Daily Archives: July 2, 2005

Be careful what you wish for: Here comes Graham Hancock

One of the bene­fits of writ­ing so far in advance is that when you have a sleep you can alter the post before it goes up. The new Gra­ham Han­cock book was a bit of a bother when I wrote this yes­ter­day (June 24) but today I think it could be amus­ing. I found this while work­ing on a new toy, which launches tomor­row, when I looked up some com­mon altern­at­ive authors.

It seems Gra­ham Han­cock has a new book out for the Christ­mas trade. Here’s the syn­op­sis:

Super­nat­ural: of or relat­ing to things that can­not be explained accord­ing to nat­ural laws.” Less than 50,000 years ago man­kind had no art, no reli­gion, no soph­ist­ic­ated sym­bol­ism, no innov­at­ive think­ing. Then, in a dra­matic and elec­tri­fy­ing change, described by sci­ent­ists as “the greatest riddle in human his­tory”, all the skills and qual­it­ies that we value most highly in ourselves appeared already fully formed, as though bestowed on us by hid­den powers. In Super­nat­ural Gra­ham Han­cock sets out to invest­ig­ate this mys­ter­i­ous “before-and-after moment” and to dis­cover the truth about the influ­ences that gave birth to the mod­ern human mind. His quest takes him on a jour­ney of adven­ture and detec­tion from the stun­ningly beau­ti­ful painted caves of pre­his­toric France, Spain and Italy to remote rock shel­ters in the moun­tains of South Africa where he finds a treas­ure trove of extraordin­ary Stone Age art. He uncov­ers clues that lead him to travel to the depths of the Amazon rain­forest to drink the power­ful plant hal­lu­cino­gen Ayahuasca with Indian sham­ans, whose paint­ings con­tain images of “super­nat­ural beings” identical to the animal-human hybrids depic­ted in pre­his­toric caves and rock shel­ters. And hal­lu­cino­gens such as mes­caline, also pro­duce vis­ion­ary encoun­ters with exactly the same beings. Sci­ent­ists at the cut­ting edge of con­scious­ness research have begun to con­sider the pos­sib­il­ity that such hal­lu­cin­a­tions may be real per­cep­tions of other “dimen­sions”. Could the “super­nat­ur­als” first depic­ted in the painted caves and rock shel­ters be the ancient teach­ers of man­kind? Could it be that human evol­u­tion is not just the “blind”, “mean­ing­less” pro­cess that Dar­win iden­ti­fied, but some­thing else, more pur­pos­ive and Intel­li­gent, that we have barely even begun to understand?

That’s not my cap­ital I in intel­li­gent. I won­der if he’s sur­veyed the mar­ket and worked out where the spare cash is. Intel­li­gent Design advoc­ates have com­plained that they’re not taken ser­i­ously. Super­nat­ural could be what they’re wish­ing for.

Intel­li­gent Design is weak. It’s main line of attack is to try and take down Dar­win­ism. This isn’t actu­ally evid­ence for ID. Nev­er­the­less ID seems to think that it will gain pub­lic accept­ance as the only viable altern­at­ive. They also claim that ID says noth­ing about the nature of the designer, but it’s clear from their own doc­u­ment­a­tion that they expect people to make the leap from Designer to God them­selves because there’s no viable altern­at­ive. Say what you like about Han­cock, he can write and he’s a mas­ter of prop­ping up a story on hearsay. Now he seems to have a tale of mul­tiple, non-theistic design­ers. I think he’s per­fectly cap­able of philo­soph­ic­ally mug­ging the Intel­li­gent Design movement.

There’s an excel­lent paper “Why Cre­ation­ists Don’t Go to Psychic Fairs” by John H. Taylor, Ray­mond A. Eve and Fran­cis B. Har­rold in Kendrick Frazier’s book Encoun­ters with the Paranor­mal. It shows that the credu­lity and tol­er­ance of ideas that exists in the New Age cul­ture is ana­thema to the intol­er­ance of the fun­da­ment­al­ists. The last thing a South­ern Baptist preacher will want to say is “Some people believe in the Chris­tian God, but you never know you might want to sling a few pray­ers Rama’s way too.” So far by try­ing to open up sci­ence to their ‘altern­at­ive’ the Cre­ation­ist lobby have been beat­ing the sci­ent­ists with a New Age snake. I think Gra­ham Han­cock might be about to demon­strate why that is so dan­ger­ous. Can a Chris­tian move­ment really pro­mote a the­ory which ser­i­ously sug­gests that God was one of many beings that you can con­tact with power­ful drugs and pagan rituals?

It’s not going to be any prob­lem for archae­ology any more than his other yarns were. So long as he skips the ‘reli­able evid­ence’ thing I think there’s noth­ing to worry about, at least in an aca­demic sense. I doubt the mis­in­form­a­tion prob­lems will be any worse than usual either. Only if your pos­i­tion isn’t based on reli­able evid­ence would this be explosive.

Of course I should add that if Han­cock has found actual evid­ence of trans-dimensional super-beings steer­ing human­ity then I’ll wel­come his book. The Sign and the Seal, Fin­ger­prints of the Gods, Keeper of Gen­esis, Heaven’s Mir­ror and Under­world were all simplistic and ham­fis­ted romps through antiquity. I’m a sci­ent­ist, I’m sup­posed to be able to spot pat­terns. I think one is sug­gest­ing itself here.