The Dinosaur Dilemma, revisited: ignoring data and calling it ‘science’
During the Recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez in New Jersey, the intolerant disdain for those opposed to the theories of creation science became apparent in the rhetoric from many in the media and the Menendez camp. The most frequent object of hostility and ridicule was an article published on Creation Science Alive by Recall spokeswoman RoseAnn Salanitri, titled The Dinosaur Dilemma. The article challenges the evolutionists’ assumptions about the age of the dinosaurs’ extinction and compares the current standard evolutionary theory regarding the reason for the dinosaurs’ extinction with the creation account.
This article drew much attention and ridicule, most likely because dinosaurs have become one the best known icons for evolutionists, and (primarily on account of the tremendous size of many dinosaur fossils) are used to support the long ages needed to make a theory like evolution seem plausible. Beginning in the early elementary school years, public school children are indoctrinated with theories surrounding the extinction of the dinosaurs that assume the extinction took place 65 million years ago. By doing this evolutionists challenge the biblical creation account that states that the earth was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago (according to Lord Usher’s calculations).
However, recent discoveries challenge the evolutionists’ “theory.” In addition to The Dinosaur Dilemma, Dr. Mary Schweitzer discovered blood cells and fresh tissue in bones of Tyrannosaurus rex. Most people understand that neither blood nor fresh tissue can exist in a 65-million-year-old fossil. Since the Schweitzer discovery, other paleontologists have similarly discovered bone and/or soft tissue in (supposedly) 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossils and (supposedly) 80-million-year-old duck billed dinosaurs. For more information, see “Dinosaur Shocker” by Helen Fields published in Smithsonian.com dated May 2006, “Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found–Blood Vessels, More” published in National Geographic.com, May 1,2009 by John Roach, and an interview with Schweitzer by NOVA at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html.
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”0890512760, 1878026097, 0875523382, 0743290313, 0890514119, 0890514410, 0932766412, 0061472794, 0895262002, 0685459039″ /]
Yet in these articles Schweitzer summarily dismisses her own data, which strongly suggest that the fossils of these creatures cannot be as old as assumed. Instead Schweitzer makes such statements as, “work is showing us we really don’t understand decay.” What Schweitzer and her colleagues are saying is that they want another explanation, since they cannot begin to accept that their former assumptions about age can be wrong! In the NOVA interview, Schweitzer recounts how she made her lab assistant repeat the procedure that revealed the blood and tissue quite a few times, since she just refused to believe that it could exist. If this isn’t a typical case of not letting the facts get in the way of what you believe, then perhaps there is no such case.
While Schweitzer has stated, “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” this rationale doesn’t seem to apply to theories that contradict long-held evolutionary beliefs in long ages. As regards biblical beliefs, Schweitzer appears comfortable confessing her belief in the Bible but uncomfortable acknowledging that it is the inerrant Word of God and true in all areas that it speaks. While this rationale may work for Schweitzer, it doesn’t for others—with good reason.