When someone gave us this chunky dinosaur puzzle, I did a double-take. Yes, that’s a caveman there with the dinosaurs:
The blurb on the company’s website says that, along with the puzzle, “ The accompanying board book teaches young learners about dinosaurs.” Teaches, that is, with lessons like this:
A little harmless fun, or a little creationist indoctrination? (Do sociologists even believe in “harmless fun”?)
According to the Shure company, they deliver these “common threads” in all their products: “Originality and inventiveness; Excellence in design; Attention to detail; Exceptional quality; Educational merit.” So, not just entertainment.
A quick perusal suggests the rest of their products are not creationist — just the usual toy-gendering. They do have a Noah’s Ark puzzle, but it doesn’t claim to be educational. In that Shure is just keeping up Melissa & Doug (whose puzzle is at least Genesis-correct in not naming Noah’s wife):
And anyway, the story of Noah’s Ark is actually not a bad way to talk about reproduction.
But back to dinosaurs and people. Dinosaurs are not really more problematic for creationism than any other creatures that pre-date humans. But maybe because kids love dinosaurs so much, creationists spend inordinate energy trying to place them chronologically with people. Writes one such site:
The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
Up against this kind of propaganda, it is tempting to bring the hammer down on “harmless fun” featuring humans and dinosaurs playing together. That would mean no B.C. comic, no Flinstones, and no Barney either. That is basically the argument of James Wilson, a University of Sussex lecturer, who has a talk on the subject here on Youtube.
In any case, we may be so used to seeing toys or other products like this — with humans and dinosaurs side-by-side — that we forget to ask whether they’re teaching kids a lesson, one that is at odds with science.
————————
By the way, for non-biologists, like me, who like evolution and want some ammunition to defend it, I recommend Richard Dawkins’ recent book The Greatest Show on Earth. Some do find it a little dogmatic, and in the grand scheme I prefer Stephen Jay Gould, but it’s good for this purpose. Because rather than block access to dinosaur cartoons, I would rather arm myself – and the surrounding children – with the tools they need to handle them with confidence.
Philip N. Cohen is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, and writes the blog Family Inequality. You can follow him on Twitter or Facebook.
Comments 88
Eneya — July 11, 2011
My initial furst question was "so if we don't see something with our own eyes or haven't been there to see, it didn't happen? how about the genesis in the bible then?" when I heard for the first time about the creatosnism ideas. I was 9 I believe.
Umlud — July 11, 2011
Although I always liked the Flintstones, even as a child I knew that these were not depictions of reality, but were cartoons. Similarly, for some reason, I always knew that people and dinosaurs weren't around at the same time. Perhaps this was because no people -- and no mammals and no birds -- were shown in my dinosaur books. Of course, if I was given a book like the one above, it might have confused me a little bit: people seem to put stock in the written word (and in books in general), and if parents (or people in authority) don't correct the associations and thoughts presented in those books.
Liza Shankar — July 11, 2011
This article is one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen.
Anonymous — July 11, 2011
Note that Johnny Hart (creator of the B.C. comic strip) was a conservative Christian who infrequently put overtly religious messages into his comic strip, so the creationist interpretation might be intentional.
Barney, on the other hand, is a toy dinosaur who comes to life "from our imagination" if we "just make-believe him" -- and I suspect PBS takes pains to clarify that *precisely* because they don't want to suggest that people and dinosaurs coexisted.
Oh, but the Flintstones -- so gleefully anachronistic at every turn, dinosaurs are the *least* of it! I'm put in mind of Walt Disney's (likely apocryphal) reply to the woman who complained that the deer in Bambi did something that didn't conform to natural deer behavior: "The deer don't talk, either, ma'am."
Larrycharleswilson — July 11, 2011
I'm reminded of a student I had in the 1970s who suggested in a very cogent manner that the "remains" of ancient Greece and Rome had been created out of whole cloth sometime in the 17th or 18th centuries.
Anonymous — July 11, 2011
I'm not really convinced that the dinosaurs-and-people thing is really a creationist issue so much as a "deep time is pretty vast" issue. This goes along with the fact that not every extinct animal is a dinosaur, the fact that dinosaurs are relative newcomers compared to a lot of the diversity in the fossil record, and the fact that there are still plenty of dinosaurs around today, in the form of birds.
I'm not seeing you complaining that the pterosaur isn't a dinosaur and how dare they call it one when it's not. I'm also not seeing you complaining about the lack of feathers on the Velociraptor or the fact that they've reconstructed the Velociraptor to be the size of a human, when in fact Velociraptor was about knee-high.
Kids like dinosaurs because dinosaurs are big, exciting, scary, and are fertile ground for a child's imagination. Dinosaurs are also an early opportunity for children to master knowledge about something. The fact that dinosaur facts are the first opportunity many children have to correct an adult is, IMO, relevant in understanding how children interact with dinosaur media.
In the case of people-with-dinosaurs in children's media, I think the purpose is less to promote creationism and more about either using dinosaurs to draw attention to the behavior of the people involved, or serves as a vehicle by which the child can imagine interactions with those dinosaurs. I think there's also a historical connection to classic films like Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, The Lost World, The Land that Time Forgot, The Valley of Gwangi, etc. where there was significant interaction between dinosaurs and people, less for the sake of communicating any sort of "creationist" agenda and more because that's what moviegoers wanted to see.
Creationism is its own problem with its own sociological causes. I think it does evolutionary biology and the support of accurate scientific education a disservice by claiming that The Flintstones is secret creationist propaganda, though.
Guest — July 11, 2011
"And anyway, the story of Noah’s Ark is actually not a bad way to talk about reproduction."
Though it does present a very 'pragmatic' view of affective relationships, human and non-human, as important primarily/solely for reproductive purposes. (Granted, exceptional circumstances prevailed during the Flood, I suppose.) Perhaps more importantly, it reinscribes a very heteronormative and binary-gendered view, presenting the entire animal kingdom as comprised of (only) two sexes per species and (only) heterosexual pairings -- both certainly untrue. (The irony of this is highlighted in that puzzle image by the inclusion of the Noahic Covenant's rainbow -- yet no room for queerness on the ark!)
AlgebraAB — July 11, 2011
"Because rather than block access to dinosaur cartoons, I would rather
arm myself – and the surrounding children – with the tools they need to
handle them with confidence."
This seems quite hyperbolic to me. Children's media is full of all kinds of fantastical situations that are odds with reality. As far as I can tell, most children have no problem learning how to parse reality from fiction as they grow older. If anything, most of the children I know who were dino-obsessed in their youth (and I include myself in this category) ended up being more science-oriented than the average child, and less likely to believe in creationism or what have you. Merely an anecdote but I have a hard time believing that large numbers of youth are being irreparably damaged by a scientifically inaccurate toy.
Guest — July 11, 2011
Barney is set in the present day, as opposed to The Flintstones. B.C.'s setting is assumed to be the past, but it makes some modern references, and an argument can be made that it's set in a post-apocalyptic future.
Blix — July 11, 2011
Why is the thought of an all-knowing Creator such a laughable idea for the "intelligent" human mind? Is it not obvious that not one of us knows all there is to know? It is rare to see evolutionists give creation a fair shake, but that is to be expected: 1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”
Personally, I would rather know that I have a purpose on earth than to believe that I came from an ancient accident.
Basio — July 11, 2011
I suddenly understand how the Christian Right sees efforts to indoctrinate their children into secularism everywhere they go.
A creationist family will use this to show how men played with dinosaurs. A rational family will have long since introduced their child to the idea that people didn't really live with dinos, and hopefully will have taken their kids to a couple of museums or given them some interesting books. This will not sway a child to believe any more than a devoutly Christian child would throw down their Bible and stomp on it just because they hear "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
Now, were this used in schools to teach children, I might understand your objection. However, toys like this are meaningless without the force of a human being behind it saying "this is truth" or "this is fiction." That's why children understand that Cinderella and Belle are fiction but Anastasia was not-- because there are adults telling them the difference.
Anonymous — July 11, 2011
Why would you think of learning about evolutionary biology as acquiring ammunition? I'm a student in that area, so I'm more than a bit biased, but I think it should be fascinating as a science in its own right.
In fact, even though I can provide ample evidence of evolution, I have never tried to convince anyone of it who was not receptive, since I know that the most likely outcome of such an exchange would be hurt feelings but no changed minds.
Will L. — July 11, 2011
Glad they didn't overly gender the animals in the Noah's arc puzzle...
Interesting fact, there were 7 pairs of "clean" animals, and 1 pair on unclean animals according to the myth.
More easy-to-understand sites that explain evolution and provide counterarguments against creationist claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
Anonymous — July 11, 2011
Hm. The lesson on that page is about the size and speed of velociraptors based on a scale a 4 year old can easily comprehend (seeing as children reading picture books with blocks generally are too young to have formed concrete ideas about standardized measurements such as "feet" or "meters"). I was a dinosaur fanatic at that age, and had many books that would place a picture of a human man (or in one case, Michael Jordan standing on Shaquille O'Niels shoulders) next to a dinosaur for reference, or less technically educational books which would have "caveman and pet dinosaur" adventures, and even one of those DIY-books, in which me and my cousins got into a time machine to visit talking dinosaurs. Very early on (maybe age 3) I was aware that dinosaurs and people could not have coexisted, because these books often would state this, either explicitly ("these pictures are just for fun, cavemen never lived with dinosaurs") or implicitly ("dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago" when even in church we were taught the humanity is only several thousand years old). Now, this DID lead me to draw some wacky conclusions about humanity, religion, and dinosaurs at ages 5 and 6, but if that page is the closest thing to evidence that this is secret creationist propaganda, then more influence would have to be given to a child (for example, parents saying "yes, dinosaurs and people roamed the garden of eden together") I don't think their immediate conclusion is something that would directly contradict information likely contained right in the book.
Just8duck — July 12, 2011
i find it interesting that no one ever drags out the genetic problem of Noah's ark how can only two animals make so many different types of animals? lets take dogs for example lets say Noah had a sheep dog one male one female after they got off the boat they repopulated the earth they are still sheep dogs! Not chows, lads, or corggies!
Would that not bring into Noah's ark evolution?
but to smash a myth into pieces what about inbreeding? those animals no longer have a family tree it's a stick! The slim genetic material would cause a wide amount of problems! Back to looking a dogs. Pure breeds have breather problems, hip dysplasia, blindness, and neurological disorders just to name a few!
Djiril — July 12, 2011
Whatever you think of the portrayal of dinosaurs with cave-people, I think I should point out that Barney is a toy that comes to life in a modern setting, not an actual dinosaur hanging out with cave-children.
DarkwingDuckie — July 12, 2011
My parents are very Catholic but they are also scientists and taught ne, gasp, evolution. I also watched the Flinstones and, gasp, not even when I was 5 did I belive that humans and dinasours lived together. I also watched other fantastical fairytales and as my parents are huge sci-fi freaks, lots of alian involving stories. I think kids deserve a lot more credit because they can decipher what is real and what is fiction, at least as long as their parents don't teach it to them.
William Angel — July 12, 2011
Concerning the statement in the original post, which was excerpted from Creationist literature:
"In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old."
One rebuttal is:
"Dating a fossil in terms of approximately how many years old it is can be possible using radio-isotope dating of igneous rocks found near the fossil."
Christian — July 13, 2011
.It is entertaining to read about evolution on a sociological / feminist blog.
After all, evolution also implies that men and women have to develop differently because of differences in costs of pregnancy, because they have different interests and therefore a different evolutionary pressure. This is all the more so because human children are very dependent and the pregnancy lasts for very long compared to other animals.
And the evolutionary theory of sexual selection requires heritable characteristics for attractiveness. In Queer theory, however, it is just assumed that they are non-existent and you can be attracted to anyone.
There are a lot of contradictions between the theory of evolution and feminism/sociology.
Niki — July 13, 2011
I don't think I've ever said this on this website before, but this is ridiculous and an explicit example of reading too much into things in a really big way. This might be teaching inaccurate science to kids. But it's hardly "creationist indoctrination." That's beyond a stretch, that's practically paranoia.
Gynomite’s Reading Room! « Gynomite! — July 13, 2011
[...] Who is teaching creationism to kids? The Flintstones? A great story (with pictures!) at Sociological Images! [...]
An Open Minded Woman — July 13, 2011
I just want to point out that evidence for and against either/or evolutionism and creationism aside, people have the right to believe what they want, right or wrong. I don't go around whining about how prevelant evolutionism theory is in my kids play things - why can't those who dislike/disbelieve creationism cut us the same break? Like you said, "I would rather arm myself - and the surrounding children - with the tools they need to handle (issues) with confidence." It goes both ways.
Turtles all the way down! — December 3, 2011
And Velociraptors were NOT as big as humans. *facepalm* They were about the size of turkeys. Jurassic Park was a g****mn movie.
Blix — April 16, 2012
Here is a short list of some of the media that indocrinates about evolution (notice how many are aimed at children):
The Incredibles
Finding Nemo
Spiderman
X-Men
Creature From the Black Lagoon
The Incredible Mr. Limpet
Ice Age
Animal Planet
National Geographic
PBS Kids
Friends
Commercials
CSI
Bob the Builder
Spongebob
Jimmy Neutron
Jurassic Park
melanie johnson — April 25, 2016
Unless they're talking about avian dinosaurs.
ausmalbilder kinder — November 1, 2023
You can test your child's creativity at the free coloring pages at https://ausmalbilderkinder.de/
ausmalbilder — November 1, 2023
homepage: https://ausmalbilderkinder.de/