Dinosaurs - Part 1

I was asked to do a post on dinosaurs and how they fit in with the Bible. This is a great topic suggestion since it is something that most Christians will wrestle with from time to time. It’s also a great topic since it automatically leads to discussions about the age of the earth, the sequence of evolution, and ultimately how ought we to read the creation story in Genesis.

To start, we need to acknowledge that dinosaurs once existed on earth. There is an overwhelming amount of fossil evidence that makes it foolish for us to think otherwise. To put things in perspective, there are over 1000 different species of dinosaurs that have been discovered and named. One of the largest collections of dinosaur fossils discovered is near Drumheller, Alberta in place called Dinosaur Valley. If you are ever in that area, you should plan to make a stop at the Royal Tyrell Museum.

So since they did exist, when did they exist? This is where many Christians start to squirm a bit in their seats. The common scientific claim is that dinosaurs roamed the earth about 230 million years ago, and died out after a massive meteor hit the earth about 65 million years ago (see the Sept 20, 2010 posting called Asteroid Collision). And when people date the age of the earth using the Bible, they typically come up with 6500 years. So something doesn’t add up.

A second troubling claim of science is that dinosaurs died out long before man appeared on the planet, around 100,000 years ago. That’s a huge gap of time that we can’t fit anywhere in the 6 day creation week.

So how do we reconcile these differences? That’s the BIG question isn’t it? God has revealed His truth in the Bible, but He has also revealed His truth in His Creation. They seem to be out of alignment – how do we bring them together?

I have found that there are three typical approaches that people take to this reconciliation. The first one is what I’ll refer to as the “Literal Bible” – people start with the position that the Genesis account of creation in 6 days of 24 hours each is irrefutable. This implies that dinosaurs were created during that week, and existed at the same time as humans. So, the dating methods used for determining when dinosaurs existed must be wrong. The fact that no dinosaur fossils have be found near human bones (or other mammal bones) is strictly a coincidence. There are oblique references to large animals found in the Bible (see Job 40:15-24 for a description of the behemoth, or Psalm 104:25,26 for the leviathan), and many attribute these to dinosaurs. Organizations such as Answers in Genesis have gone to great lengths to make science fit into the “literal Bible”. I applaud their efforts and their desire to provide alternative explanations for scientific evidence that fits into Biblical accounts. This works for many people, but not for me. I find they can alienate people in the scientific community by criticizing their work and dismissing what most scientists accept as factual information regarding things like the age of the earth. I also fear they may be making the same mistake the church made with Galileo regarding the scientific discovery that the sun does not orbit the earth but the earth orbits the sun. The church threatened Galileo with expulsion unless he recanted. Over 400 years later, the church admitted the scientific evidence was overwhelming and finally issued an apology. They accepted that the Biblical verses they originally felt were in contradiction with science were poetic and metaphorical, not scientific. But that event was one of the pivotal moments that started the breakdown in the relationship between the church and science. If we want to reach out to the scientific community and let them know that they can believe in God and still be scientists, I don’t think telling them that their basic assumptions are all wrong is a good starting point.

The second typical approach is at the other extreme end of the spectrum in what I’ll refer to as the “Liberal Bible” – people start with the position that science is essentially correct and that the creation account in Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. They use science to guide how the Bible ought to be read. If there appears to be a contradiction between science and a Bible verse, we shouldn’t take that Bible verse literally. So when the science tells us that the earth is billions of years old and formed over millions of years, this means the creation story in Genesis shouldn’t be taken literally. They argue that the creation story is presented in a format that gives us a pattern for how we should live our lives – work six days then have a day of rest. It’s not meant to be a play-by-play account of the process God used to create the universe. Basically, this group takes the opposite approach to the “literal Bible” group. Instead of making science fit into the Bible, they make Biblical accounts fit in with scientific evidence. Most of the people in this camp accept the earth is billions of years old, life started with single celled organisms and evolved into all other life forms we have today (including humans) over millions of years, a global flood never occurred (only a regional flood affecting a limited area), and dinosaurs died millions of years before humans were created. Many Christians are not comfortable with this approach since it allows science to direct how we should read the Bible, and in their eyes, it diminishes the mystery and power of God. There is the fear that as science continues to advance, the Bible becomes less relevant. Overall, this approach works better with people who have a scientific background, but doesn’t often build bridges with people who have traditional views about the inerrancy of the Bible.

So if these two extreme approaches don’t work for you, what approach can we take? That will be covered in the next post and here’s a hint – a Canadian quarter makes an appearance.

Questions and Comments?

1. Have you had conversations with people about dinosaurs and the Bible? How did that go?
2. Have you checked out Answers in Genesis or similar websites? What do you think of their approach?

Jac