Skip to main content

Missionary Lizards?

Over at Answers in Genesis, Buddy Davis has an idea. Well, it isn't necessarily his idea, but his article encapsulates creationist thinking on the topic; how can we use dinosaurs to spread creationism? He rightly points out that dinosaurs are used to teach evolution and millions of years...because they are a prime example of evolution in the fossil record and existed for millions of year. No humans, by the way, which I suppose is sadly necessary to mention. No humans until almost sixty million years after the dinosaurs died out.

Never mind that many Christians are not creationists, Davis wants to speak for all of them. Because of course, we all know that the Christians who accept evolution are really just a bunch of liberal compromisers destined for hell, naturally. He asserts that Christians can use dinosaurs to explain the origin of death. Oh, that's right, creationists assert that there is no death before the Fall of Adam and Eve, so they have to explain away the fossil record, charting millions of years of death long before any humans walked the planet. And dinosaurs were created during the six-day Creation event, how silly of me to forget.

So in the creationist mind, dinosaurs existed with humans, at least until after the Flood. Imagine with me, if you would be so kind, what these terrible lizards must have eaten if there was no death before the Fall. Sauropods ate plants, just like they did after the Fall. But surely the image of a tyrannosaur, velociraptor or even a spinosaurus eating plants, the tyrannosaur with teeth like a set of brand-new steak knives, is a mental picture to make anyone laugh, even the most die-hard creationists. And if dinosaurs were aboard the Ark, which took place after the Fall, then presumably there were carnivores on board. Perhaps that's why there aren't any unicorns today, the pair of tyrannosaurs ate them on the Ark (for unicorns are mentioned in the Bible, just in case you wondered--if you don't believe me, look at Job 39 and Psalms 29. Use the King James Version; my NIV translation has rendered it rather dishonestly as "wild ox").

Regardless of that, Davis asserts that dinosaurs were on the Ark, but likely died out afterwards because of numerous factors (I imagine that lack of genetic diversity, a problem for any species with so few numbers, was a factor). The author fingers a post-Flood Ice Age as a cause. Except that there isn't any geologic evidence for a worldwide flood much less an ice event following it. Nor is there any evidence that all manner of animals existing in the fossil record happened to live at the same time period, none. Instead, there are numerous levels of geological strata, encapsulating different epochs of life's history. We don't find trilobites with humans or rabbits, nor dinosaurs with giant ground sloths or mammoths. It just doesn't happen. To pretend that it did, that much of the fossil record is testament to a giant, worldwide Flood, does a great disservice to all the work in geology and paleontology that's been done in almost three hundred years. It cheapens the history of the world down to the level of a trite museum in Kentucky where dinosaurs wear saddles. The real history of the world, with its vast epochs of time and mind-staggering amount of biological diversity, is an amazing and wonderful story. I challenge anyone to go to the Carnegie Museum, look at the new dinosaur exhibit especially, and not be moved by the experience. To know that such creatures existed, even if we were not there to witness it, is humbling.

If Davis thinks, as he does, that putting dinosaurs on the Ark is going to bring unbelievers to Christ, he is in for a very bad surprise. It may work on a few, but overall the spectacle of creationism will undermine Christianity to most sane people who can see what a ridiculous farce Ken Ham and all his assorted hangers-on are. Missionary lizards? In creationist hands they become emissaries of stupidity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...