Creationist: Either Dragons Are Real or God Tells Lies

8/16/2013

Mark Twain once said in his “Advice to Youth”:

Think what tedious years of study, thought, practice, experience, went to the equipment of that peerless old master who was able to impose upon the whole world the lofty and sounding maxim that “Truth is mighty and will prevail”—the most majestic compound fracture of fact which any of woman born has yet achieved. For the history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sewn thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie well told is immortal.

The lies just keep on coming, and they don’t let up. In yesterday’s Washington Examiner I learned that cable documentaries aren’t just lying about things like aliens, mermaid, prehistoric sharks, and the Knights Templar—they’re also lying about even the smallest details of their supposedly “true” documentaries. Even in a high-profile documentary like 2010’s King Tut Unwrapped, producers staged a fake scene of scientists congratulating one another on their discovery. As revealed by Jo Marchant in The Shadow King: The Bizarre Afterlife of King Tut’s Mummy, it was all a lie. The scientists agreed to “recreate” the moment for the cameras weeks after the event, and the film failed to acknowledge the deception.

But that was small potatoes compared to the falsehoods that spread thanks to people who seem to genuinely believe things that aren’t true. On a web program called Creation Today, young earth creationist author Darek Isaacs asserted that dragons are real because the Bible tells us so.

The Bible speaks about dragons. […] So we have to go to the Bible, and the Bible speaks about dragons. […] If dragons in fact were entirely mythological, if they were a figment of the imagination, and if they never ever did exist, then God just compared our adversary to a make-believe creature that never existed.

Isaacs specifically cited the dragon mentioned in Revelation 12 and 13, as God gave the Word to King James. Isaacs seems unaware that the English term “dragon” did not carry with it the image of the winged, four-footed fire-breathing creature of medieval myth. Revelation, surprisingly enough, was composed not in English but in Greek, and the original Greek text uses the word drakon, which meant at the time “a great serpent” or “a large snake.” The word gave us the Latin draco and thus (via French) the English dragon. However, dragon was still being used—even in English—to refer to a large serpent as late as the 1700s.

To the Greeks, a drakon was a really big snake. In Greek art, the “dragons” fought by Apollo, Heracles, Jason, and other are almost universally depicted as snakes. In early medieval art, so too is the “dragon” fought by St. Theodore, later assigned to St. George, by which point it had grown feet. The idea of a winged, fire-breathing creature comes in all likelihood from the application of “dragon” to the fire-breathing creature called a wyrm, or worm, in Old English. This was due to the old Indo-European analogy whereby worms were thought to be miniature snakes. In time, though, the distinction between a Classical and a medieval dragon was lost.

Jason retrieves the Golden Fleece from the dragon, seen as a large snake (Theoi.com)

Herakles rescues Hesione from a giant snake-like "dragon" in a carving on an ancient gem.

At any rate, the modern idea of a “dragon” is far more recent than Revelation, and it speaks ill of those who seek to rewrite history that they fail even to recognize points in their own favor—giant snakes are a bit easier to believe in than winged, fire-breathing lizards.

22 Comments

kennethos

8/16/2013 07:45:58 am

[Sigh...] As an old-earth creationist, I'm wishing that more young-earth creationist would actually interact with the text of Scripture, in context, rather than haul in their own baggage. There are serpents/snakes present in the Bible, as part of the created order. Most, as far as we know, are pretty ordinary, and are not capable of speech. The one cited in St. John's Revelation, is likely imaginary, since it's used as a metaphor within the story (unless somebody wants to argue that all the critters in that book are *real*)...St. John was using word pictures to tell a story, and let's face it, a dragon (be it a giant snake, serpent, worm or whatever) tells a heckuva story.
I really have no need for there to be huge, fire-breathing dragons to exist in the world today...I find creatures like the Kimodo dragon and its ilk more than meets my need for reptilian coolness.

Jason, I'd ask one question: in a documentary like the one on King Tut, do they typically add a disclaimer that certain scenes have been dramatized for effect? It would seem like that would be a given in such a production, as a CYA measure for the producers, "we're telling a story, and dramatic recreations are part of that effort." True crime TV shows do this on a regular basis, only recreations are expected in that format.

Matt Mc

8/16/2013 12:06:46 pm

About the recreation scenes in docs. Having worked as an editor on many a Discovery and Nat Geo doc those recreations are fairly common, mostly they are small recreations such as mentioned, sometimes they are larger ones recreating the finding of an object, happening of an event, ect... It is up to the producer whether or not it is mentioned as a recreation (often it is) the networks themselves have no policy in place stating that all recreations have to be credited as such. In fact most of the time the network itself has nothing to do with the content of the program, that is left up to the production house whom is contract to deliver x amount a shows over given period of time. Seldom does the network exec's even look at what is given them once a greenlight and contract has been made.

My last network job was as a editor for ESPN for two different daily live shows, that just happened to be taped hours before and edited so as to be more entertaining. In fact a lot of "live" programing is done that way. I would sometimes leave nice little wholes in the program so we could cut real live shots into the program so it seem as such. We did very similar things on CNN back in the late 90's for most of their "live" pundit shows. Nice thing about time shifting and having on line editors, the programs can be made more entertaining and interesting which brings in more advertising dollars.

This is the world of TV, be it news, sports, or other programing, nothing is real, nothing is true, and the only goal is to sell add space. Programs are only filler between the commercials.

Jason Colavito link

8/16/2013 12:53:24 pm

When I studied broadcast journalism, it was rather depressing to learn how much was staged. Almost all of the shots of interviewees walking, writing, and typing--b-roll--were staged for the camera. Filming large government documents often involved a cover page placed atop a stack of blank paper.

8/16/2013 01:40:15 pm

It is sad Jason, I agree. Staging however predates Television by a long shot however. Photographic staging started in the Civil War and the torch was just passed on from there.

Interesting thin about all the docs I have worked on. I can only think of two historical docs I have worked on that historians have been involved in the editing process, Ken Burns Jazz and Killing Lincoln. In Jazz, Ken would bring in his historians to watch the rough edit to make sure it was correct and factual and in the Killing Lincoln, Bill O'Reilly,Ridley Scott, and a few other historians watched all the rough cuts to make sure it was factually correct (Yes to some peoples surprise Bill O'Reilly is on of the leading and very well respected Lincoln historian). This is not to say there was not factual material embellished upon in these docs but it was few and far between. The only other time I have had something similar happen was on the Science of War, we state dept and DOD officials watched the rough cuts to make sure "classified" material was not exposed, and they were present the whole time, marking weird limits on the amount of time would could show certain footage ect.

PS - and yes despite loathing his politics and his on air personality Bill O'Reilly is a very nice and affable man who treated everyone on the staff with great respect and he also has a great sense of humor, I gained a lot of respect for him. He is a perfect example of someone who knows how to make money by using the media to perfect assume a profitable character that people talk about (good or bad does not matter).

8/16/2013 01:49:33 pm

Matthew Brady's Civil War photos were "enhanced" truth, if you will, and of course William Randolph Hearst's coverage of the lead up to the Spanish-American War was, to put it nicely, "enhanced" truth.

Bill O'Reilly, long ago, actually studied history and has a degree in it. He clearly knows the right way to do historical research; he just chooses to be selective in applying that knowledge.

The Other J.

8/19/2013 09:01:39 pm

I don't know if we could get something like cinéma vérité with anything involving archaeology or history. Someone should get Albert Maysles on that. But it does raise the curious question of network policies regarding re-created, staged authenticity. I'm actually surprised networks wouldn't have any such policy in place. BBC Radio and RTE Radio in Ireland do an interesting thing where they re-create scenes from governmental or court proceedings with actors reading the dialog. It's clearly a re-creation, no disclaimer really necessary, but manages to convey more than a dry description ever could.

Aaron Adair link

8/16/2013 08:15:23 am

Well, you can still get your fire-breathing monsters from Job 40-41...

But it seems few if any YECs can or do actually read the original languages. Most funny anecdote to that effect: "if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." Probably fake, but it seems to contain a sentiment out there, such as for KJV-only folks.

Varika

8/16/2013 12:27:37 pm

I do have to say, I feel that there is a difference between a recreation and a lie, even if the recreation is unacknowledged. A lie is something that never happened at all, while a recreation has truth as its essence--even if not every detail of the recreation was precisely the same, there was surely a time when the archeologists shared their glee at the discovery. It's not the same as "this is an event that never happened at all and we're dramatizing a scene that implies it did."

8/16/2013 12:46:00 pm

No, it's not as bad. But it's dubiously ethical when it's presented as though it was actual footage of what happened. In better documentaries, this kind of recreation is signaled by showing the footage with a filter or a blur. The author's criticism of this specific recreation is that it was presented as the actual moment when the discovery was made when it was not.

8/16/2013 01:59:52 pm

@Jason:
I can understand your frustration with scenes that were not clearly labeled "staged" or "dramatized", in terms of details, and academic truth. Sometimes actual video/film footage of an event is available, and is welcome when it is. Given the nature of the medium, and the blurring between "Education" and "entertainment", if the producers make a good-faith effort to say "it's true, even if parts of dramatized", I can live with that. It's not like it's made-up completely, it's simply a tool of the genre.
Now, if the producers are sloppy, or just don't care, that's different. I guess it's a matter of "caveat emptor": go in to a documentary expecting to see mostly recreated footage, and be pleasantly surprised by anything else.

8/16/2013 02:03:21 pm

I would add: real life always looks different than dramatic footage; it takes longer, people are more casual, and since most non-actors can't "act", it's more clear what's "real" and what's "staged."
As an example, it would be interesting to see a "real life" version of reality TV, a la "The Truman Show", where it wasn't pure acting, unlike the reality garbage we endure today. It would need heavy editing, but it's sometimes more enjoyable, and definitely more real.

Felipe

8/16/2013 04:29:51 pm

In a documentary about King Tut (I don't remember if it's the same that Jason talks about) Zahi Hawass is talking about how the previous name of Tutankhamen (Tutankhaten) was "hidden at the back of King Tut's seat", so that no one could see it... but the damn name is right at the side of the chair, and they even show it!. I almost kicked the hell out of my TV.

Tara Jordan

8/16/2013 06:12:01 pm

Jason,This is off topic but I am glad you are not part of the "official Skeptics community" (Aka the Cult of Self proclaimed Über Rational Thinkers).
There is serious fear and loathing actually going on in the Skeptics kindergarten.
Infighting,backstabbing, battle of egos,sexual harassment issues etc....

Skepticism and Secularism Have a Serious Sexual Harassment Problem:
http://tinyurl.com/kpnz8xa

Sharon Hills "the Madonna of born again skeptic feminism" is having some kind of emotional breakdown, & seems to believe there is some kind of nefarious machist conspiracy preventing her from accessing a leading position in the Skeptics movement.She feels Skeptic organizations need more women in leadership roles,because according to Sharon,gender identity (vagina meritocracy) determines rationality & competence.

I always thought that Skeptics as a community,acted as pathetically as the New Agers & the "alternative history cultists".I am feeling vindicated

I am not asking you to respond to this post;).

8/16/2013 06:21:20 pm

@Tara:
On your off-topic....you've got my sympathies. I find any community of human beings prone to "broken" human behavior can be susceptible to these things. Doesn't make it right, but not surprising either. Just glad that it's ever less acceptable these days.
I recently watched "The Invisible War" (related to this issue in the military)....ouch. Not fun, very painful. Maybe, hopefully, someday things will be better.

8/16/2013 06:51:36 pm

Thanks.It is probably a menial issue for most, but since we spend a considerable amount of time & energy "destroying" the "other side", I consider we have to be intellectually honest & criticize the skeptics as well,when they behave like a bunch of organized idiots.

As a representant of the "weaker gender" I am particularly concerned with the issue of bringing this feminist crap into the skeptical-rational thinking debate.My gender or my sexual orientation do not determine the way I am functioning on an intellectual level.

Graham

8/16/2013 10:09:00 pm

Where are you getting that idea about Sharon Hill from I've never read any of that into what she's posted on her blog

8/16/2013 11:39:43 pm

Her Facebook page.

8/17/2013 10:33:37 am

Since I have no knowledge of the facts behind the sexual harassment allegations, I can't comment on them. I can say, though, that organized skepticism and/or secularism is an organization like any other. On a couple of occasions, well-known names in the skeptical movement (and lesser names in organized secularism) have been happy to ask me for material or to use my work when it forwards their own work, but when I asked for assistance in return with publishing contacts, jobs, etc., suddenly they have clammed up and stopped speaking to me. (Note: If you've spoken to me in the past three years, it wasn't you.)

Like any organization, the current holders of various sinecures want to protect them, and I don't really have the patience for politics.

Tara Jordan link

8/17/2013 06:54:55 pm

"but when I asked for assistance in return with publishing contacts, jobs, etc., suddenly they have clammed up and stopped speaking to me".

This is precisely what turns me off with the Skeptics community,its self-righteousness nombrilism,the politics of Ego,the self-importance & the personal ambition schemes.
"Official skeptics" have been circling around for decades,dealing & debunking the same junks over and over again.A contrario,you are doing a far more valuable work (on a daily base),but have you ever been invited to a major skeptics convention?.They will eventually mention you from time to time,but you will never share the stage with a 20 something yr old snot from UK who specializes in "ghost investigations".I know many skeptics are reading your blog & I have a question for them.When are you going to invite Jason Colavito to TAM?.Instead of wasting precious hours on topics like "Coalition Building for the Skeptical Activist",& lip servicing each others over the wonderful job you have done,why not having a guest who actually has something interesting to say?.

8/19/2013 09:12:15 pm

Nombrilism! Damn I love words. That one actually made me stop navel-gazing for a minute and take more notice of what I was reading.

Mike Heier link

8/17/2013 12:34:06 pm

As a biblical scholar whose specialty is the Old Testament (and Israelite religion to boot), let me say that this sort of either-or fallacy (dragons vs. God lying) is disturbingly flawed. But many YECs say stuff like this precisely because their own understanding of what's going on in the OT is so infantile and primitive, giving no thought to what the ancient writer was trying to communicate. And the same can be said of biblical critics (the internet ragers) who use this sort of awful interpretive method to criticize the Bible. It's really a shame.

8/19/2013 09:22:36 pm

Since your analysis gets into the history of the words (draco, wyrm), do you (or anyone else here) know how the mythological history of the salamander might have been an influence on the medieval conception of a dragon? Since the mythological salamander was a kind of fire demon, might it have influenced the shift from "draco" being a serpent to "dragon" being a snake with feet that breathed fire?

You could easily see the stories of big serpents and fiery salamanders cross-influencing each other and eventually resulting in Smaug.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Creationist: Either Dragons Are Real or God Tells Lies

Leave a Reply.

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives