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

Evolution, "Devolution," and the Incredible Shrinking of Humanity: Why Creationists Love Giants

1/23/2015

9 Comments

 
PictureI'm not sure what the origin of this drawing is, but I got it from biblelandstudios.com. And by making that single attribution I have exceeded the scholarship standards of most pieces of "evidence" for giants that circulate on the internet.
When I started writing blog posts examining the evidence for a so-called “race” of giants, several people asked me about the apparent connection between the giants renaissance and creationism.  My answer was simple: creationists feel that evidence of giants would be proof that the Bible was true and evolution was not.  As we are often reminded, some translations of Genesis 6:4 say that “there were giants in the earth in those days.” The existence of giants, therefore, would be consistent with a Bible that is literally true.  And if the Bible is true, then evolution is false.

I still think that explanation holds water: creationists (at least some of them) see the existence of giants as a key component in their case for a literal Bible.  If you can find one skeleton of an ancient human that is significantly larger than any person we know of today, you’ve proven your case: the Bible would account for that but evolutionary theory could not. That’s the main idea, anyway.

As I’ve explored the question more, however, I think I have come to a better understanding of why some creationists really love giants.  While it seems clear to me in retrospect, it wasn’t obvious when I first started seriously thinking about this issue a few months ago. I’m guessing that it is probably also not obvious to many others out there who also were not raised with a creationist belief system.  So I thought it would be worthwhile to write it out, as I think this provides some context for understanding some dimensions of the current fascination with giants.

The love affair that some creationists have with giants stems not only from the desire to demonstrate that a few isolated (possibly mistranslated) passages in the Old Testament are literally true, but from what is actually a more-or-less coherent theory of prehistory. Using a very broad brush, I will call this the “Biblical theory of prehistory” (BTOP).  The BTOP is based on a creationist understanding of the meaning and implications of Genesis. It explains changes through time in the natural world (following a supernatural creation) as the result of a “devolutionary” process of degeneration.  Here is my paraphrase of the tenets of the BTOP as I understand it (advocates of this view of the world should feel free to comment and tell me if I’m misstating something):

  • God’s original creation was perfect
  • As time has passed since creation, that original perfection has naturally degenerated
  • The world we see today, and the creatures in it, are less than perfect as a result of a long process of “devolution”

Giant enthusiasts applying the BTOP link together the existence of large extinct animals (that we can understand via the fossil record), the long human lifespans reported in the Old Testament, and the Biblical mentions of “giants” as in Genesis 6:4.  In this case, bigger is better: humans and that existed closer to the time of creation were larger in size and closer to perfection than the humans of today.  The running down of the clock since creation has resulted in humans and animals that are smaller, simpler, and farther from perfection.

Joe Taylor, author of the book Giants Against Evolution and sculptor of a 47” femur, spells it out in this interview (about 21:40 minutes in):

“They [scientists and museums] want to keep up this story that we evolved from some fish that turned into a monkey and then turned into Man.  The giants just mess that whole story up.  And whether they agree that these giants were fathered by angels – they can’t have that because angels are spirits, God is a spirit, demons are spirits . . . they can’t believe any of that stuff.  Well then they have to attribute it to people growing larger back then. Well, wouldn’t that go against the theory of evolution?  That people used to get bigger and better and more hands, more toes, more teeth and fingers? So evolutionists cannot account for giantism, so they just ignore it or destroy the information.”

There are several things of interest in that statement.

First, Taylor clearly says that things going from bigger to smaller would “go against the theory of evolution.”  I had an “ah-ha” moment (or maybe it was an “oh duh” moment) when I heard him say that, because I remembered reading a similar statement expressed in Richard Dewhurst’s awful book (The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America, pg. 8):

“We are shown charts of man becoming bipedal and each “new” man being bigger and smarter than the last.  This is in direct contradiction to the charts we use for every other animal we study. We have only to look at a bird and be told that it was once a dinosaur to know how false this paradigm of man’s growth is.  Look at the evolution of most animals, and the record says they got smaller over time, not bigger.  However, with all the modern edifices of education built on the theory of evolution and the growing stature of humanity, we can’t very well have the Smithsonian running around telling people that we have degenerated from an ancient race of giants who once ruled America, now can we?”

Once you start to look, it is easy to find examples of creationists stating that: (1) the big-to-small sequence of change is common (even universal) among animals in the fossil record; (2) that pattern is a result of degeneration or “devolution;” and (3) that pattern is the opposite of what the theory of evolution predicts.

Second, Taylor ties the presence of “more toes, more teeth and fingers” (I’m going to assume that he misspoke when he said “more hands”) of humans in the past to those humans being closer to perfection.   This was another “ah-ha” moment for me because it is a clear expression of why giant enthusiasts are so uncritically fascinated with “double rows of teeth:” more teeth equals better human.  It is only logical that these larger, longer-lived, more perfect humans had more teeth than us, right, because that would be more “complex.” The incredible shrinking of humanity also included losing features of our anatomy that were present when we were perfect.

(I have written numerous posts now about the “double rows of teeth” issue as it pertains to the accounts of skeletons unearthed in 19th century and early 20th century America: see my “Ancient Giants” page.  There are more on the way).

In essence, the BTOP purports to challenge the theory of evolution by asking “if evolution predicts that things get bigger and more complicated over time, why do we have so many examples of things getting smaller and less complicated?” The BTOP is presented as a “devolutionary” theory, naturally opposed to an “evolutionary” theory.

Anyone familiar with modern evolutionary thinking will immediately recognize what is going on here: the BTOP is presented as counterpoint to a kind of evolutionary thinking that doesn’t really exist among scientists today.  Creationists who love giants are attacking a windmill. Let me explain.

Use of the term “devolution” implies that evolution has a direction.  That alone signals a fundamental misunderstanding of the tenets of evolutionary theory and the mechanisms and results of evolutionary change.  The vast majority of scientists today who employ evolutionary theory as a framework for understanding the natural world probably define “evolution” as something along the lines of “a change in gene frequencies over time” or even simply “change over time.” Notice what is missing from those definitions: any notion of “progress” or “direction.”  Evolution is not goal-seeking and does not strive to produce something “better.”  Over large scales of time and space, evolution has produced a diverse array of plant and animal species and a natural world that is complex (in that it has many different but inter-related parts), but evolutionary theory does not specify that every plant and animal goes from “simple to complex” or “primitive to advanced” or "small to big."  It doesn’t work that way and no evolutionist will tell you that it does. Do some things have bigger ancestors?  Sure.  Do some things have smaller ancestors? Sure. So what?

The “theory of evolution” that advocates of the BTOP are positioning themselves in opposition to is actually a 19th century conception of evolution as a “progressive” process.  This view has largely gone extinct, and we should all be happy for its demise.  Why? Because it had no scientific merit and was employed politically to inflict great misery on many peoples of the world.

Nineteenth century Euroamerican ideas about the “progressive” biological and social evolution of humans mixed Darwin’s ideas about “survival of the fittest” with the classification of humans based on their observable physical characteristics (skin color, hair texture, facial structure, etc.) and the technological “advancement” of their societies (savagery, barbarism, civilization).  (For a taste, have a look at The Origin of Civilisation and the Primitive Condition of Man by Sir John Lubbock).  Peoples and societies were ranked based on the notion that those that were more “advanced” were inherently superior.  Guess which peoples came out on top of these rankings? The misapplication of Darwin’s ideas about biological natural selection to the physical and cultural variation that was apparent among living human groups provided a convenient justification for the subjugation of non-European peoples across the globe: fans of colonialism, imperialism, and slavery were fans of progressive evolution, Scientific Racism, and polygenism.  So were the eugenicists.  And the Nazis. Notions of “progressive” evolution were applied in political contexts, often with incredible negative and tragic outcomes.

It should go without saying, but the topic of this post makes it obvious that it doesn’t: these 19th century notions that human biological/social variation is the result of some kind of “progressive” evolution are not part of modern, mainstream evolutionary thought.  There - I even put it in bold so that it's easy to see.  Anyone who takes a moment to try to understand what modern evolutionary theory actually is will quickly understand what it's not. 

Creationists, at least those who love giants, have apparently chosen to ignore what evolutionary theory actually is and instead wage a war against some Frankenstein 19th century notion of “progressive” evolution.  Consider the following passage from creationwiki.org:

“Charles Darwin theorized that evolution was a process of getting to perfection, where Christian creationists understand that the original sin of the first man Adam has brought degeneration, disease, and essentially [devolution] into the world.”

Getting to perfection?  Okey dokey then.

That’s like me trying to mount an argument against the usefulness of modern medical practice by refuting the Hippocratic theory of the four bodily humors.

People who understand what “evolution” actually means in the modern sense will spot an irony here: the BTOP is itself essentially an evolutionary theory.  It is evolutionary because it recognizes that plants and animals have changed through time, and specifies mechanisms that explain patterns of change.  In other words, the BTOP provides a general explanation of the way the world has changed that acknowledges that the plants and animals that are present today are not the same ones that were present earlier in prehistory.

To be clear, just because I call the BTOP a “theory” does not mean it is a scientific theory or that its advocates are scientists. The opposite is true.  The BTOP is a belief system masquerading as science:  in science we use theories about the world to generate expectations which can be falsified based on observations.  That is not what advocates of the BTOP do. They are simply looking for evidence to support an answer that they think they already have.  They say they are doing science, but in the absence of any attempt at testing or falsifying, they are most certainly not.  You can say you are doing science all you want, and you can display your “evidence” in a building and call it a museum, but without some kind of attempt to determine if your answers about the world are correct or incorrect, you’re not doing science.  

Joe Taylor’s 47” femur sculpture based on an anonymous letter? Not evidence.

Chris Lesley’s imagination-based “replica” skull with three rows of teeth? Not evidence.

The strategy seems to be to just keep throwing pieces of baloney at the wall until one of them sticks.

Good luck with selling that as a scientific approach to understanding the past.

The eagerness to accept, prop-up, and even manufacture any piece of “evidence” that seems to support the existence of ancient giants is consistent not with a desire to understand the world scientifically but with a desire to demonstrate a “known” (what the Bible says) by assembling evidence that supports it.  There is a real lack of critical thinking here and a real reluctance to ask “what part of this idea could be wrong?”  If I ask you the question “what evidence would you accept that your idea is wrong?” and you answer “there isn't any,” you’re not doing science.  Read that sentence twice.

This is a broad brush essay.  There is much more to talk about on this topic with regard to how the BTOP deals with human/primate fossil remains (especially those that are considered to be “large”) and the diversity of opinions about what these imaginary ancient giants actually were.  Once you get past the commonality of “giants in those days” you will find little coherence or agreement among the spectrum of individuals that are spinning tales about the Nephilim, antediluvian giants, evolution/devolution, etc.  Were these pre-Flood giant humans “perfection” or were they the product of corruption? Did they continue to exist after the Flood?  If so, how and why? Were they natural or supernatural?  How do you reconcile the chronology provided by archaeology with that of the Bible?  These are all great things for giantologists to discuss amongst friends who take it as a given that giants existed because it is written in the Bible.

There is one other thread that unites these folks: the desire to sell books and DVDs.

The lack of agreement among giant enthusiasts about the particulars of the story doesn’t by itself mean that a BTOP is wrong, of course. But it does resonate with an approach that combines a great emphasis on collecting and interpreting “evidence” with a nearly complete lack of interest in testing any components of the BTOP by using that evidence.  It explains why creationists love giants, but by itself does nothing to strengthen the argument that there actually were giants.  For that you would need evidence and some will to evaluate that evidence in light of the expectations generated by the theory. So far I haven’t seen a speck of evidence that convinces me that there is any need for a theory other than that of evolution to account for the history of life on earth and the fossil record as it relates to human origins.

9 Comments
Marius
1/25/2015 11:56:23 pm

A really great article! It sums up,how bizarre and nonsensical these ideas are.

Reply
Bob Jase
1/28/2015 12:02:42 am

So if by the BTOP humans are continuingly getting shorter how do its proponents rxplain the lack of difference in height between the oldest human remains they accept (ignoring all those bothersome older than 6000 year old specimens) and modern humans? What, humanity went from 20 ft tall to 5 1/2 feet tall in a handful of generations and then nothing since?

Reply
Andy White
1/28/2015 01:43:15 am

I am hesitant to speak for "Young Earth" creationists, but I believe they would say that the flood was associated with a number of dramatic environmental changes, including changes in the Earth's atmosphere that made it impossible for things to be big anymore. That would seem to be inconsistent with an idea of gradual degeneration associated with accumulating genetic mutations, etc. I am also curious how those things would be resolved.

Reply
Graham
4/21/2015 10:10:57 am

I was watching a video debunking a New Age video series called "Sprit Science" and in one of the clips taken from the "Spirit Science" series I was astounded to see a 'New Age' version of the degeneracy claim.

The 'New Age' version, which appears between 18:50 - 19:22 in the linked video is that as the human race's conciousness level increases, the average height also increases, thus 'the ancients' (third to fifth 'levels of consciousness') were between 14 - 60 ft tall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMHos7BcG0g

Reply
Andy White
4/22/2015 04:35:54 am

Thanks for the link - that's interesting. I had actually started watching the video that's being debunked at some point a while ago, but I guess I didn't make it as far as the height part.

Reply
Alex
9/15/2015 06:21:07 pm

A well written & articulate article indeed.
I'm curioser & Curiouser, is there actually a DNA Link between the Giants & us wee Humans?
Another curve ball is the wee skulled Pygmies that apparently lived in the same era.
Are they too of the same DNA?
Opposite to Darwin & the Smithsonian folk at Stanford, is there not a possibility that a number of families or species exist & existed, as different as the Denisovans were to the NEanderthals?

Reply
Ishmael Abraham
4/1/2017 12:13:42 pm

Educated orthodox Muslims interpret Quran 2:30 to mean that Adam peace be upon him was in a chain of biological succession and Quran 7:69 also talks about anatomical improvement.

Reply
Regina Powers
3/2/2019 03:48:28 am

There's no such thing as a fossil record and evolution is a hoax. Giants prove the Bible. There is no empirical evidence for your atheist fantasy. Evolution is a proven lie: There is no origin of evolution PERIOD. All the millions and millions of fossilized remains are found FULLY FORMED, with NOTHING TRANSITIONAL. There are ZERO living transitional life forms today! NONE OF THEM have a new anatomical feature or function different from their immediate ancestor. I just debunked the origin, past and present of evolution. Evolution is a magical hoax. It's IMPOSSIBLE that the non-existent MINDLESS UNGUIDED process of evolution, came from NOTHING and acted upon life and a common ancestor, to diversify it’s DNA into 10 million species of life, from a non-existent entity, turning dinosaurs into birds, apes to man, etc., etc. . Evolution does not exist.
It has no parents.
It’s never been born.
It has no starting point.
It has no address.
It has no body.
It has no mind.
It has no power.
It has no purpose.
It has no goal.
It has no value.
It has no meaning
It’s never been seen.

“They traded God’s truth for a lie, and they worshiped and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. “ - Romans 1:25 CEB (Common English Bible)

Reply
Albert Medina link
9/6/2019 05:51:12 am

Now I am not christian or religious in any way. But some things in life are not as logical as you think they might be. We now have proof of another humanoid very similar to us much bigger in size The DENISOVAN. Honestly you are jumping the gun here as much as creationist do. If you believe in science then you should know we have no answer yet. We have found new evidence that evolution of humans is not even linear if true. The molar tooth found in the denisovan cave are of 15 foot humanoids. All our DNA has denisovan in it. It also appears by the bracelets found in the cave the denisovans had technology and tools before homo sapiens were even on earth. To dismiss one of the oldest books as pure fiction is very ignorant. The Spaniards once called manatees giant fat eels in books. Does that mean they did not exist.

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