Dragon Tales, UFOs and the Creation Museum

A billboard advertising the new dragon exhibit at the Creation Museum.
A billboard advertising the new dragon exhibit at the Creation Museum.

Since its inception, one of the Creation Museum’s most provocative exhibits has been one that places dinosaurs and man side by side.  While this is anachronistic to most people at least everyone agrees that dinosaurs really lived at some time in earth’s history.*  This year the Creation Museum added a new exhibit where you can learn all about how fire-breathing and flying dragons were not only real but also interacted with man in the recent past.    Ken Ham also recently penned, “Were Dinosaurs Dragons?” defending the dragon exhibit at the Creation Museum against its many critics.  A few years ago  Bodie Hodge from Answers in Genesis laid the groundwork for the current exhibit in an article entitled “Dragon Stories – the truth behind the tales.”  In it he states what seems to have become the AIG party line argument for the existence of dragons:

“Globally, there are many ancient descriptions and images of dragons. Interestingly, many of these descriptions and images are similar to drawings and depictions of how scientists believe dinosaurs would have looked.”

A few weeks ago I criticized Dr. Purdom at Answers in Genesis for her dismissal of Adrienne Mayor’s thesis about how encounters with preserved bones in the Middle East region were likely the physical sources of the drawings and stories of what we often consider mythical creatures (Dinosaurs, Dragons and Ken Ham: The Literal Reality of Mythological Creatures).   I responded to a question regarding that post that I thought would be worth exploring a bit further.  It was about eye-witness accounts of dragons throughout history and Marco Polo in particular.  Below I repeat and expand on my response to this inquiry.

Regarding eye-witness reports of dragons:  I don’t really doubt that many of those reports were written as sincere factual reports. However, that does not necessitate that the reports were describing actual dragons as Ken Ham believes. The human eye and brain are both sieves of reality for us. If we have heard stories that we believe are true and then see something that fits some parts of that story our mind will fill in the gaps. A crocodile is a fearsome creature that no one in ancient times would get close enough to really study in detail so most everything known would be hearsay bits of evidence that got compiled overtime into a general concept of what a crocodile or a komodo dragon or any of several real animals. Someone like Marco Polo, who records having seen a dragon, likely did see one himself.  But if he had heard any stories (very likely) about such creatures then his mind would fill in the gaps of his likely short encounter with a crocodile, or several other creatures in southeast Asia, with images that were mixture of what he actually saw with what he expected to see.  Writing down his encounter we have no need to believe he embellished the account.  Rather he simply recorded the facts as he remembered them because his memories were facts to him.  However those facts may not match with the reality of the event. It really isn’t hard for any of us to believe “facts” about things we don’t understand well.  This phenomena of memory is well studied and documented.

(Addendum: see reader comment below regarding my example above and below. Their point is well taken that really the crocodile would be know well enough not to have ever been mistaken for a dragon.  I agree that we don’t need to conjure up the just-so story I’m about to recount to see that dragons are mythical creatures and not simply a case of mistaken identities.  Possibly the komodo dragon might be a more apt example than the crocodile that I used in this post)

Imagine finding a claw like this and not knowing what a fossil is.  You would naturally assocciate it with a living animal that you din't know much about or had heard stories about.
Imagine finding a claw like this and not knowing what a fossil is. You would naturally associate it with a living animal that you didn’t know much about or had heard stories about.

Let me try an example of how real events can become intertwined with fiction.  What about fire-breathing dragons which the Creation Museum claim existed not long ago?  Swamps have swamp gas which is known to flare naturally occasionally. All it would take is for one flare to happen at the same time that a crocodile is emerging from a swamp in an attack for a person just barely escaping with their lives to truly believe that the crocodile breathed fire. Once one credible person has witnessed this and told 20 friends, every time those friends see or hear of a swamp flare they will associate it with a crocodile even if they didn’t actually see the flare coming from a crocodiles nostrils themselves. They will go on and tell 20 more friends and so on.   No one made this story up. It isn’t a fairy tale.  Every person who told the story believed it was true and many even believe they have witnessed an actual dragon.  But all of this doesn’t make fire-breathing dragons real.   Like the telephone game, even when each person believes they are passing on factual information they still don’t transmit the information word for word and thus the interpretation causes changes in the message over time even though each person along the chain believes the message to be true.

Komodo dragon from southereast Asia.  No doubt many images of dragons from this area are inspired by this large reptile.
Komodo dragon from Indonesia. No doubt many images of dragons from this area are inspired by this large reptile which was more widespread in the past.  Combined with some bones or large animals that lived prior to the last ice age one would expect that legends of great beasts should be prevalent.

Most dragon legends and eye-witness accounts are hundred or even thousands of years old. Even by the time paintings of dragons were put on pottery or etched on stone walls the stories that inspired the artists could have been hundreds or thousands of years old.   There is no more eye-witness or artistic evidence for dinosaurs than there is for dragons. Maybe this is partly why Ken Ham believes dragons are a real as dinosaurs.  Since dinosaurs are obviously real and in his mind and lived among humans then the fact there seems to be as much evidence for dragons having lived recently must mean they are real.  But dinosaurs are believed to have existed not because of eye-witness reports but because of the vast number of bones, footprints, eggs and feces they left behind for us to inspect and infer their existence and characteristics.  Where are the dragon skulls? Where are the dragon bones showing four legs and a set of wings attached to the same body (Pterosaurs had legs and winged arms, not arms and wings)?  The physical evidence for dragons is missing unless you include skeletons of komodo dragons which look dragon-like but would not foot the bill for the type of dragons that Ken Ham envisions on earth.

Obviously aliens visited us 3000 years ago since their visit is recorded for us here.  There are many similar images that are interpreted as spacecraft or aliens found all over the world.  If UFOs and aliens are not real why should the same evidence for dragons be taken so seriously?
Obviously aliens visited us 3000 years ago since their visit is recorded for us here. There are many similar images that are interpreted as spacecraft or aliens found all over the world. If UFOs and aliens are not real why should the same evidence for dragons be taken so seriously?

Dragons are only known from human art and stories and no other evidence.  That got me thinking if there were other examples that were comparable.  How about UFOs.  Are they real? I don’t believe we have been visited by UFOs/aliens.  However, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have reported to have been eye-witnesses of  alien visitors and their spacecraft.  In fact, I expect there are far more detailed accounts of UFO sightings than there are of dragon sightings. Yet, I don’t believe that extraterrestrial life forms have been visiting us all these years. Does this mean I think that all those stories are totally made up? Are these “witnesses” making the story for monetary gain or to draw attention for themselves? Yes, undoubtedly this has happened.  But I also believe that many people who tell of UFO encounters are absolutely sincere and believe everything they have reported is factual. Frequently what you will find with most UFO stories is the person that saw something has typically been exposed to other stories about what a UFO is like. In response, they have taken something they have really seen but that they didn’t fully understand and their brains have interpreted what they have seen to fit those stories. When they remember the scene later, their brain fills in facts for them without them even being conscious of it and so they report things as facts that are not really facts. This is a common problem for police as they collect eye-witness accounts of accidents or crimes. I experienced this myself when I was a teenager. I witnessed an armed bank robbery. I stood no more than 4 feet from the perpetrator as he pulled out his gun. I looked at him nearly straight in the face. Yet, a few hours later when I worked with a police sketch artist I provided completely incorrect information about his clothes, attributes of his gun and facial characteristics.  I didn’t do this intentionally but rather the drama of the  moment caused my mind to quickly derive  what I thought a bank robber should look like and obscured his real appearance from my mind.  I was told that my eye-witness report was in complete odds with several others that were also in the bank. I still have an image etched into my mind of that very real scene to the window to my right in the bank, but it no doubt is highly inaccurate.

The point is that the stories of dragons and images drawn of dragon-like things are far from slam dunk evidence of their existence.  Some sort of physical evidence in addition to eye-witness reports is really needed to bolster the case for their reality in the same way that physical evidence of an extraterrestrial craft is needed to corroborate eyewitness reports of flying saucers.  I wish I could say that I don’t understand how Ken Ham and friends would hype this new exhibit but I feel quite confident the reason is that they expect dragons to be real because of the worldview they have constructed for themselves causes them to cognitively interpret every scrap of evidence for dragons as “proof” of their existence because they already know they exist.  It is the mind filling in the evidence and seeing in many cases what is not there.  Of course Ken Ham would say that he derives his initial belief in the reality of dragons from the only true eye-witness account which cannot be false in any way.  That eye-witness would be the authority of scripture.  I won’t quibble with the word of God but I will say that the interpretation of Scripture by Ken Ham is not an infallible process and it is not at all difficult to find fault with Ham’s exigesis.   The weakness of the physical case of the existence of dragons should at least be a clue, even if it isn’t proof, to him that he needs to ask himself if he has interpreted the Scriptures inappropriately.

* There are some apparent age advocates that could say that dinosaurs never really existed but their bones were created in the geological record as part of the creation.  No creation scientists that I know would say this but many lay persons who seek to alleviate the perceived tension of the evidence of an ancient earth and a literal reading of Genesis are tempted to lay that evidence of age being the result of having been created that way.

10 thoughts on “Dragon Tales, UFOs and the Creation Museum

  1. I’ve heard some creationists explain the lack of four legged, winged dragons as people misidentifying Pterosaurs. It always seemed odd that they were willing to admit the human mind was fallible, to the point where we’d mistake what looks like a giant bat for a scaly, four legged lizard. But the possibility they were mistaken and basing this sighting on something that wasn’t even a Pterosaur? No chance of that!


    1. Adam, Yes, that pretty much sums up the logic. Dragons just never made any anatomical sense to me, wing spans not sufficient for the mass of the organism, hip structures all over the place, some dragons have mains (what reptiles, dino etc..have hair, that’s a mammal feature) etc.. Can you imagine how difficult it would be identify a dragon “kind” which the admixuture of characters they have. What about the common design argument that they use? Not real useful with dragons I would say.


      1. Personally I think they’d love to throw all that common design stuff out the window. It always seemed to me something they were simply doing to try, desparatley to remain scientifically relevant. They didn’t want to.


  2. NH,

    I like your suggestion (following Mayor) that the idea of a dragon arises from dinosaur fossils found in the Middle East. But your just so story about crocodiles and swamps is a bit far-fetched and rests upon your suggestion that “A crocodile is a fearsome creature that no one in ancient times would get close enough to really study in detail so most everything known would be hearsay bits of evidence that got compiled overtime into a general concept of what a crocodile or a komodo dragon or any of several real animals.”

    That strikes me as a pretty ridiculous suggestion. By the same just-so story telling, why would they have known what a tiger, a lion, a hippopotamus, a cobra, etc. looked like? I live in an area that has tons of alligators. Alligators are not as vicious as crocodiles, but all the same everyone steers clear of them. Yet alligators, like crocodiles in certain regions, are plentiful enough and visible enough to know what their average size is, to know they don’t have wings, etc. My nephew, who is only 10 and who also steers clear of alligators, still knows more than “hearsay bits of evidence complied overtime” about alligators. And he could draw you a very accurate picture of one (for a 10 year old).

    It seems more plausible to say that the idea that they were fire breathing is just a result of fudged story telling. How common is swamp gas flare? Common enough that someone living around a swamp would know that swamp flares often occur with no crocodile dragon present? Your story becomes less plausible in that case. Or let’s say that swamp flares are very rare. Well then how much less implausible is your story that one happened to occur at the moment a crocodile emerges.

    Then we have to factor in the credulity of others. Why would such a rare occurrence, no matter which way you take, be taken seriously by people? The idea that people started believing dragons (crocodiles) breathed fire based on such a rare occurrence happening, to so few people seems plausible only if you’re a chronological snob. People living in a crocodile populated region would know that 99% of them have never been observed to breath fire. Just like my nephew knows that 100% of the alligators he has seen have breathed fire. If one guy, who happened to witness the extremely rare event of a swamp flare occur simultaneous with a crocodile emergence, came telling other people that he saw a crocodile breath fire they would more likely think he was drunk or just a liar. Same as my nephew would be incredulous if I told him, in all seriousness, that I saw an alligator breath fire.

    Basically, I see no point in trying to construct such a story anyway when the fact that people embellish tales is sufficient enough to explain the fire breathing bit. Evolutionists can, perhaps, get too carried away with their just-so stories and try to apply it to everything when it’s just not needed.


    1. Hi, thanks for the feedback. Yeah, definitely a just-so story and your point is an excellent one that people that lived around crocodiles regularly would know they didn’t breath fire. The Komodo dragon might be a better example as it is a bit more elusive and so stories would be bound to be more creative since it would be rarely seen. I think you are right that such a story based on a kernel of reality aren’t necessary to from dragon legends. I’ll add a note to the post when I get a chance. Joel


  3. Marco Polo did not see a dragon, or a crocodile. He gives a tale in chapter XLVII about the Province of Karazan and its Great Serpents. The description seems to be of a crocodile: the way to catch the serpent is similar. The natural history in this chapter is not acccurate actually: “The serpent enters the dens of lions … and devours their whelps”. Lions don’t occur in China (it seems to be in Yunnan somewhere). Google had an old version of the book.


    1. H Gerald, thanks for the clarification. I did not examine the origins of that account as I was responding to a commenter. Just goes to to show that dragon myths are even being embelished today when we cant’ even check resources and get what we should know right. Thanks again for the link. It does seem that lions have not been in that area if at all not that recently. Lions where actually in North America at one point but then when locally extinct before man arrived.


  4. We may never know exactly where the dragon myths came from, especially since our minds are pre-programmed with symbology (Carl Jung). However I think it is a good hypothesis that many of these stories were inspired by dinosauer fossils. I also think about the fact that many sea-faring people had myths about sea-monsters, most likely exaggerations of creatures that existed at the time. “Mermaids” are thought to have actually been sea-lions perching on rocks.

    I watched a documentary one time that talked about where the myth of vampires came from. During the plague Europeans had to dispose of bodies in mass graves. When they opened them up to add more bodies they were shocked to discover that previously buried bodies were swollen as if they had been eating and had what appeared to be blood around their mouths. Their finger nails and facial hair appeared to have grown.

    Of course the scientific reasons for the condition of the corpses was simple decomposition. The body swells with gases and the “blood” around the mouth was just purge fluid. The apparent growth of hair and nails was due to the skin receeding. But of course they did not know that because they usually buried their dead very quickly before decomposition set in.

    Yes it is definately possible that people can misinterpret what they see.

    On the other hand human nature is such that the idea is not totally unwarranted that explorers decided to tell a “tall tale” or two.


Comments are closed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: