidental that Ellen G. White was a Seventh-Day Adventist, Burdick's article appeared in a Seventh-Day Adventist publication, and Ben Carson was raised as a Seventh-Day Adventist.  I haven't yet looked at if/how the degeneracy doctrine appears in other indigenous American religious movements, but I will not be surprised if it turns out to be rather limited outside of the Seventh-Day Adventist church and related movements. That's interesting.

*I owe a special thanks to Irna Osmanovic (Le Site d'Irna) for finding a copy of the Burdick article online for me.  Thanks Irna!

I'm about to get on airplane for some holiday travel. I'm hoping to spend much of the coming week not doing much work, but I've been working hard over the last few weeks to finish a "beta" (i.e., mostly complete) version of The Argumentative Archaeologist website. It's done!  Go have a look!  Please spread the word.

I don't have time to write much about it now, so I'm just going to paste in the content from the About page:

The Argumentative Archaeologist is a website that organizes and compiles links to fact-based information and analysis related to fantastic claims about the human past.  While not all "fringe" (i.e., non-mainstream) claims have been shown to be untrue, many have (some of them over, and over, and over again . . .).  The goal of this site is to provide road maps to information that will help you both identify what's BS and understand the history and context of some of the many claims about the past that can be shown to be false.  They can't all be true, right?.

Who Are the Intended Audiences?

This site was conceived and designed with three main audiences in mind:

• The Public. Almost by definition, most "fringe" ideas come from outside the professional archaeological community.  The marketing and selling of those ideas, not surprisingly, are largely targeted to audiences that are also outside of the professional archaeological community ("bypassing the mainstream" is a common part of the pitch). The "fringe" community has done a good job of exploiting traditional print and television media as well as utilizing the internet to uncritically spread sensational claims about the past.  While many of those "fringe" claims can easily be shown to be false, the voices of the few individuals and organizations that have made a concerted effort to address the factual basis of those claims are often drowned out the megaphones that the "fringe" community has built for itself.  This site is an attempt to assemble links to openly available, critical analysis of "fringe" claims into one central location to make it easier for interested members of the public to get the other side of the story. It wasn't aliens - see for yourself!

• Educators. College courses that engage with the history, context, and evidence associated with "fringe" claims about the past are becoming increasingly common. I know several people that teach them, and I myself am planning on teaching one in the Fall Semester of 2016. While traditional textbooks are available that cover many facets of pseudo-archaeology, I feel that much of the real work that is being to address and understand "fringe" claims as they emerge and develop is being done online in formats such as blogs.  Blogs can and have been used to address many different aspects of "fringe" claims with a timeliness and forthrightness that would be impossible in the context of a traditional textbook. I hope that people teaching courses on pseudo-archaeology find this site useful in terms of both the kinds of information it presents and the organization of that information.

• Researchers (Both Kinds). I hope the links compiled on this site will help those of you out there interested in performing research on many different facets of pseudo-archaeology: where do these claims come from? why are they popular? what do we know about artifact x or site y? I know that I have learned several things I did not know just through the process of initial construction of the site (and that is without actually reading in detail the large majority of the content to which this site links). While many claims have been addressed repeatedly and are fairly well understood, many have not and are not. I think it would also be of great benefit to "fringe" researchers to make an effort to understand the arguments against their claims.  I know that may be difficult when you really, really, really want something to be true . . . but if you want your ideas to be taken seriously you will have to someday address an evidence-based critique.  I'm not optimistic that will happen (evaluating the willingness to actually test an idea is one of the key ways to discriminate between archaeology and pseudo-archaeology), but it would be nice. Maybe try not just repeating the same dumb, incorrect thing that someone else already said? Just an idea.​​

How Do You Choose the Content?

The content in this site was not chosen to give "equal time" to skeptical and "fringe" voices.  As mentioned above, the "fringe" side of the equation has developed a powerful set of tools to communicate its various messages: it does not require any assistance.  This site is intended to serve as a counterpoint to "fringe" claims, providing links to critical analyses of components of those claims, links to critical reviews of "fringe" media, and a structure that lets the user explore and understand how various components of "fringe" claims are inter-connected.

During the initial construction of this site (October-November 2015), I mined the blogs of several of the major skeptical online voices of which I am aware: Jason Colavito, ArchyFantasies, Bad Archaeology, Glen Kuban, Skeptoid, Le Site d'Irna, Michael Heiser, Ancient Aliens Debunked, Hot Cup of Joe, and my own website (Andy White Anthropology). This site does not link to all posts on those websites, of course, but it links to many that are related to the topics of interest here. My plan is to monitor those sites and add links to new posts (and new topics) as they become available. I would love to hear about articles, posts, and other skeptical sites of which I am unaware (please use the Suggestion Box).​

Why Do You Present the Content the Way You Do?

The work of critically evaluating "fringe" claims about the human past is being done by very few individuals.  I hope that this site brings attention (and web traffic) to their efforts.  My guess is that most of us who take the time to investigate and write something about the nonsense that's being sold as knowledge aren't making any money by doing so (in stark contrast to the "fringe" side, which has a large commercial component). Credit should go where credit is due: write an email and thank your favorite skeptic for his or her hard work.

I have used block quotes to introduce many of the topics, artifacts, and sites for which I have created entries. Many of those quotes are from Wikipedia.  I chose to do this not because it is the best source of information, but because it probably reflects a reasonable consensus view.  And it's designed to be "open."  I've attributed the textual quotes that I use, and I've attributed the sources of images that I use by linking to my sources.  I have added internal links (i.e., links pointing to other pages within this website) and indicated those changes with the designation [links added]. I do not believe that I am violating any copyrights or other prohibitions by presenting the material the way I do. If you disagree, please let me know via email (aawhite@mailbox.sc.edu).​

What Do I Do Now?

Begin your search for information by Topic, by Person, by Geographical Area, by Title of a book, film, or television program, by Meme or Image, or Alphabetically. ​Please use the Suggestion Box to offer topics or links to information, and please sign the Guestbook.

​Enjoy! 

I've been writing publicly about pseudo-archaeology for almost a year now.  While I've grown used to some of the nonsense out there, I'm still surprised by how tenaciously some self-proclaimed fringe researchers cling to pieces of "evidence" that are either known or probable frauds.  Why do they do this?

Can you do "science" about the past based on hoaxed evidence?  A reasonable person (especially one who actually does science) would of course answer "no."  If you have bad data that you know are bad data, you throw them out.  To do otherwise would be . . . what?  Stupid? Self-defeating?  You can fill in the blank for yourself.

​Here are a couple of examples.

Example 1: The Helenwood Devil

I wrote this post about the Helenwood Devil in March (and then this follow-up post and this one a few days later). The so-called Helenwood Devil was a "horned giant" from Tennessee that was "discovered" in 1921.  It turned out to be a clay statue that was sculpted in an abandoned coal mine by Cruis Sexton prior to being toured around and exhibited as a curiosity. You can judge the quality of Sexton's handiwork for yourself by looking at the photo.

I found accounts of the Helenwood Devil as a legitimate "horned giant" on two sites: The Rundown Live and The Greater Ancestors World Museum (GAWM). Kristan Harris corrected his story, but the GAWM chose not to. Chris Lesley commented on on this post last night:

"The first logical fallacy committed here is called a "strawman". I don't judge the articles, the GAWM website is there for Giant Hunters as an exhaustive resource, even though there is about 500 yet to be loaded to the site. I have compared the Helenwood devil with the plaster apeman skull called "Peking Man" which still exists in evolutionary examples. Are we to assume that you as an evolutionist who criticize others beliefs, hold to a different standard. I suggest you look into "Peking Man" and lets see how that level of criticism stands. So I am to assume that plaster skulls are acceptable when they fit your beliefs. The next problem is that you have brought the label "runt-hunter" on yourself.  You pick out the easiest target and generalize all the articles as such. This is like trying to prove real apples do not exist by showing the public one "plastic apple." I let the public decide which ones are plastic, I am not arguing for the authenticity of the Helenwood Devil, I remain neutral my scientific model is not only safe but its superior to the lesser belief of Common-Ancestry". So you say this one (Helenwood Devil) is fake, . . .great! I am not threatened in any way. It will remain, instead of controlling what people think, as academia does, I suggest that each person judge for themselves in each case and ignore fallacious arguments such as cherry-picking, runt-hunting, double standards and Strawman attacks that misrepresent the motives of others. . thanks." 

So there you have it.  According to Lesley, the Helenwood Devil, despite being made of clay in 1921, persists as a possible piece of evidence that Creation Science should consider. I guess we should each make up our own minds about what a clay statue from the Roaring Twenties has to do with creation or evolution.

There are several other interesting things in Lesley's post.

First, he's mentioned "Peking Man" before, but I wasn't sure exactly what he was getting at.  I checked around and it turns out that it is a popular contention among creationists that the plaster casts of the Homo erectus fossil material from Zhoukoudian are not accurate because they were made by evolutionists with an agenda (the originals were lost during World War II).  You might be able to get a little traction with that argument if the Zhoukoudian skulls were the only remains of Homo erectus that we have to look at, but they're not.  Not even close (there are many from across Asia and Africa).  

Lesley is familiar with a "straw man" argument because he is making one about "Peking Man."  Why not go after all the fossils of Homo erectus that are not plaster casts?  

If there was a purported Homo erectus that was built out of clay in an abandoned coal mine, I think I'd want to throw it out of the analysis and try to focus on cases that may actually have something to do with reality. But maybe that's just me. I'm not even sure our understanding of Homo erectus would change that much at this point if we just threw out the Zhoukoudian material.  This is because a robust understanding of the past, generally, doesn't depend on any single data point:  we can throw out the ones that are suspect and still arrive at a plausible interpretation that can be evaluated in the light of new evidence. And we're much better off doing that than holding on to unreliable data and incorporating it into an analysis.

Finally, Lesley accuses me of "cherry-picking" and "runt-hunting" because I single out and examine cases that are not credible.  It should go without saying, but it probably won't so I'll say it: that's what scientists do.  We actually try to find and throw out bad data.  

So far, I have yet to meet a case for a "giant" that I think is strong.  And I haven't just looked at the "bad" ones (if they're so bad, why are we even talking about them anyway?) -- I've looked at many that are put forward as "strong cases."  I've looked at the case for "three rows of teeth" from Amelia Island that Lesley himself challenged me to look at.  I've looked at the case for the "eyewitness account" that Jim Vieira and Fritz Zimmerman published on.  I've looked at many others that have been the subject of articles, blog posts, television programs, etc. Where are all the good cases that I'm missing?  Are there any that are not "runts" besides the large skeletons reported by the Smithsonian (the institution accused of covering everything up)?  

Back to the Helenwood Devil: if you're really just "putting it out there" so that people can decide, why not at least include the picture of the actual Helenwood Devil (and a link to the story) rather than an unsourced, unrelated image of horned skull that is probably also a sculpture? 

Keeping the Helenwood Devil in the mix is almost as clear a marker of silliness as you could put on yourself.

Almost.
​
Which brings us to the second example.

Example 2: Hutton Pulitzer's Embrace of the Fake

It appears to me that the non-existence of a mechanism for detecting and throwing out fakery is an important component of the "fringe" game in eastern North America.  In my last post about the continued silliness of Hutton Pulitzer, I discussed the strange misconception of science among "fringe" theorists that seems to omit any possibility of proving your ideas wrong. That misconception, whether intentional or not, is coupled with an embrace of just about every fraudulent "artifact" that has ever come down the pipe: Newark Holy Stones? Bat Creek Stone? Kinderhook Plates? Soper Frauds? The reluctance or inability to critically examine individual pieces of evidence means that everything counts as evidence: good, bad, real, fake . . . throw it all in the pot, stir it up, jabber about it, try to sell books, etc.

In this post from July I wrote about the allegedly fake copper artifacts that Pulitzer includes in his video of "Copper Culture Artifacts."  They're still there, and the video is still there.  Fake artifacts? Someone who was really interested in answers and analysis would have removed artifacts that could be fake.  So either Pulitzer doesn't care, or he has decided they're genuine.  I don't know which it is. If I had to bet, I'd go with Curtain Number 1.

According to internet chatter, his books about treasure hunting are just as meticulously researched as his informational videos about archaeology.

Pulitzer's embrace of the fake went up a notch with his attempt at a defense of the Burrows Cave artifacts. If you don't know anything about Burrows Cave (and the connections between Russ Burrows, Frank Joseph, and Ancient American), please read some of Richard Flavin's posts that I linked to on my Burrows Cave page. There is perhaps no faster way to identify yourself as someone who is not interested in critical thought than by rushing to the defense of Burrows Cave.

Keep up the good work, guys!

How tall was Adam?  

If you've been following along at home, you know that Ben Carson's comments about creation and evolution have reinvigorated my interest in understanding how the history of ideas about giants articulates with religion. Right now, I'm trying to trace what I call the "degeneracy doctrine:" the idea that (1) the first humans in the biblical creation account (i.e., Adam and Eve) were significantly taller than us and (2) that the narrative arc of the human past has been characterized by a "degeneration" from those "bigger, smarter, stronger" humans to the "smaller, dumber, weaker" humans of today (to paraphrase Young Earth Creationist Kent Hovind).  

The "doctrine of degeneracy" can be seen clearly in the writings of Ellen G. White (1827-1915), founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. White's extensive writings, based on a series of prophetic visions she reportedly received beginning in the mid-1800s, specify that Adam was about twice as tall as modern people, and that "the inhabitants of earth had been degenerating, losing their strength and comeliness" through a process of Satanic deterioration that was initiated in the Garden of Eden (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, 69.2).  In addition to a decrease in height, strength, and physical beauty, White's post-Fall degradation of humans included shortening of lifespans and greater susceptibility to disease.

Where did Ellen White's ideas about the height of Adam originate?  The Old Testament says nothing directly about the height of Adam or the other patriarchs, placing all ideas about the stature of the first humans into the realm of extra-biblical speculation. 

To the archives!

A Google Ngram of "Bible Dictionary" suggests temporal trends in the publication of works meant to thoroughly augment the Bible.  These works begin appearing in relatively small numbers in the late 1700s and early 1800s, increasing in popularity from perhaps the 1830s through the 1870s.  The relative popularity of Bible dictionaries appears to decline during the first half of the twentieth century.  The Ngram shows a sharp increase in the representation of Bible dictionaries in 1980s and 1990s.  I wasn't expecting the late twentieth century rise, but I'll have to investigate that later.

French Benedictine monk Antoine Agustin Calmet (1672-1757) is recognized as one of the first theologians to attempt to place the entire Bible in a literal (rather than allegorical and/or mystical) framework.  His 1720 work Dictionnaire Historique, Critique, Chronologique, Géographique et Littéral de la Bible was translated into English by  John Colson and Samuel d'Oyly and published in 1732 as An Historical, Critical, Geographical, Chronological and Etymological Dictionary of the Holy Bible.  Either Calmet's original work or (more likely) the English translation formed the basis for various editions of the Bible dictionary that were produced by Charles Taylor beginning in 1797.  Numerous Bible dictionaries were being produced by the mid-1800s, many reportedly based at least somewhat on the writings of Calmet. 

Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to locate a copy of the first (1732) English translation of Calmet's dictionary or the first edition (1797) of Taylor's version.  The earliest Taylor version of Calmet that I have been able to find so far (and therefore the earliest example I can find of what would have been available to English-speaking audiences in Britain and the United States) is the second edition (1812) titled Calmet's Great Dictionary of the Holy Bible.  

Note (10/4/2015): We're currently experiencing historic-level rainfall here in Columbia, South Carolina.  My family and I are fortunate to live on high ground - we're in much better shape than many others in this city and across the state.  I've been working on this post for a while and wanted to be done with it one way or another, so I'm posting it now even though it is not as polished as I'd like.  I need to pay attention to other stuff on the home front today and don't have time to work with it any more. It is what it is!

The plausibility of my hypothesis that presidential candidate Ben Carson believes in giants was bolstered by a CNN story this morning that identified Carson as a Seventh-day Adventist.  As I mentioned briefly in this post from February, the idea that the human career has been marked by "degeneration" from the bigger, better, smarter original state of creation can be found in the 19th century writings of Ellen G. White, one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

White's visionary experiences began after the so-called "Great Disappointment" of 1844, when the return of Jesus Christ predicted by William Miller failed to materialize. White's prophetic visions, published in numerous books and articles, formed the basis for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church that was formally established in 1863.

White's extensive writings are available online here. I spent just a few minutes searching on terms such as "stature" and "degeneration" and wanted to share some of the passages that popped up:

1858: "I was informed that the inhabitants of earth had been degenerating, losing their strength and comeliness. Satan has the power of disease and death, and in every age the curse has been more visible, and the power of Satan more plainly seen. . .  I was informed that those who lived in the days of Noah and Abraham were more like the angels in form, in comeliness and strength. But every generation has been growing weaker, and more subject to disease, and their lives of shorter duration. Satan has been learning how to annoy men, and to enfeeble the race." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, 69.2)

1864: "After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God says to his Son, “Let us make man in our image.” As Adam came forth from the hand of his Creator, he was of noble height, and of beautiful symmetry. He was more than twice as tall as men now living upon the earth, and was well proportioned. His features were perfect and beautiful. His complexion was neither white, nor sallow, but ruddy, glowing with the rich tint of health. Eve was not quite as tall as Adam. Her head reached a little above his shoulders. She, too, was noble—perfect in symmetry, and very beautiful." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, 33.2)

1864: "Those who lived before the flood, come forth with their giant-like stature, more than twice as tall as men now living upon the earth, and well proportioned. The generations after the flood were less in stature. There was a continual decrease through successive generations, down to the last that lived upon the earth." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, 83.2)

1864: "The race of men then living [before the Flood] were of very great stature, and possessed wonderful strength. The trees were vastly larger, and far surpassing in beauty and perfect proportions anything mortals can now look upon. The wood of these trees was of fine grain and hard substance—in this respect more like stone. It required much more time and labor, even of that powerful race, to prepare the timber for building, than it requires in this degenerate age to prepare trees that are now growing upon the earth, even with the present weaker strength men now possess. These trees were of great durability, and would know nothing of decay for very many years." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, 61.2)

1864: "Adam and Eve in Eden were noble in stature, and perfect in symmetry and beauty. They were sinless, and in perfect health. What a contrast to the human race now! Beauty is gone. Perfect health is not known. Every where we look we see disease, deformity and imbecility. I inquired the cause of this wonderful degeneracy, and was pointed back to Eden. The beautiful Eve was beguiled by the serpent to eat of the fruit of the only tree of which God had forbidden them to eat, or even touch it lest they die." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 4a, 120.10.

1864: "In strength of intellect, men who now live can bear no comparison to the ancients. There has been more ancient arts lost that the present generation now possess. For skill and art those living in this degenerate age will not compare with the knowledge possessed by strong men who lived near one thousand years." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 4a 155.40)

1870: "Adam, who stands among the risen throng, is of lofty height and majestic form, in stature but little below the Son of God. He presents a marked contrast to the people of later generations; in this one respect is shown the great degeneracy of the race." (The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, 463.2)

1884: "In that vast throng are multitudes of the long-lived race that existed before the flood; men of lofty stature and giant intellect, who, yielding to the control of fallen angels, devoted all their skill and knowledge to the exaltation of themselves; men whose wonderful works of art led the world to idolize their genius, but whose cruelty and evil inventions, defiling the earth and defacing the image of God, caused him to blot them from the face of his creation." (Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, 478.1)

1884: "Men sometimes flatter themselves that in this enlightened age they are superior in knowledge and talents to those who lived before the flood; but those who think this do not rightly estimate the physical and mental strength of that long-lived race. Growth was slow and firm. Men did not, as at the present time, flash into maturity early, use up their vital forces, and only live out half their days. Their minds were of a high order, and were strong and clear. Had these men, with their rare powers to conceive and execute, devoted themselves to the service of God, they would have made their Creator’s name a praise in the earth, and would have answered the purpose for which he gave them being. But they failed to do this. Man corrupted his way on the earth. There were many giants, men of great stature and strength, renowned for wisdom, skillful in devising the most cunning and wonderful work; but in proportion to their skill and mental ability was their great guilt because of unbridled iniquity. They were apostates from God, and were cruel and oppressive to those who were not able to resist them." (The Signs of the Times, November 27, 1884, paragraph 5)

1890: "Thus were revealed to Adam important events in the history of mankind, from the time when the divine sentence was pronounced in Eden, to the Flood, and onward to the first advent of the Son of God. He was shown that while the sacrifice of Christ would be of sufficient value to save the whole world, many would choose a life of sin rather than of repentance and obedience. Crime would increase through successive generations, and the curse of sin would rest more and more heavily upon the human race, upon the beasts, and upon the earth. The days of man would be shortened by his own course of sin; he would deteriorate in physical stature and endurance and in moral and intellectual power, until the world would be filled with misery of every type. Through the indulgence of appetite and passion men would become incapable of appreciating the great truths of the plan of redemption." (Patriarchs and Prophets 67.3)

The tenets of what I have called the "doctrine of degeneracy" are apparent in this small sampling of Ellen White's writings.  It would be an interesting project to delve into the enormous amount of material that she produced and do an analysis of the content and influence of her work in the context of rapidly-changing late nineteenth century thought about the natural and human past.  The period during which White was writing (1845 to 1917) also saw the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859), the aggressive Euroamerican colonization and exploration of the American west, the American Civil War, the rise and fall of reports of "giant skeletons" in American newspapers, and the emergence of numerous new religious sects in America. I do not know if anyone has attempted any kind of systematic analysis of White's writings, but they surely look promising.

Although the "degeneracy doctrine" of the Seventh-day Adventist Church appears to have come straight from Ellen White, I'm sure she didn't create it from thin air.  The general idea that modern life on earth has "degenerated" from a previous state can be found in many places (such as Greek mythology).   I wrote a short piece about an 1831 letter attributing a decrease in the size of animals (and people) over time to changes in air pressure, for example.  

How prevalent and important is the "degeneracy doctrine" today?  I've previously written about glimpses of the idea revealed in interviews with Joe Taylor and Kent Hovind, and, most recently, presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson. Carson tipped his "degeneracy doctrine" hand in this 2011 presentation when he said this (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?" 

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway:  all the direct evidence of which I am aware contradicts the idea that humans have become smaller, weaker, and stupider over time.  Ellen White believed in giants in the late 1800s, at a time when our ideas about the human past were rapidly changing.  Although we know a lot more about the human past today than we did when Ellen White was writing, the creationist belief in giants has persisted (along with its ideological underpinnings).  Ellen White's writings are interesting to me from a historical perspective, but Ben Carson's thoughts on the matter are important because of where we are in this country in terms of the rejection of science. 

Does Ben Carson believe in giants?  I still hope someday someone asks him the question.  I Tweeted Jake Tapper (CNN) before the last debate and Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) yesterday morning. The issues of how our would-be leaders regard scientific information, education, and research and the articulation of science and faith is relevant.

Someone please, please ask Ben Carson if he believes in giants.

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.