My "Afternoon Commute" Appearance, Plus Pre-Adamites!

8/12/2015

In lieu of a lengthy blog post today, I have a brief discussion of a new article about Pre-Adamites, and I’d like to direct you to The Afternoon Commute, where you can download my appearance on the podcast last night. You can also stream it below. We spoke for about two hours. The first hour was about ancient astronauts and fringe history, while the second hour went into philosophical questions about the origins of the universe and the reality of evolution. Apparently the show’s host is a creationist. I’m not entirely certain the second hour made a lot of sense since cosmology isn’t really one of my areas of expertise.

The Pre-Adamites are back again! A creationist writer named Ivan, who produces content for Ancient-Origins.net (but of course) and also EWAO.com (another fringe site) offered an article yesterday trying to make a Biblical case for correlating Biblical literalism with scientific findings about the age of the earth. He argued (well, “argue” is a bit strong) that the Biblical narrative of creation covers only the current creation, and that there had been plenty of human races before us, many of which were (of course) giants. He further claims that the Fall of Satan was responsible for the cataclysm that destroyed the Pre-Adamite giants.

This isn’t the kind of theology you find among most creationists, not even the believers in Pre-Adamite races, but interestingly it is pretty much exactly the folklore about Iblis (the Devil) and the djinn that became part of popular Islam. As told in the medieval Akhbar al-zaman, God created various races of supernatural djinn, many of which were giants, and these were destroyed when Iblis descended from heaven and killed most of them. Iblis, in turn, became the Devil when he failed to prostrate himself before God’s replacement for the djinn, Adam. I wonder how many Christian fundamentalists or biblical literalists would still support these claims if they knew they originated in Islam.

Our author goes on to ask whether the Pre-Adamites are connected to other fringe history claims:

But is it possible that Pre-Adamite civilizations existed on Earth? And better yet, is it possible that these ancient Pre-Historical civilizations might be connected in some way to the lost "civilization of Mu and Atlantis"? (emphasis in original)

Since the nineteenth century, Atlantis has been associated with the antediluvians, the Sethites and the Cainites who lived before the Flood, not the Pre-Adamites. (Mu was invented in the 1920s, so it’s irrelevant.) However, Ivan seems to understand that Plato placed Atlantis around 9,600 BCE, which would be earlier than the imagined young earth creationist timeline that situates the creation of Adam around 4004 BCE. This is his warrant for making Atlantis not the “antediluvian world” of Ignatius Donnelly but rather a Pre-Adamite one—all the better to marry a fundamentalist reading of Genesis to the realities of geology, archaeology, and paleontology. In short, it’s another effort to try to rationalize the Bible with selective science.

24 Comments

Only Me

8/12/2015 08:43:49 am

Holy shit, that second hour was painful! Not only do the hosts have horrible speaking skills, that one guy must have serious issues with comprehension.

My advice...don't go back. Ever.

David Bradbury

8/12/2015 10:08:32 am

But Jason already volunteered ! He doesn't want to get a reputation for going back on his word.

Clete

8/12/2015 09:50:39 am

Listening to the two hosts, I was amazed how totally inarticlate they were. They seemed to have to understanding or comprehesion of what they were talking about. It was like listening to two five years olds babbling on about the Easter bunny.

Shane Sullivan

8/12/2015 12:11:54 pm

"Since the nineteenth century, Atlantis has been associated with the antediluvians, the Sethites and the Cainites who lived before the Flood, not the Pre-Adamites."

Well, there is some precedent for it in the fringe world. According to this page:

http://mysteriousworld.com/Journal/2002/Autumn/Atlantis/

...Edgar Cayce claimed there there was a "Pre-Adamic" race that coexisted with the children of Adam on Atlantis. It's in the section, "The Origins of Man".

Dana

8/12/2015 05:18:23 pm

Oh my this was hard to listen to. Especially when the host started going on about Richard Dawkins and the multiverse theory. Jason, your response was pretty much the same as mine. Dawkins is a biologist, he was speaking off the cuff, and no one of any credibility is out there saying that the multiverse hypothesis is absolute fact. It's just an idea. (Side note: the Radiolab podcast did an episode where they talked to a couple of physicists with different ideas about the multiverse, and explored the idea that in another universe, the laws of physics and math would be so different that the two universes could never observe each other: http://www.radiolab.org/story/298146-trouble-everything/ Fun stuff, and it makes the multiverse discussion a bit more digestible for lay people.)

It's irritating as hell to listen to someone accuse all of science of lacking credibility or certainty just because there are a few people speaking hypothetically about possible solutions to some mathematical issues they're having (the multiverse is one of many ideas that have been proposed to balance an equation regarding the expansion of the universe, or something. It's all pretty over my head as I don't study physics). The biggest difference between legitimate scientists and fringe theorists is that scientists tell you when they aren't sure about something. In fact, a good scientist lives for the unknown. They love to talk about areas where more research is necessary.

The host seems to be demanding complete omniscience from science. He also seems to be laboring under the delusion that no scientist has ever engaged in a bit of wild speculation/fantasizing/thought experimentation without actually expecting the thoughts they come up with to actually be taken as fact. Asking why scientists are proposing a multiverse hypothesis is so silly, and the way he is latching onto the idea is childish. It's not really much more than some educated brainstorming. It's basically just something interesting to discuss over a few beers, the physicist's equivalent to a ghost story.

He's also confusing the ideas of a multiverse and a single infinite universe. Those are two different hypotheses, but they're also irrelevant. Like you said about the law of big numbers, life is bound to happen. What's the probability of life? Well, the actual observable universe is pretty damn huge, so the probability isn't as remote as you might think. And like you said, it's less that all these conditions occurred to create life, and more that life was an inevitable outcome of that conditions. To say the planet was made for us is the height of narcissism, in my opinion, but if religion helps others make sense of the world I won't begrudge them, as long as they don't get in the way of others who want to explore other ways of thinking.

In any case, I'm not sure why this guy wanted to have a debate about theoretical physics and creationism with an archaeologist. He really doesn't seem to have very good grasp of how science works, or to realize that there are different areas of specialization. Asking you to explain the multiverse hypothesis is like asking a car mechanic to explain tax law.

In the future, I highly recommend refusing to get into creationist arguments. It's just so pointless, since there's no way to say 100% one way or the other, and the creationist will inevitably use your lack of certainty in that area to draw you into a rabbit hole of unanswerable questions, and then use your inability to give solid answers to intangible ideas as a way to undermine anything you do say that they disagree with.

Keep fighting the good fight though. I thoroughly appreciate your willingness to take fringe theorists head on and defend archaeology's good name.

8/12/2015 08:21:58 pm

Theoretical physics is an interest of mine, Dana, and while I don't claim to understand the math involved in the slightest, my understanding is that there are actually several different "multiverse" hypotheses, ranging from--as I understand it, keeping in mind that I am NOT a theoretical physicist--"every decision and action taken results in multiple universes in which every possible choice is made in some variation" to "there are multiple interconnected universes that exchange matter/mass but otherwise don't particularly influence one another" to "there are several universes in which the laws of physics are unique to each universe" to "there is technically one universe but it has more than 3(or 4) dimensions and which set of dimensions an entity uses or experiences determines their experiences and possibly even their laws of physics."

They're a fascinating set of hypotheses, lots of fun to play around with fictionally.

I agree with you about creationist arguments, though. Creationist arguments are Kobayashi Maru scenarios. You will never win, and you'll just walk away angry and upset while the creationist walks away smugly convinced that they 'showed that ridiculous atheist' thanks to their completely illogical, irrational faith.

8/13/2015 01:15:35 am

Amen to that.

8/13/2015 02:38:31 am

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'm not a theoretical physicist either, but I 's sure know the difference between a hypothesis and a factual statement! As far as I can see, it's just like you say: fun to play around with fictionally.

Kobayashi Maru is exactly right!

Duke of URL VFM#391

8/13/2015 04:37:12 am

Halleluya, Brother V - Can we have a big Aaaaaaaa-men for Brother V?

Zach

8/12/2015 07:00:19 pm

Wow. Those two "hosts" were the most ignorant, uneducated, inarticulate, and unprofessional jackasses I have heard. And they clearly didn't care that you tried to say in a polite way how the conversation in the second half was completely off topic and not about a subject that you specialize in. So let's also add in how anti-social they came off because of that. I gotta say Jason, this makes me admire you way more now seeing how well you can handle yourself against people like this.

8/12/2015 07:10:37 pm

Seriously though. Conversations like that usually devolve into shouting matches for me. I don't know how he does it. And I've been reading some of the comments he gets on this blog. I'd be so exhausted if I had to listen to that garbage every day.

spookyparadigm

8/13/2015 02:17:41 am

To be fair, Jason did a similar interview about a year ago with a pair of right-wing conspiracy theorists (who I think were also creationists). This was much better than that. Good? No. But definitely better.

I stopped listening right around the time it became clear it was just going to be a way to try and prove science wrong as a broad creationist tactic.

Thorwald C. Franke link

8/12/2015 11:24:27 pm

Many fringe theories are based on secondary motivations. The authors are not really interested in Plato's Atlantis when they speak of Plato's Atlantis... they are interested in proving the Bible, or that Plato was the forerunner of totalitarianism, or that capitalism will fall, or that extraterrestrians visited the earth, or that they are great psychics able to channel information from the past. Often, they even have not read Plato's account.

8/13/2015 03:19:13 am

That's the other thing I find so frustrating. Not only are they being intellectually dishonest with their methods, they're dishonest in their motivations. And then they accuse actual academics of conspiracy and cover up. I personally know a few believers of this kind of thing, and they're always so quick to claim that academics are lying in order to get government grant money. It's absurd. If I wanted to make a bunch of money, I'd just publish some bullshit about Martians on Atlantis or crystal healing. It wouldn't even be hard. Writing a grant proposal, on the other hand, if difficult and tedious and yields far smaller rewards. Accusing mainstream academics of a cover up is just the height of hypocrisy and absurdity.

8/13/2015 06:45:42 am

On the other hand, academics have their secondary motivations, too. Some want to substantiate their theories of oral tradition with Plato's Atlantis, others want to show that Plato was a friend of tyrants (therefore the Critias who tells the Atlantis story is Critias the tyrant for them), others have weird ideas about Platonic Myths and want to make the Atlantis story fit into their pattern (which it usually does not).

8/13/2015 09:05:48 am

Thorwald C. Franke- Apparently I can't reply to your comment directly so I'll just post here.

Yes, that happens in academia as well. It's wrong then too, and that's why we have the peer review process (unlike fringe theorists, who view any lack of total consensus among academics as proof that none of us know what we're talking about). None of that changes the fact that fringe theorists who accuse archaeology of having a hidden agenda, while having hidden agendas of their own, are hypocrites.

8/13/2015 09:41:47 am

@Dana: I have not the impression that the peer review process works well when it comes to Atlantis. Yet you are right: There is no big hidden agenda, no conspiracy against the truths of fringers.

8/13/2015 01:57:01 pm

@Thorwald C. Franke

I don't get your meaning. The peer review process has, as far as I am aware, found that claims of Atlantis's existence don't hold. If some people don't want to accept that, it's not due to an error in the peer review system.

8/14/2015 07:28:20 am

@Dana: I referred to the secondary motivations which are not stopped by the peer reviewers. The big question whether Plato used a (distorted) historical tradition or not, vulgo: whether Atlantis existed or not, cannot be decided by peer review system.

8/14/2015 09:09:11 am

@Thorwald C. Franke

Ah, I see. I only meant that, while the peer review process cannot prevent people from making false claims, and cannot say with 100% certainty whether or not Plato was referring to a real place, it can hold people accountable for their claims. It may not concern less scrupulous people that their claims lack evidence, but at least the process of peer review gives anyone interested a chance to examine the claims and answer them.

8/13/2015 03:05:05 am

I'm a semi-regular listener of the Afternoon Commute podcast who was just introduced to Jason's work via the recent interview. To get any preconceptions out of the way in a hurry: I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution. I don't put much credence in many conspiracy theories either, but I simply find the topics interesting sometimes.

I agree with most people here in that the second hour was incredibly painful to listen to. I do think John (the co-host who spoke mostly in the first hour) is a much better interviewer and thinker than Chris, who is actually the main "Hoaxbusters" host and who dominated the second hour. While not agreeing with Chris, let me try to explain where he's coming from:

Basically he's one of many people who feel that science is attempting to claim omniscience in the public sphere. So while everyone here has a point when they say "WTF is wrong with this guy? It's like he expects science to be omniscient or something!", basically what he's reacting to is the public perspective that public scientists are in fact trying to claim that. Everyone here is also absolutely right when they express befuddlement about why Chris evidently thinks that scientists shouldn't be able to speculate off-the-cuff about ideas like the multiverse. Of course scientists should be able to do that, even when the speculations are not entirely in their field of expertise. But what Chris is sensing is that scientists seem to put forth certain exciting ideas (which the media picks up and runs with) that ostensibly attempt to change the public perception about humanity's place in the universe, etc. I, personally, do not have any problem with Dawkins or whoever talking about the possibility of interdimensional beings or the multiverse, but for the general public who sees these ideas becoming popularized in the media, it's only natural for some of them to basically ask "Hey, what are you trying to do and why are you playing with people's heads like this?" The MEDIA perception is that these ideas ARE ostensibly being backed up by hard science. It's only natural for non-experts to be skeptical about paradigm shifts, especially since things like Piltdown Man and various temperature data-faking scandals have given people reason to doubt. And, again, I say that as a strong believer in evolution (and climate change).

I'm not sure if that made enough sense, but I just thought I'd try to explain where Chris is coming from. I'm not defending his own creationist or pseudo-creationist beliefs, and I thought Jason did a pretty great job trying to explain things in the second hour, painful as it was even for me to listen to.

People here thought the first hour was bad, though? I thought it was great! John and Chris were already skeptical about the ancient alien theory and industry, and I thought the interview went fine up through that point.

Either way, I'll definitely be looking into some of the other research here.

8/13/2015 05:00:20 am

I think there is some definite truth in the media perception issue, one that scientists themselves are also incredibly frustrated about (and why many avoid the media). But I would make two points of criticism re: Chris as you describe him (I listen to a few paranormal themed podcasts, this is not one of them except for this episode)

1. There is a clear "attack science" aspect of Creationism, some of which was on display here including specifics. If someone in this day and age mentions Piltdown in a discussion like this, the chances of creationism being somewhere in the background is pretty high. Piltdown is a major Creationist talking point, and one I largely see only invoked from that camp (just as most mentions of the coelacanth outside of very specific technical literature derive to at least some degree from cryptozoology talking points). I get the "people are confused/annoyed" tack, but if I use Creationist points ...

2. Which brings me to a second, and I think more important point. Regardless of one's background/ideology, I think once you take the steps to start broadcasting on topics, it becomes fair (including to the broadcaster) to no longer just treat that broadcaster as "just folks". If one is going to regularly comment in a significantly public way, for an audience, about a topic that has seriously been studied by scientists and scholars (human origins and the past, biology, climate science, history, whatever), completely ignoring that work stops being excusable as "I'm just a common guy, I'm just saying."

If someone is making an effort to put a message out there, then reasonable criticism should be expected (unreasonable criticism should also be expected, but that's a different issue). Purposely avoiding, which is what it becomes pretty quickly, the serious information on a topic is grounds for pretty obvious criticism.

This is one of these lines by mystery mongers we see time and again, and have seen on these pages: "Why can't the mean skeptics leave us alone and go cure cancer or something?" They want the benefits of speaking in public and attracting an audience, but want to be immune from even the most basic and honest criticism, which is particularly sad given that much of their message is screaming criticism at institutional science, "the government", or whatever the big enemy is.

This is one of a number of reasons I won't argue with people in comments or social media or in person. Not only is it a waste of my time and counterproductive, it's not important and not my place to seek out such arguments.

But if you've got a regular show, podcast, you write, whatever, complaining that mean skeptics, scholars, scientists, agents of the Nephilim illuminati, etc. are unfair because they call out that you only truck in the "established facts" of a pseudoscientific subculture and won't engage with actual hard work that's been done on the topic you're on about, won't wash.

8/13/2015 09:51:07 am

"But what Chris is sensing is that scientists seem to put forth certain exciting ideas (which the media picks up and runs with) that ostensibly attempt to change the public perception about humanity's place in the universe, etc."

He can sense that all he wants, but it doesn't make it true. While there are, of course, some individuals who have a tendency to say things with more certainty than is really warranted (scientists aren't immune to the desire for fame and fortune. Ever watched Dr. Oz?), it's just flat-out wrong to accuse the entirety of academia of doing the same.

The fact that the public assumes every word that comes out of scientists' mouths as claims of absolute fact, instead of just speculation or thought experimentation, says more about the state of education in our society than it does about scientists. The media makes this problem so much worse with their horrible science reporting. For example, the constant debate over whether or not certain foods are good for you. Every time new information is released that indicates a food (for example, coffee) is either healthy or unhealthy, there's some asinine story about it on every morning talk show, where some idiot reporter says "Hey coffee is good for you again!" and then their idiot cohost says "Omg why can't they just make up their minds!?!?!" They treat science as a monolith, and don't recognize that there are thousands and thousands of individuals who are constantly testing out new ideas, and putting old claims to the test, and basically just fact checking everything. New information gets published in academic journals so that it can be shared with the scientific community and go through the peer review process. Inevitably, some journalist or radio DJ or blogger will stumble across published research, skim the abstract, write up a story that is about a far from what the research paper actually says as you can get, and no one bothers to check because reading academic journals is boring (and because no one has the money/time to subscribe to every journal and read every paper).

Ideally, scientists should be able to publish research in mainstream media. But many are mistrustful of media, and the media in turn is unwilling to publish boring facts unless they can spice it up a bit. I was just talking to a professor who fell victim to this once as a grad student. A journalist did a piece on some work she was doing, and I guess they wanted to add a little human interest to it because they asked how she got into archaeology. She made some off-hand remark about not minding getting dirty. The journalist completely misquoted her as saying "I like dirt", and then added that she likes Mexican dirt in particular (she was working in Mexico). Her peers found it pretty funny, but while it was a fairly harmless piece, that professor has felt wary of journalists who are interested in her work ever since.

"It's only natural for non-experts to be skeptical about paradigm shifts, especially since things like Piltdown Man and various temperature data-faking scandals have given people reason to doubt."

Sure, it's natural, but again, it comes out of a poor science education. Unfortunately, the people in charge of setting school curriculums have decided that it's more important to pander to extremists and fundamentalists than it is to ensure that our citizens develop a good understanding of the scientific method and peer review. I constantly find myself explaining peer review to people who don't get why scientists can never agree on anything. They don't understand that the whole system is set up that way in order to ensure people can't just say whatever they want without evidence. It's akin to the way our court system is adversarial by necessity. The government can't simply say "We think this guy is the murderer because we say so." They have to back it up, and the accused has to have a chance to argue their case. The fact that hoaxes have turned up is, to me, a sign that the system works! I view hoaxes as a test. If we catch them, we pass. I'd be more worried if we never uncovered a single false claim.

"People here thought the first hour was bad, though?"

It was okay. I just found it annoying that they were talking about really out-there ideas as if they were legitimate theories worthy of serious consideration. But I suppose that's to be expected from a show on fringe theories, and I appreciate that Jason was given an opportunity to explain just why those ideas are bunk, and I enjoyed learning the origin of these mythologies.

I did feel that a lot of time was spent explaining really basic concepts of the scientific method, especially why it's bad science to respond to every argument with "well, you can't prove it DIDN'T happen that way!" (seriously, I learned this in the 6th grade. In Catholic school), but again, the state of science education in our society is pathetic, so it doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of people out there who don't understand

Day Late and Dollar Short

8/17/2015 05:17:26 am

Just got around to listening to the podcast today. I think you did a great job. You are an excellent speaker, and it was very evident when contrasted with the hosts. Even when dealing with subject matter outside of your normal expertise you were still thoughtful and informed. The more I listen to your guest appearances on podcasts, the more I'm surprised you don't get much television work. Personally, I think you'd make a great talking head on something like Ancient Aliens either as a foil or expert.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.