Between 1991 and 1994, ABC aired a sitcom called "Dinosaurs" (now available on Disney+), which centred around the Sinclair family - a family of anthropomorphic dinosaurs adjusting to domestic life. Being such a recent development in their own history, this adjustment is difficult, as the dinosaurs begin to build their new society from the ground up. The result is a toxic community filled with injustice, abuse, and overdramatic absurdity.
As many sitcoms are, Dinosaurs is a satirical take on modern life. The dilemmas and scenarios in which the characters find themselves serve not only to entertain, but also to promote intelligent thought about the issues our own society faces on a regular basis. While one could question its effectiveness, there is one episode that stands out to me.
The Plot Of "The Greatest Story Ever Sold"
The third episode of the fourth season is entitled "The Greatest Story Ever Sold", which begins with "story time". Baby Sinclair (yes, that is the character's actual name) asks his father, Earl, "where did the first mommy and daddy come from? How did we all get here? And why are we here?" Earl stammers and ponders, before exploding "I don't know!" A chain reaction begins, as Earl takes this question to work with him, spreading the question from dinosaur to dinosaur. As society begins to break down, "The Council of Elders", a mysterious government-like organisation in the dinosaur community, seek to punish Baby Sinclair for asking the question and causing the practical downfall of Pangean society.
Robbie Sinclair poses an alternative solution. Since the questions are already out there, an open forum should be held to pursue the answers. The Council runs with this idea, but with a twist. They don't care about truth, only that the answers must be so simple that even the dumbest dinosaur could understand them, and everyone would get back to work. After just three dinosaurs are given a say, it is ruled that Potatoism is the source of all answers to the great questions of life.
Potatoism is initially introduced by a dinosaur in a wizard costume, who theorises that "A giant magic flying potato swoops down, makes a few magical gestures, bing bang boom, universe!" Following the court ruling, a television announcement expounds upon this newly developing religion, answering three specific questions:
Where did dinosaurs come from? Dinosaurs, and all living things, were created by the Great Potato, who is described as "an omnipotent, all knowing, starchy tuber who rules the universe".
What is the nature of dinosaurs? Dinosaurs are said to be essentially miniature potatoes, springing forth from the earth with eyes to see the world around it, and lots of potassium.
What is "our" (the dinosaurs') purpose on this Earth? Our purpose is to serve the Great Potato by giving our troubled, questioning minds a rest, confident that the great Book of Potato will give us all the answers we need.
Most dinosaurs quickly adjust to the new state religion, including Fran Sinclair, the matriarch of the Sinclair family. But as the case usually is, Robbie, the rebel figure of the family who constantly questions tradition and champions radical causes, is disgusted at how easily everyone else fell for this nonsense. Fran reassures him, stating "Sometimes it's better to have some answers than no answers at all."
The following day, Robbie finds Potatoism has also been introduced to his science class. As the teacher initially declares that this is the right place to scrutinise Potatoism, as the quest for truth is paramount in the science classroom, Robbie is relieved. However, he is quickly disappointed when the teacher whips out a copy of The Book of Potato and declares it a handy index to all life's answers. This causes a verbal conflict as Robbie declares "this is supposed to be a science class, but there's nothing scientific about it!", before asking if the teacher realises the societal implications of ceasing to ask questions and relying on that book to rule our lives. Following the instructions of the book, the teacher expels Robbie from school on the spot, and declares him a social outcast.
Back in the Sinclair household, another television announcement declares that Potatoism now answers questions the dinosaurs have never thought of, on top of the questions they have. Should I work late even when I'm not getting paid for it? Yes. May I send the government extra money on top of my income tax? Yes, as much as possible. In spite of being on the TV, the chief elder even hears Fran ask Earl if he wants rice or stuffing, and immediately declares "The answer is stuffing!"
In walks a very disgruntled Robbie, telling his family they are being brainwashed. After handing his mother a note explaining that he has been expelled for "questioning all known belief and threatening to obliterate the foundations of social order", Robbie doubles down and asserts that the Council are making Potatoism up and feeding everyone easy answers to pacify them and control their lives. Earl suggests this is actually a good thing, and that our lives could stand to be controlled by an omniscient source. "A potato!?", Robbie scoffs. Earl rushes to get the Book of Potato, receiving more scorn from Robbie, who sarcastically tells him not to think on his own, but to look up all the answers to their problems.
As he storms off, he passes yet another television, which seems to be in every room in the Sinclair house. The TV displays an ad, asking if the audience feel alienated, or if their maverick views make them feel like the only sane voice in a world gone mad? Robbie, of course, answers yes, and is immediately told "Well you're wrong! Embrace Potatoism, be like everybody else!"
Off goes the TV, as an annoyed Robbie is approached by his parents. Apparently seeking reconciliation, they tell him these issues need to be worked on as a family. But that doesn't last long, as the parents announce they have summoned some "trained councilers" to help guide Robbie. The councillors, however, show up and arrest him, as a confused Fran realises it was a mistake to call them.
The next scene shows Robbie tied to a stake, of course reminiscent of heretic burnings. The chief elder, standing before a crowd, charges Robbie with undermining the belief system the dinosaurs have held sacred "since the beginning of, well, this week." As the crowd prepare to burn Robbie, Charlene Sinclair (Robbie's sister), and Fran, encourage Earl to intervene, but he suggests the book of Potato should have some kind of answer. As earl flicks through the book, Fran asks what it could possibly say that would justify this? Earl fails to find anything, and announces "It doesn't say! I guess this book doesn't have all the answers!"
Up on the stake he goes! And he's quickly forced to eat humble pie by Robbie, as the crowd begins to chant "Burn them! Burn them!" As the fire is lit, Robbie points out that the crowd don't care about truth, but want easy answers, forcing Earl to admit that the easy answers aren't always the best ones. But just as the Chief Elder announces "Nothing on Earth can alter the sacred will of the Po-Ta-To", a mysterious wind blows through the area, extinguishing the fire.
The crowd begins to question how the Potato could allow this to happen, and a sheepish looking elder says "it's not for us to try to understand the mysterious ways of the Potato", because its plan is beyond mere mortals. It's too late, however. Everyone realises the Elder is making this all up as he goes along, and he doesn't have a clue. But this just returns the issue raised at the beginning of the episode. The dinosaurs want answers.
Fran pipes up. We all need answers, but it's a huge mistake to accept the first answer for sake of having one. One of the dinosaurs responds with "but we like that because it's easy". "But it turned out to be a fraud, didn't it? So what have you learned?" The moral one dinosaur takes away is "Well, we have to explore and think, and after a personal spiritual quest, decide the answers for ourselves." Another dinosaur suggests killing everyone who doesn't agree, but Fran insists that everyone must be allowed to believe what they want to believe.
Ironically, though this seems to be the main takeaway of the episode, it, too, falls under scrutiny, as the dinosaurs begin doing just that: Making a bunch of stuff up for themselves. Fran recognises their right to believe their made up nonsense, which is no better than Potatoism, but visibly recognises the insanity of the newly formulated beliefs. As the dinosaurs begin formulating their own religions, everyone forgets about poor Earl and Robbie, who remain chained up, but looking at the stars and pondering their origins.
Religious themes of the episode
While most other sitcoms, like Family Guy and South Park, are equal opportunity offenders, Dinosaurs makes little effort to conceal its biases, apparently being oblivious to the fact it even has any. That is especially the case in this episode, which is clearly designed to criticise Judeo-Christianity, especially Biblical Creationism. It even uses just about every atheistic stereotype one could imagine. The only thing it's lacking, which actually does appear elsewhere in the series (not that I remember exactly where), is some vague reference to "how do you explain the fossils?"
In spite of its blatant satirization of my deeply held religious beliefs, I actually rather enjoyed this episode, and the series as a whole. While it conveys some false beliefs, and abysmal arguments for them, the ultimate goal, I believe, is to encourage the same critical thought that shows us why these beliefs are false. This episode, and many others, open the door for discussing religious issues that are still relevant today. It also portrays a number of religious stereotypes that exist, but the discussion would benefit from their absence. Thus, for the rest of this article, I want to discuss the themes and implications of this particular episode of Dinosaurs.
The questions and answers
A major premise within the episode is that everyone wants answers to particular philosophical questions, but all they want is answers. It doesn't matter how true those answers are. The Potatoists are comfortable with the wrong answers just because it is an answer, especially if it's an easy answer. By contrast, Robbie is content with not knowing the answers, though he still wants to pursue them. He is, of course, portrayed as the rational figure in the story - and in a way, he is. He is the personification of that old quote, attributed to Richard Feynman: "I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."
But what's interesting here is that we, the audience, know exactly where these dinosaurs come from, and why they exist. And no, I'm not talking about God just yet. No, these dinosaurs in particular began in the mind of Jim Henson, who unfortunately died while working on the show (1). But his legacy did not die with him. Bob Young and Michael Jacobs continued to bring the show into reality, with the help of writers like Dave Caplan and Tim Doyle.
This, ironically, means the show mocks Intelligent Design while being a fantastic example of it. Not that this ever comes up in the show. If there are any references to the show's creators, I was oblivious to it. However, the fact remains that the dinosaurs in this show are intelligently designed, and that is the answer to their questions.
So let's imagine the plot remains roughly the same, but rather than some weird, wizard looking dinosaur suggesting the Great Potato does some "bing bang boom" magic, he is passed over for a dinosaur who posits that a human being once conceived of their existence, and a bunch of people collaborated to create their costumes, their world, and even write their lines. He could even claim "I know this because this line was written for me by Jim Henson himself!"
If everything else remained roughly the same, we would no longer perceive Robbie as the rational figure. He wouldn't be an honest truth seeker, being content with not having the answers, but looking for them anyway. Rather, he would be unreasonably skeptical, and actually, would have rejected the correct answer purely because he didn't like it.
Tipping the hand
We see, then, that it is the situation that makes Robbie appear to be the reasonable one, rather than the mindset he possesses. But one has to question, why is it that this is the go to strategy for atheists?
The thing about Potatoism is it is both inherently and self evidently irrational. We see this in Robbie's response to Earl suggesting their lives could stand to be controlled by an omniscient source. "A potato?!", he cries, indignantly. And this is both an accurate summary of Potatoism, and something we inherently recognise as irrational.
However, "a God?!" doesn't sound quite as insane. Why? Simply because God, adequately defined, possesses all the attributes necessary to create the universe in which we live. Is it any wonder, then, that instead of just saying "a God?!", atheists have to reduce Him to a "flying magic man", a "cosmic Jewish zombie", or a "sky daddy"? Or why they have to make up silly things like Sagan's dragon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Celestial Teapot, or even Potatoism itself?
When atheists do this, they are making a tacit confession: Christianity will not make itself look stupid. Atheists have to put the work in to make it look stupid. That's very telling, and actually leads us down another path. See, on the one hand, atheists tacitly admit that they know Christianity is rational by satirising it in irrational ways. On the other hand, while it's not inherently irrational, it is strange, especially in a culture that continually reinforces this strangeness with false stereotypes, straw man arguments, and bad satire. But through this example, we find that even the genuinely strange answers aren't implausible purely by virtue of appearing strange.
Once again, the show's origins are a good example here. If Robbie was to doubt the existence of Jim Henson, he would be wrong, but actually quite in step with his own culture. See, in spite of the depiction of humans and dinosaurs living alongside one another being a mortal sin in Evolution, humans actually do exist in the show. But they're primitive. Stupid. With the exception of one episode, they barely have the ability to speak, much less create the entire dinosaur world. Thus, Robbie would no doubt find his actual origins as unbelievable as Potatoism. There's no way something as dumb as a human could create something as intelligent as Robbie.
But obviously, the humans Robbie was familiar with are quite different from his creators. Real humans are very intelligent beings, and throughout history, have made great scientific advancements - including the advancements required to make the Dinosaurs world. In an even greater way, God is unique in all eternity. Nothing like Him exists. So it's not even a case of we can look at a god in this world and wonder how anyone could believe one of those made us. He is as beyond our comprehension as the natural laws we have barely begun to grasp.
The scientific aspect
Speaking of natural laws, the episode features a science class which takes place shortly after Potatoism has been introduced to society. His teacher announces that this is the ideal place to scrutinise Potatoism, because in science, the quest for truth is paramount. But Robbie is quickly disappointed, because Potatoism is suddenly dominant, and so Robbie declares "there's nothing scientific about it!"
This scene draws attention to three important points. First, there is the origins of science itself. Second, there are the scientific implications of philosophical questions. Third, ironically, there is the issue of projection here.
The origins of science
♪ Sinclairs, meet the Sinclairs, they're a modern stone age anthropomorphic dinosaur family! ♪
For those who don't recognise it, that was a reference to a much earlier stone age sitcom entitled "The Flintstones". In spite of its age, being initially aired in 1960, The Flintstones remains popular to this very day. Much like Dinosaurs, The Flintstones features a lot of modernistic anachronisms, but with a stone age twist. They have vehicles and other machines, functioning homeware, and all sorts of other things, including TV. Most notably, they have Christmas! In 1994, they even released a movie based on A Christmas Carol. This really stretches people's suspension of disbelief, because how, exactly, did a Stone Age family celebrate the birth of the incarnate Son of God centuries before He was born?
The exact same principle is displayed in this episode. See, just as Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, science celebrates His creation. It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of early scientists were devout Christians, many of whom were more prolific authors of theological works than scientific. Isaac Newton, for example, was a powerful defender of the Christian faith, and a fierce opponent of atheism, in particular.
It is a fact that even most atheistic scholars will admit: Science is a Christian invention. In particular, it is a product of the Reformation. This is because Christianity is the only religion that produces the mindset required for science to thrive. As Loren Eilsley puts it, "...science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." (2).
This does not mean, as the common straw man goes, that you must be a Christian to do science. A basic principle in Christianity is that God shows no partiality, His creation works in the identical manner for anyone within it. Thus, when you dig in the same gold mine, you'll still find gold. It's just that Christians are the ones who knew where, how, and originally why to dig.
This brings us back to the disconnect between Potatoism and the faith it was designed to satirise. In the real world, God gave us Christianity, and Christianity gave us the philosophy of experimental science. In the show, by contrast, science already existed, somehow, then some random dinosaur decided there was a magic flying potato who poofed the universe into existence. If the show was to be more true to life, however, the religion would be Hensonism, then Hensonism would give rise to the philosophy of experimental science, then some numpty would come along and claim dinosaurs evolved from lizards, and science class would become completely off limits for anyone who believed in Jim Henson. Robbie, as the amanist, would be most comfortable in this class.
Scientific implications of philosophy
A bigger problem is that science class is actually the worst possible place for these kinds of discussions. In the modern day, there is a common philosophy called Scientism, which posits that science covers everything that is true or valuable. In reality, however, Scientism is the inappropriate application of science to fields which are not, by nature, scientific. Science was never designed to cover all truth, and indeed, it assumes certain truths to begin with. Science cannot evaluate itself!
Origins and purpose are issues which science cannot actually assess. To give a simple example, think of the Mona Lisa. Scientifically, you can learn a lot about its properties, but if we were to suddenly lose all historical knowledge about it, we wouldn't know who painted it, when, or why. We wouldn't even know if it was based on a real person.
Origins in particular cannot be a scientific issue simply because science works in all tenses, whereas origins only works in one. My go-to example is friction. Friction is a scientific issue. A basic fact about friction is it produces heat. We can also say "friction produced heat" and "friction will produce heat". As you can see, all three tenses apply equally.
If, however, you were to say "birds evolved from dinosaurs", that is an inaccurate, yet coherent sentence. "Birds evolve from dinosaurs", however, does not make sense. We already have birds, only birds are known to produce birds, and dinosaurs, as far as we know, are extinct. Similarly, "birds will evolve from dinosaurs" is insane, because again, we already have birds, only birds are known to produce birds, and dinosaurs don't seem to be around anymore.
Of course, from the absurdity of the latter two sentences, we can also assume the first is illogical. If only birds produce birds, and we can assume dinosaurs would have reproduced a similar way to every other creature in history (i.e. according to their kinds), then it is extremely unlikely for birds to have evolved from dinosaurs. In other words, not only is origins not a scientific issue, but what little science can tell us about origins would seem to conflict with the Evolutionary narrative. Meanwhile, it is 100% compatible with the Biblical narrative which spawned the philosophy in the first place!
Projection
Perhaps the most glaring issue of this episode, and especially the science class scene, is that while they put a religious spin on it ("our book says you should be ostracised from society"), it portrays the general attitude of Evolutionists almost perfectly.
Just as Robbie complains "this is supposed to be a science class, but there's nothing scientific about it", there is nothing scientific about Evolution either. And I don't just mean in the sense discussed above. I mean Evolution is actually very anti-science, especially in the way it is maintained. Dissent is squashed, contrary evidence is censored, and alternative views - especially Creationism - are not welcome at the table. But long before we get to the active persecution of scientists who reject Potatoi... Evolution... consider that the dominant argument for Evolution, rather than being so much as a pebble from the mythical mountains of evidence for it, is consensus. The first thing you are likely to hear if you doubt Evolution is that 99% of scientists believe in it!
Michael Crichton, author of the famous Jurassic Park novels, and notably an Evolutionist himself, once said "Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." (3). He had previously noted that consensus science is an oxymoron, and that many of the greatest scientists are great precisely because they went against consensus. The scientific consensus argument for Evolution is exactly like the television ad Robbie saw moments before he was arrested. "Everyone else believes, so you should too!"
And if you don't? It's no secret that you have to be an Evolutionist to be accepted by other Evolutionists. To be clear, Creationists do exist within the scientific community to this day. The same religious group that founded almost every field of science never lost our drive to study science. But ever since the cultural shift towards Evolution, the scientific community became a very toxic place for Creationists. Not that burning a Creationist at the stake is even remotely legal, but it is well documented that even those who appear sympathetic to Intelligent Design (ID being significantly more compatible with Evolution, and even solving many of the problems with it) will receive backlash from their peers. The 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", for example, explores several examples of scientists who aren't even Christians, but faced backlash for voicing their sympathies towards Intelligent Design. Similarly, during the famous Nye vs. Ham debate "Is Creationism a viable model...", Ken Ham displayed the testimony of Stuart Burgess: "I find that many of my colleagues in academia are sympathetic to the Creationist viewpoint, including biologists. However they are often afraid to speak out because of the criticisms they would get from the media and atheist lobby" (emphasis mine) (4).
This social toxicity is well documented, but it almost need not be. It is no secret, because Evolutionists will often go as far as to admit and defend it! It is, in their minds, entirely appropriate to persecute anti-Evolutionary scientists precisely because Evolution is so beyond question in their minds. Thus, while Evolutionists cannot burn dissenters, they can still punish dissent. Why burn a body when you can burn a reputation, a career prospect, or a social status?
Questions of morality
In the episode, the suppression of critical thought goes beyond mere peer pressure. Robbie and Earl are actually directly threatened with death - a fate they would assuredly have suffered were it not for the mysterious wind. While almost everyone else is uncritically on board with this, even celebrating and encouraging it, Fran asks a very important question: What could this book possibly say that could justify this?
The question is interesting, especially given the end of the episode. Of course, it assumes (correctly) that Potatoism has failed to give an answer to the greater questions of life. But with her question, Fran unconsciously assumes that she has, even without actually giving those answers.
In Dinosaurs, even the food is a comedic take on reality. Specifically, almost everything the dinosaurs eat is sentient. There's even an entire episode wherein Earl brings home a special anniversary meal for Fran, leaves it in Robbie's care, and it begins to teach Robbie about advanced economics! Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about talking sandwiches with olives for eyes and a slice of ham for a tongue. I mean the dinosaurs, much like us, eat creatures they believe are lesser to themselves, with one twist: They eat it live. And weirdly, even though the food is just as sentient as the dinosaurs, it's usually ok with that. They just casually accept "ok, I'm about to get eaten. No big deal." They have accepted their place in the food chain, as if it was literally written for th... It was quite literally written for them!
Of course, we do the same. While we rarely eat animals alive, human beings instinctively recognise we are more than mere animals. That's why KFC can serve boneless banquets, but not boneless manquets. We don't ask "what could possibly justify this?" Only a hardcore vegan would be even remotely disturbed by our carnivorous nature, but even their food comes at great expense. Aside from the habitat destruction that is naturally required for the creation of new farm land, the actual farming process comes with an inherent risk of killing or injuring many creatures. For humans to live, many animals die, no matter how many of them actually end up in our stomachs.
This is morally justifiable because ultimately, morality depends on the answers to questions like where we come from, and why are we here? We see this kind of logic in our own products. If you buy a microwave, for example, and come to find it won't even cook a bowl of baked beans, you can return it to the store and get either a refund or a replacement. This is because the purpose of a microwave is to cook food. If it won't do that, it's a bad microwave. However, if you purchase a microwave and use it as target practice at your local shooting range, you void your right of return. Why? Because the product was not used for its intended purpose. It's not designed as a shooting target, it's designed as a cooking utility. Therefore, it's not a bad microwave because it doesn't take a bullet well. Conversely, it wouldn't even be a good microwave just by virtue of being bulletproof; that's not what it was designed for.
Now, as an added bonus, although it voids your right of return, you can legally use a product for other than its intended purpose. I, for example, occasionally use drinking mugs as flower pots. That is my right as the owner of the mug.
So, going back to Fran's question, "What could that book possibly say that could justify this?" Note the assumption that burning Robbie needs justification. That is, she assumes there is a moral standard by which this particular action can be judged, and that burning Robbie fails the test. But just as the use of a microwave is judged by both the design by its manufacturer, and the intentions of its owner, so also should the treatment of Robbie be determined by his origins and purpose.
But apparently, no one knows what they are. What if the Great Potato genuinely is the originator and owner of all things dinosaur? Well, at this point, he wouldn't even need to justify burning Robbie. He made Robbie, he owns Robbie, he even owns Fran, so she would be in the wrong here. Thus, to even ask the question "what could justify this", we first need to remove the Great Potato from the equation.
But that just creates a moral vacuum. With no alternative suggested, it might be immoral to burn Robbie, but it also might be moral or neutral. It all depends on the actual origins and purpose of the dinosaurs. If they just evolved, burning Robbie would be neutral - neither good, nor evil, because he has no purpose! You can burn him as easily as a log you find lying on the ground in the forest.
It's quite interesting to note, atheists seem to recognise this concept to a degree. As we've already established, the vast majority of them hold to a human-centric view of morality. That is, they ascribe higher value, rights, and responsibilities to our species. This is why the animal sacrifice in the Old Testament doesn't bother them anywhere near as much as even the least brutal of capital punishment.
This is actually another example of tipping the hand. When the Bible condones animal sacrifice, they don't even bother citing it, much less twisting it. But when the Bible speaks of human death, they have two main steps. Step 1: Change the context. Step 2: Shout it from the rooftops
The changing of the context reveals that they inherently know that there are reasons God might kill, or command/permit the killing of a human being, and that this is justifiable even in the minds of their fellow man. But the fact that killing humans bothers them at all shows that they know we are special.
And the Bible agrees. Following the logic we have established in this section, first we look at the origins of man. We are not simply glorified fish, no more valuable than half the things on our plate, but rather, we are a very particular kind of creature. We were directly created by God Himself, in His image, and given dominion over creation. This is what gives us our value. In fact, God tells us this quite explicitly. In Genesis 9:6, we read "“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."
From this, we see the value of man, because he is made in God's image. However, when a man sheds the blood of another man, that value is superseded by the concept of justice. The value of the murderer is still there, for as God tells us elsewhere, "...I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live..." (Ezekiel 33:11). But the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and in some cases, God, as both full owner and direct originator of man, directs other men to carry that penalty out.
The mysterious will of God
But this is actually quite difficult for an atheist to grasp. In fact, most things in the Christian faith are. In the episode, of course the Great Potato is made up, and what ultimately clues the dinosaurs into this is the mysterious wind that just happens to save Earl and Robbie. They are incredibly confused. Why would the Great Potato allow this to happen? The Chief Elder, of course, starts ranting about how we can't understand the mysterious will of the Great Potato, and this is where the dinosaurs start realising he's making this all up.
In reality, however, this is actually the most realistic thing about Potatoism. See, God isn't a potato, He's an omniscient Spirit. Emphasis on omniscient. Now, I want you to think back on your younger self. The chances are, you recognise that you thought you were significantly smarter than you were.
I can certainly say that for myself. I'm not going to tell you how old I am, but I'm going to tell you how old I once was. I was once a child, and I remember when my family got our first photocopier machine. Of course, I got the bright idea that we should use it to start printing our own money! That way, I could get more toys. So I took the idea to my mother, and not surprisingly, she told me it wouldn't work. But she couldn't convince me of that. No, she was the idiot, I was the genius, right up until I was old enough to realise actually, that's not how the world works. Counterfeiting is a crime even if the technology we had in our home was capable of making convincing fake bank notes. I didn't understand, but now I do. I should have submitted to the wiser mind.
And because of the way kids are, I know you have similar stories, maybe even nigh identical, in your own life. For my older readers, no doubt we can go beyond that. We were once teenagers. Don't you feel awkward thinking back on those years? And there even comes a stage in maturity when you're not just looking back at your past self asking "what was I thinking?", but also at others who are still thinking what you thought. It's not even just an age thing, old people can be numpties too!
In the same way, God is omniscient, and as Scripture says, His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. We are often confused by His will, but this doesn't mean He isn't there. It just means, much like our younger selves, there are things we don't understand, and should entrust to the One who does.
This includes the way in which God uses His power, including when people are tied to a stake and lit on fire. Jan Hus, for example. Jan Hus was a Reformer in the time leading up to the Reformation. Much like Robbie, Hus was a critical thinker whose teachings ran contrary to the dominant narrative of a dogmatic superpower. Namely, the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, this resulted in him being tied to a stake and burned alive. But before his martyrdom, Hus actually received a revelation: "You are going to burn a goose, but in one hundred years you will have a swan which you can neither roast nor boil." (5). God did not rescue Jan Huss from the fire (though no doubt, He saved his soul), but He did tell him of His intentions. 100 years later, Martin Luther, a former Roman Catholic monk, succeeded in kickstarting the Reformation, and in spite of endless attempts by the Roman Catholic Church to murder him for it, they still have not recovered from the devastation he brought upon them. The goose was cooked, but the swan was neither roasted nor boiled.
So why didn't God rescue Jan Huss? The flip side is why did He rescue Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Why does God do this, that, and the other? Eventually, we might find out, if indeed He wills to inform us. If He doesn't? Well since when has our personal understanding been the measure of truth? As it stands, there's an actual fallacy called the incredulity fallacy: Using your personal understanding or acceptance as a measure of truth.
The insanity of intellectual anarchy
The conclusion of the episode is surprisingly tolerant, promoting freedom of religion (as opposed to "freedom from religion"). As Potatoism loses its grip on society, seemingly in an instant, everyone is free to believe whatever nonsense they desire, even if it is functionally no better than Potatoism. One dinosaur, for example, suggests maybe the universe was burped up by a giant warthog, which visibly boggles Fran, but she expresses her support for his right to believe it.
This is actually a good principle. Freedom of religion allows good ideas to flourish without being censored, even if it also allows absurd beliefs to thrive as well. For this reason, it is my firm belief that if one wants to believe an absurdity, they should not be prevented by force.
But notice, there is no neutral ground here. Remember in the episode where Fran coaches another dinosaur to conclude "...we have to explore and think, and after a personal spiritual quest, decide the answers for ourselves", but his friend adds "and kill everyone who doesn't agree!"? Well, what if, after exploring, and thinking, and completing his personal spiritual quest, he decides that killing everyone who disagrees is the right thing to do? If the pursuit of truth is a personal thing, and no one has the right to infringe on the journey of another, how do we justify infringing on the journey of one who concludes infringing on the journeys of others is right?
Perhaps more ironic is the fact that, at least as far as religion goes, Christianity has always been very tame. How many people did Jesus kill? What about the Apostles? Ultimately, you can't pin many deaths on Christianity because Christianity is an inherently peaceful religion.
In spite of this, we do hear a lot about Christianity being "forced" upon people these days. Why? Well, there are two reasons. The first is that such arguments tend to come from post-Christian countries, where the Christian faith does still have some influence. Abortion regulations, for example, are often seen as forcing the Christian faith on people.
But while we're often told "you can't legislate morality" (when in reality, that's exactly what legislation is...), note how "thou shalt not murder" is only regarded as a religious command in this single case. If you kill anyone else, for any other reason, at the very least you're going to have some explaining to do in a police station. And we're all fine with that. We don't want a Muslim to be able to kill an apostate, and be able to legally justify it with "don't force your Christian religion on me!"
So first of all, there will always be a dominant belief system, and of course I'm going to contend Christianity should be pretty high on the list of preferences. As it stands, so do many others. Richard Dawkins, infamous author of The God Delusion, and fierce opponent of Christianity, is one of many atheists known for expressing his mixed feelings about its demise. As he says, it's a "...bulwark against something worse" (6).
But the second reason we're so often told that Christians are forcing our religion on others is that we share it openly and valiantly. Realistically, a convincing argument cannot be considered force. In fact, preventing us from openly expressing it is the forceful thing. Whenever I'm told not to tell people what to believe, I like to reply "I'm not, I'm telling you the truth". The thing about that is words are intangible. I can't speak a sword into existence. I can't argue you up onto a pyre. I can only "preach a fire sermon" metaphorically, not literally. My words cannot affect you physically.
But they can affect you mentally. If you let them. Ultimately, Fran's belief that everyone should be allowed to believe what they want is supplemented by the fact there's no way to stop them. As the saying goes, "a man convinced against his will is of his old opinion still". And therein lies the problem. A man who is unwilling to change his beliefs is enjoying his ignorance. Therefore, any attempt to break that ignorance, be it by force, or by simply expressing an alternative view in his presence, will be taken as force. It is one further tip of the hand when atheists effectively make Christians the one and only group of people who should always listen, but never speak. The ones who should always be mocked, but should never be allowed to mock. Everyone else should be allowed to believe what they want, even warthogs burping up universes, but Christians? We should be sued for offering discounts...
Conclusion
As you can see, this episode covers a wide range of themes. Origins, morality, religious freedom, it covers it all. Ironically, while intended as a criticism of Christianity, it better serves the purpose of exposing the flaws in atheism - in particular, Evolution. But we can hardly blame it for failing its secondary goal if it succeeds in its primary goal: Encouraging critical thought and intelligent discussion. Overall, I give this episode a solid 7/10. It loses points for ill-informed stereotypes, but overall, it's funny, it's original, and it's a fantastic example of Intelligent Design in action. I recommend the show for critical thinkers everywhere.
References
1. Golembewski, Vanessa - How A ‘90s Kids Show Predicted The Downfall Of Humanity, Refinery29, April 26th 2016 (link)
2. Eiseley, Loren. - Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York, 1961
3. Crichton, Michael - Aliens cause Global Warming, January 17th 2003
4. Burgess, Stuart - Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's scientific era? (link)
5. Hus, John, cited in "A Reformation Prophecy", Travis Arnold, Portland Bible College, October 27th 2017 (link)
6. Gledhill, Ruth - Scandal and schism leave Christians praying for a ‘new Reformation’, The Times, April 2nd 2010 (link)
AI usage
AI was used in the following ways for this article:
1. Creating the insect background for this image.
2. Creating the dorky paper scientist for this image.
Comments