The highly anticipated dino-epic (which really should be an adjective, and a commonly used one at that) “Jurassic World” was released domestically a couple weeks ago.
As the film starring Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard continues to gobble up box office records, the critical consensus has crystallized into pretty much exactly what you would expect (and hope for) from a summer blockbuster with this kind of pedigree and deep-seated fan base: big, fun, dumb and visually spectacular.
Ham gives his take on the movie he claims he was “talked into going to see” in a blog post, “Dinosaurs Not for Kids,” that was posted the same day as “World’s” nationwide release.
In his intro, he explained that his reasoning for adding his two-cents’ worth was “in case [he] was asked to comment on it by the media and AiG supporters,” and because he knew people would be asking about it because he’s such a world-renowned authority on all things dinosaurian.
And I believe him. I’m sure that really was the reason, and his coincidentally timed post had nothing to do with, say, siphoning off a wedge of the tidal wave of Google searches for “Jurassic World” and “Jurassic World review” and “Jurassic World please Google I am dying to know what Ken Ham the young earth man has to say about this movie.”
This is a short post, so I won’t excerpt any of Ham’s critique here. Please feel free to click through and read the whole thing if you’re so inclined. But — spoiler alert — he didn’t like it.
This, in and of itself, is not really surprising, since Ham seems to hate most things that don’t proceed from or directly benefit him. However, I can’t help but find part of his criticism a little odd.
Now, don’t get me wrong: There are a plenty of scientific and biological inaccuracies — not to mention good old-fashioned bad writing and plot issues — to which critics of these films can object. And they have.
But one aspect that no one has ever seemed to have trouble believing is one of the film series’ most basic underlying premises: that dinosaurs would be really good at killing people.
Any child can tell that dinosaurs are big, bad, scary killing machines, which is why these films have such universal appeal. (Well, also the groundbreaking special effects. And the score. And this guy.)
And this isn’t limited to just the carnivores, like T. Rex and Velociraptor (though these chicken-sized dinos were probably a little less formidable in real life than they are on screen). Even the larger herbivores would have done a lot of damage: You’re talking about what is essentially a cow, but 60 feet tall and weighing approximately as much as a Boeing 737.
What this all has to do with the purpose of this site is that young-earth creationists like Ham and his group, Answers in Genesis, assert that — not all that long ago — humans chilling in the same general area as these terrifying beasts was about as uncommon as crossing paths with a squirrel on your way to work. In fact, your ancestors might have ridden a dinosaur to work, according to Ham.
They believe dinosaurs frolicked with humans in the garden of Eden, shared space with cows and chickens and other prey animals on Noah’s ark, survived the flood (which neatly sorted every one of their relatives into lower rock strata than species still alive today), only to go the way of the dodo bird — conveniently — just before the onset of more reliable modern record-keeping techniques.
I appreciate movies like “Jurassic World,” because they demonstrate — perhaps more powerfully than other, equally effective techniques (like, I dunno, five seconds of rational thought) — how ludicrous and utterly laughable this notion really is.