While there are very useful specific criteria posted here ( publication in established academic journals that have editorial oversight, degrees in relevant fields, etc ) I have found a very handy way to quickly distinguish a historian from a crank is their willingness and ability to articulate different sides to a dispute. Cranks tend to be extremely well-read in sources for positions they already like, tend to not be able to bring themselves to read and understand disparate ones that may not be so agreeable to their biases,

Right, so... I would worry less about what type of degree he has, and more about his publications. Most of his books have been collaborative works. Considering his degree, he was either giving a geologist's perspective of the relevant topic, or the other author has lost their marbles and decided to let this guy talk freely about subjects he doesn't quite have the authority to address. Also, one of his only monographs is a methodologies book - which isn't exactly a huge deal.

More importantly, perhaps, are his journals. The only articles relevant to his degree were published in actual academic journals, and of those there weren't more than two if I'm remembering correctly. What's more interesting are his publications in Atlantis Rising. One Google search should give you an idea of what that magazine is all about. Basically Ancient Aliens meets Popular Science. I'm guessing this is where most of his exposure comes from, and it's not the best kind. In a sense, his lack of a degree in an historic subject insulates him from any fallout in that academic circle, as no historian worth their salt would seek to publish in Atlantis Rising (at least I hope not).

At any rate... History seems to be a hobby for this guy, and he may or may not be good at it. But he certainly hasn't established anything close to what I would consider a respectable reputation within the subject.

From a quick search is it fair to say that as an “associate professor of Natural Sciences” who “teaches undergraduate science courses, including biology, geology, environmental science, geography, and science and public policy”, he is not a professional historian?

So, we've had a couple of threads on this recently:

• Here on how historians engage with history with answers from /u/sunagainstgold and myself

• A very pertinent one on how to evaluate historical claims as a laymen by /u/restricteddata and myself

• Here on the "types" of historians

• And here another one on how historians engage with history

In this case, some things have already been said but a couple of more things that bear pointing out: Geologists are not archaeologists and while cross-expertise is possible, it is rare. Generally, claims (especially earth-shattering claims such as this person seems to make) outside a specific field can be regarded with caution. Secondly, while not always correct, the humanities too work with Occam's Razor and the what results from that method from a convergence of evidence. Also, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence: The likelihood of one world-spanning civilization because people at various places and times put rocks on top of each other similarly is... unlikely to say the least. Thirdly, the medium: While Joe Rogan is probably an entertaining man, it is hardly the venue to discuss serious advanced in historiography.

This is such a great post to read on the heels of listening to Malcolm Gladwell's Latest episode of Revisionist History "A Polite word of a liar" Which is about the correct telling of history, or a certain story in one's history.