April 27, 2025 • 34 mins
This is part two of our two part look at Dragons and how these mythical beasts are being used to promote Creationism. Our guest is Dr. Philip Senter and he's the author of a new book about this topic. We use the word bullsh!t a lot in this episode so I slapped an explicit tag on - but I don't think it's too explicit otherwise.
Get Dr. Senter's book here: The Real Story of Dinosaurs and Dragons
News story about Mokele Mbembe being compromised by Creationists
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/monstertalk--6267523/support.
Get Dr. Senter's book here: The Real Story of Dinosaurs and Dragons
News story about Mokele Mbembe being compromised by Creationists
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/monstertalk--6267523/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Monster House presents.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
It's actually quite unlike anything we've ever seen before.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
A giant, very creature party part.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
In Luckness, a twenty four a mile long bottomless lake
in the Highlands of Scotland.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
It's a creature known as the Luckness Monster.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Monster Talk.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Welcome to Monster Talk, the science show about monsters. I'm
Blake Smith.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
And I'm Karen Stolsner.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Hey, welcome back to part two of our two part
chat with doctor Phillip Center about his new book, The
Real Story of Dinosaurs and Dragons. It's funny how sometimes
when an idea is in your mind, you'll start seeing
it everywhere, and psychology will tell you that's a kind
of observation bias, your brain looking for patterns. This gets
even worse when Internet ecosystems like Google scour your emails
(01:21):
looking for patterns that might interest you, or when news
outlets discover a story is getting a lot of traffic
and reporters start posting similar stories, which creates this public
feeling that something must be going on, and that's going
to be exacerbated even more soon by the advertising arbitrage system,
which is forming a deeply lucrative relationship with large language
models that can generate hot articles from thin air with
(01:43):
convincing photos. We're in for a ride, folks, and I
don't think we can stop it from happening, because at present,
the ecosystem of content generation has become uncoupled from any
value for whether the said content is, for lack of
a better word, bullshit or not. I said last week
that this is an epistemological war, that there's different ways
(02:04):
of deciding whether someone believes something or not, and I
come down hard in the camp that values evidence based approaches.
But I also believe that people may have a biological
reason for wanting simple answers that conform to their existing beliefs.
I'll be exploring this in my book about technology. But
even if I'm wrong about the deep causes, it is
evident in many scientific disciplines and even folk wisdom that
(02:28):
our biases always nudges to the answers that fit our
existing beliefs. I've never heard it more succinctly explain that
in Simon Garfunkel's song The Boxer, when the lyrics say
all lies in jest. Still a man, here's what he
wants to hear and disregard to the rest, I know
people have a tendency to think in terms of culture
(02:48):
war these days, and that implies there's two sides and
that one will eventually win, which brings me to another
insight from my work on technology. People crave simplicity and
will take a simple explain nation that feels good over
a hard, complex answer that more closely hues to reality.
We work on models in our brain, and there's probably
no simpler explanation for the magistic complexity of the world
(03:11):
we're in than God did it. That kind of naive
simplicity is very satisfying for folks who want to believe
they understand the world. But it's the kind of simple
answer designed to make one stop asking questions and has
the big capital letter truth, which is very satisfying to
some fold. This isn't a judgment against such people. I'm
(03:32):
here today because of such people and because they love
me and cared for me. But they're not the kind
of people who want to solve medical problems, for example,
or maybe they have a hybrid view that includes going
to the doctor, but they also pray, and when they
finally get better, they curse the thousands of dollars in
medical expenses in medicine and they thank the Lord for
his miraculous healing. We don't hear as much from the
(03:54):
purists who reject medicine entirely for prayer, because on average
they end up dead quicker, and that's quieter. But taking
the science side of things means acknowledging complexity, and you
don't get the big capital T truth there. Even though
statistically an evidence based rational worldview gives you more reliable models,
science truths are always provisional. Yes, scientists are people and
(04:17):
they have their biases, but the methodology itself insists that
we have to change our models to comport with reality
and not the other way around, and that is hard.
But again, the real world is complicated, and many scientists
aren't atheists, they just don't have a naive iron age
view of the world. Scientists, when faced with a difference
between their faith and their evidence, have to acknowledge the evidence.
(04:41):
This battle already happen. Literalist interpretation of creation myths just
don't stand up to scrutiny. They could be beautiful and
moving and poetic and exciting, but they're not useful for
understanding the complex process that created the world we live
in today. Science tells us with a great deal of
certitude that the Earth is billions of years old and
(05:03):
the universe even older. And with these evidence based theories,
we can make testable hypotheses. And we live in a
world with satellite communication and nuclear power, incredible medical capabilities,
amazing technologies, chemical insights that have allowed us to expand
agriculture and grow our population to billions without starvation. All
of these things can exist in a world of faith
(05:25):
and a belief in divine care. But we would not
have any of this, nor would any of you likely
be alive, if our species had stopped with God, did it?
Speaker 2 (05:36):
So?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
I guess I get annoyed at creationists because they get
all the benefits of this network of interconnected discoveries while
proudly rejecting the science that allowed this to come into
existence in favor of three thousand year old myths. Anyway,
litteralists want simple answers, but the world is not simple.
And when they come after the science books, it's a
(05:58):
direct attack on the very system that allow us to
discover more about the world. And when they come after
cryptids and monsters, I can't help but feel us a
direct attack on Monstrutle.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Well, welcome back.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
We're going to continue our interview now talking about the
rest of your book and kind of the heart of it,
which is how creationists are using dragons to promote anti
science narratives. Kerrien, why don't you kick us off?
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Yes, we'll do well. Phil, welcome back, and let's get
in the second part of our discussion. So your book
refers to dinosaurs being used by creationists as missionary lizards.
So can you tell us a bit about what this
phrase means and how dinosaurs strategically are employed in Young
Earth narratives.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Well, the phrase missionary lizards, if I'm not mistaken, is
the brainchild of ken Ham, who is the head of
Answers in Genesis, and it refers to the fact that
they can be used as a proselytizing device to sort
of bring people to the faith. And the specific version
(07:13):
of the faith that Answers in Genesis promotes is one
in which Genesis and the Biblical timeline are both taken
literally as a historical fact. And if that is correct,
then the earth was created about six thousand years ago
(07:36):
and all the different kinds of animals were created simultaneously,
which means that humans and dinosaurs encountered each other.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Well to Jorassic Book.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
If we take this to its logical extreme, then maybe,
just maybe dragon legends are based on human in count
with live dinosaurs. And where it gets very entertaining for
me is the idea that fire breathing dragon legends are
(08:11):
based on human encounters with fire breathing dinosaurs. And that
is just so fun to write about.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Yeah, you actually dig into that quite a bit, So
you delve into what we call the fire breathing hypothesis,
which ranges from methane vents to electric eels. What's one
claim that really stood out to you as wild, wildly
implausible but still pretty widely repeated. Which is easy to
write but hard to say.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
But one of my favorites is the pyrophoric chemical idea. Now,
so far, no younger creationist writer whose writings I have
read has used the term pyrophoric, but they describe it
the the term Pyrophormit. Pyrophoric has to do with any
(09:03):
chemical that will spontaneously cause flame when it's exposed to oxygen.
So the idea is, if a dinosaur is producing a
pyrophoric chemical from its throat or its nose, then a
fireball will emerge from the mouth or the nose, And
(09:25):
it is incontrovertible that if a dinosaur did produce or
if any vertebrate produced a pyrophoric chemical and great enough
quantity from its nose in its mouth.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Yeah, it would produce a flame. The problem with.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
The hypothesis is what happens next, Because if there's a
fireball in your nose, or a fireball in your mouth,
or a fireball even at the edge of your nose
or your mouth on the way out, there are serious
health issues that will result in mediately. Just ask anybody
(10:02):
who's had facial burns or oral burns. They are They
are both clinically serious conditions that if you don't get treated,
death is almost inevitable. So if a fire breathing dragon
truly existed, it would have had the opportunity to earn
its name once.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Yeah, these are such creative ideas and I always feel
like I need to apologize for ken Ham whenever anyone
talks about him being a fellow Australian. In analyzing biblical
monsters like a Leviathan and Behemoth, how do you separate
literary or metaphorical interpretation from more literalist misreadings. And how
(10:46):
does biblical scholarship help here.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Oh, biblical little scholarship helps a lot. If you've studied
the Hebrew language, it makes a huge difference, because it
is almost useless to read the Behemoth passage in Joeb
forty in English. It is the most mistranslated passage line
for line in the entire Bible. And the translators did
(11:14):
not know what sort of creature the ancient poet was
talking about, and they tried their best, but you have
to know the ancient context in order to translate those
lines correctly, and very very few people are familiar with
the mythological context of the Behemoth passage. Thankfully, I live
(11:46):
in an age in which translations are out there and
interlibrary loan is out there, and I can get my
hands on this stuff.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
It's great.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Some of the Yugaritic texts, for example, from where Syria
and Canaan that's kind of the border between them. In
ancient times, the city of Yugurt was right in that area,
and the the people there left a whole lot of
(12:19):
clay tablets with a cuneiform writing on it that in
some cases was medical tacts about dispelling demons. And one
of the things we learned from those is when you
when you dispel a demon, you you you tell it
to go to the mountains and stop feeding on this
person's energy and instead go to the mountains.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
To feed on plants.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
And you may even specifically mention reeds. And what do
we see in the Behemoth passage. He's been banished to
the mountains and he's surrounded by plants, and what is
he eating grass? And so this is it's a passage
about a creature that is of the supernatural variety, that
(13:01):
has been treated like a demon or like a dangerous
entity and been told go to the mountains and stay there.
And in fact, there's another part of the Behemoth passage
that says that the animals in the flat areas mock him.
It's as if they're going, yeah, and yeah, you can't
get us now, you know, you've been banished a way
(13:23):
over there. But this has been mistranslated as play, and
it makes you wonder why are animals playing. It doesn't
really have anything to do with the rest of the passage,
but when they're mocking him, now, okay, now it makes sense.
And there's other examples to within the same passage that
(13:44):
demonstrate this is a supernatural thing. For example, his maker
approaches him with the sword, And why would a deity
approach something like a crocodile or a or an hippopotamus
or any ordinary animal, including a dinosaur, with a sword.
Why is God going to fight a sauropod or a hippo.
(14:06):
It doesn't make any sense. It's got to be a
dangerous supernatural being that only a very powerful deity could
keep control.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Maybe it was a dinosword. Those translations are trinking. I
should mention here you have a lot of commentary about
this idea of dead varmint vision, which I think is
just such a fun term, and it's something that we
see a lot, not just in cryptozoology and with the
(14:36):
idea here is that people in modern eyes are looking
at ancient art and seeing creatures that they think might
be real. But it also comes up in upology and
people seeing images that artists know exactly what's going on.
Medievalists know exactly what's going on, but modern ancient aliens
theorists are like, oh, it must be a spaceship. That's
(14:59):
not a commet. Comets don't have little people in them,
you know, just really misunderstanding the art. But can you
talk a little bit about did Varmit vision?
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Yes, Dead Varmit vision is all about misunderstanding the art.
It's all about ever having read a book on medieval
art and what it means, and then going to medieval
art with your brain as a blank slate, and then
trying to interpret things without without having a little knowledge beforehand,
(15:28):
and then you start to see stuff and it's it's
so exciting because it is. It is a great example
of this. It isn't a medieval one, but my favorite
one is from ancient Egypt. There's these cats, these long
necked cats. For some reason, their necks have been exaggerated
(15:49):
in length. But the rest of the animal is a cat.
It's got a kitty cat head, it's got kitty cat haunches,
it's got a kitty cat tail, they've got kitty cat pause.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
It's a cat.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
From stem to stern, but its neck has been exaggerated,
and several Young Earth creationist authors are calling it a
brontosaurus or some other soropod dinosaur. Obviously they are seeing
only the neck and they're not seeing the rest of
the animal, which to me is like having a tarantula
(16:20):
with a little bit of frosting on it and seeing
the frosting calling it a wedding cake.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Yeah, it's a problem, and I don't know why. I mean, obviously,
the concept of abstract art, you know, it's not new.
You look at those ancient rock paintings. Those are very abstract,
They're very figurative, and they there's nothing quite literal about them.
Yet again, in a different field, ufology, ancient aliens that stuff.
(16:49):
People were like, look, those must be aliens because they
don't look like real people. And it's like, well, you know,
some of the stuff that Picasso did doesn't really favor
real people. Abstraction didn't develop in the nineteen twenties and thirties.
It's been around for human history. You know, it's a
hard lesson to tell people.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Yes, quite a few critters in ancient are are aren't
even meant to look realistic. They're they're meant to you know, Well,
they have stylization, which the ancients would have understood, their
ancient audience would have understood it, but we moderns require
some study to understand it. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
Well, this talk of of moments, and I keep thinking
of usimity Sam and loony tunes.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Oh yeah, that's fuck too flopping and slimy farm at
this time?
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Or my name made yo semity sound.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
I keep saying creationists as cartoonists, but I dug.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Gress so well, the level of silliness between the creationist
literature and Yosemite Sam is rather similar.
Speaker 5 (17:55):
Oh I'm glad you said that.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Phil.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
So you write that some creationist authors are using this
dragon dinosaur equivalents in grade school textbooks. So how significant
is this for science literacy and what kind of misinformation
is being taught to our kids?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Well, I'm hoping very very few people use these particular curricula,
but I don't know. I've actually tried contacting one or
two of the publishers and asking how how many copies
of this are, you know, are in circulation actually being taught,
(18:40):
and I could not get a straight answer. But there
are at least two different curricula from one from Bob
Jones University, one from Pensacola called.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
A Becca Book b E Ka Becca.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
And both of them at least at one point in
this century had science textbooks in which they were saying
that dinosaurs breathed fire, and they were proffering suggestions as
(19:13):
to how the fire could have been produced. Oh let
me throw a disclaimer in there too. When I mentioned
the textbooks I had the Flaming Dinosaurs, I might have
misspoken about a Becca book if I remember right, they
endorsed the idea of dinosaurs as dragons without the fire thing.
(19:36):
And it was two different editions of the Bob Jones
textbook that was advocating the fire breathing. It's sad to
see that in a science book. It's also sad to
see dinosaurs being touted as the dragons of legend in
(19:58):
these so called science books, considering that dinosaurs went extinct
sixty six million years ago. So these are the sorts
of things that are being taught that.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Tell me about you know, there are animals that have
explosive properties, and I maybe you should we should talk
a little bit about how creation is. Talk about the
Bombardier Beetle.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Oh yes, Oh that is a wow capital W.
Speaker 4 (20:31):
Wow is the.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Word that comes to mind with their their literature on
the Bombardier Beetle, which is full of misinformation, but.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
It's so exciting to read.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Look, all the Bombardier Beetle does is shoot hot liquid.
That's it. Of course it's hotter than usual for a
liquid that comes out of an animal's body.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
But it's just hot liquid.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
There's no explosion, there's no spark, there's no flame, there's
no fire, there's none of that exciting stuff. And yet
when you read the younger creationist literature on the bombardy
or beetle, whenever the dragon comes up, almost every single
mention of it will say either there's a spark, or
there's an explosion, or it generates flame. And one one
(21:17):
author even said that if these two chemicals met inside
the animal's body, it would blow itself to smithereens.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
That's an actual quote.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
It is, it is, I've seen that.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
Yeah, yes, and loony tunes again.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Right, there's no basis for any of that.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
In reality.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
All it does I accidentally stepped on a bomb of
your beetle and it blew my foot off.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
I guess that's what they're expecting.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Yeah, I think so, I really do. I think that's
what they think would happen. Yeah, but what really happened.
Sorry I didn't mean to interrupt.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Oh yeah, all that happens is the the the animal
has two chemicals that meet inside it its body or
very close to the exit and when they meet, they
react and it's an exothermic reaction, so it generates some heat,
and so when the resulting liquid flies out, it's hot.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
But you know it's not going to give you third
degree burns or anything.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
It's it's not that hot.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
It's like if you have a dry leaf nearby, it
will not catch fire.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Uh, it's so not Starship Troopers, it's not.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Okay, the point, if.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
You're using the Bombardier beetles as a basis for saying,
look what animals can do, then the most you could
say about what a dinosaur might have been able to do.
That's like what a bomber deer beetle does is maybe
yack up some liquid that's just extra hot and could
keep your hands warm and toasty in the winter. But
(22:56):
you know they won't be burned as the the flesh
won't be coming off your fingers and there will be
no smoke there. I look at the videos of the
the Bumbardier beetle on YouTube and you'll see that when
the when the liquid comes out, if it's back lit,
it ultimately becomes this fine spray that it's rather lovely.
(23:20):
When back lit, it's this nice mist but you know
there's there's no smoke.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
There's no fire.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Wow, how coolould cool would that be if there were?
Speaker 1 (23:29):
But'd be fantastic? Yeah, yeah, I mean in sex are well.
I mean biology is amazing, evolution is amazing, and and
I love you know, we haven't talked about it much.
I'll probably talk about it in the intro to these episodes.
But natural selection is such a beautiful explanation for diversity,
but it needs a lot of time, and so arguing
(23:52):
for a young Earth is one way to argue that
if it can't be true, there hasn't been enough time.
So that which is interesting in its own but wrong.
And yes, I think, you know, I get the appeal.
That is an exciting world that they live in. It's
just not the real world. I mean, it feels like
we're What we have ultimately is an epistemological difference for
(24:14):
where do you get your evidence and what do you
think constitutes truth? And I liked it when we started
this show. There was a lot of argument to be had,
but I didn't feel like we were in danger of
losing to lunacy. And it feels like the rational evidence
(24:36):
based epistemology has sort of been subverted, and I think
this is just one of many battlefronts where it feels
like we're losing, And I wonder what do you think
about our chances here? Like is your book? I mean,
I think your book is great and be really useful
for finding this one particular front, and I hope people
pick it up for that purpose. But how do you
(24:58):
think about the bigger picture? You know, what do you
think it is we're sliding into this pseudoscientific framework all
across the world right now.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Well, if you take a look at the literature of
past centuries, and I think you will find that probably
the ratio of people who base their opinions on observation
and fact versus the the folks who base it on
(25:33):
what's exciting and unrealistic, the ratio is probably held constant
through the centuries. At least that's my impression.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
I hope you're right. I hope you're right.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Yeah, I don't think it's getting worse. I think it's
just staying the same, and we can try to make
it better, but I think that's a futile effort. So
what we should be doing instead is just giving the
other side no excuse and that's what this book is about.
I know I cannot convert people who have made up
(26:04):
their minds, and I'm not trying to, but I do
want them to have no excuse.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Wow, that is a noble approach. I hope, I hope
this works. Yeah, it's it's there's no winning conditions. As
as my friend and colleague art friend of the show
Daniel Watson likes to say, this is not a task.
It's a chore. It has to be revisited constantly. It's
a garden that has to be tended constantly. So I
(26:35):
thank you for doing some gardening. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Yeah, and it just say so happens at this particular
form of weading.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
I just find it fun, So try and stop me.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
I mean, if somebody's having fun at something that that
that's an intrinsic motivator. It's very difficult to get them
to quit.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Nice like, did you have any questions?
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Or Oh, I think we can. I think we're good here.
I think we could roll into our final question. And Phil,
I think I really appreciate your book. It's a lot
of fun. It's got some great images in it, a
lot of good info, It's well written. Easy reads, not
super long. I'd urge our listeners to pick up a copy,
go to battle, take this book with you.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
Yeah, I think most most of our readers are going
to be interested in this book. And this has been
a really interesting discussion and to look at the two
sides of this book as well. But Phil, we've got
a final question. We're starting to wrap up the show
now and we always like to ask our signature question
at the end, and that is what's your favorite monster?
Speaker 2 (27:41):
Oh? There is no contest, hands down. It is Cookie
Monster from Sesame Street.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
See it's for cookie.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
That's good enough for me. See it is for cookie.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
That's good enough for me.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Oh really absolutely? How can you not love those googly eyes,
the pupils that just a roll in his head every
time he moves. And the poor guy he's he's cute
as can be and always hungry. And the reason for
that is he has no throat, and so you put
(28:17):
cookies in his mouth and they just fall right back
out and he never gets to swallow.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
But you know it doesn't stop him.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
He keeps trying. There's you got to admire that.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Oh you do as I tell my doctor when I
go to my diabetes checkup. A one C is for cookies.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
That's and from cookies. That's right.
Speaker 5 (28:42):
Good love that four year old language and the love
of cookies. But I think that's the first time we've
heard that for sure.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
Sure, Yeah, yeah, he's a great monster though.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Yeah, yes, And can I share a little bit more
about cookie Monster. My daughter Becca was taking violin lessons
when she was in well grade school, and the violin
cases that they had for these school violins were lined
(29:15):
with blue fur. And when she brought this home and
opened it, I couldn't help myself. Well I couldn't have,
but I didn't, And I said, do you know how
many cookie musters they had to slaughter.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
To make these things? And Becca thought it.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Was funny, but her mother did not, And I found
that funny anyhow.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
Yeah, you talked a little bit about electric eels and
Bobbeder beatles in the book, and I just thought I
just was watching. Are you familiar with James Burke's documentary
series Connections.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Yeah, I've heard of Connections, Yeah, they did.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
I think the first series started maybe in seventy eight
or seventy nine, and then he did a few in
the nineties and he just apparently did one like two
years ago that picked up the series again, and it's
just about connecting ideas. But I did not realize that
Volta had used research on electric eels to develop the
concept for his battery, which is really fascinating to me.
(30:16):
So he looked at the cellular structure of electric rays,
not eels, electric rays, which also you know have this
you know, vertical column of specialized sales, and he basically
duplicated that material form using different kinds of materials to
make first dry cell battery, which is really cool. But
(30:36):
I mean, evolution comes up with some really cool solutions,
and I love it when we were able to use
those as inspirations for innovation and invention. I just think
that's really neat. So yeah, that's all that would just
me rambling. I like technology.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Well, yeah, and that is a pretty cool episode in
the history of technology.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
It really is. I Well, I'm working on my own book.
We'll get that another day. But anyway, Okay, Bill, thanks
so much for spending some time with us. Talk about
your work.
Speaker 5 (31:06):
Yes, just in closing that, Phil, what are you working
on next?
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Hmm, I've got a project in the works that's almost finished.
It's a book on taxidermic dragon hoaxes through the centuries,
and the title is Bullshit Dragons nice right, these chapter
is a different hoax, and it's got it is profanity riddled,
(31:36):
so you've got to have a problem with that to
read this book. Bullshit is in the title, Bullshit is
in every chapter. And yes, I am a happily practicing
Greek Orthodox Christian and this would not be a problem
at all for my particular perish because the Greeks don't
(31:58):
have a problem with profanity at all, even within the
church building on Sunday morning.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
But that's really funny. That's really but my family, which.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
Is all Baptists, will look upon the title of the
book with a little trepidation. Monster.
Speaker 1 (32:11):
You've been listening to Monster Talk, the Science show about monsters.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
I'm Blake Smith and I'm Karen Stolsner.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
You just heard part two of our interview with Philip
Center about his new book, The Real Story of Dinosaurs
and Dragons Science Sets the Fossil Record Straight, which details
how creations try to use dragons to undermine the science
of natural selection and evolution. I hope you'll check it out.
Links in the show notes. Oh and there was a
well timed new article in New Lines magazine about creationists
(32:39):
hijacking Machilley Mabimbay that perfectly lines up with doctor Center's book,
so I put a link there for that to check
it out. We hope you've enjoyed this episode of Monster Talk.
Each episode we strive to bring you the very best
in monster related content, with a focus on bringing scientific
skepticism into the conversation. If you enjoy Monster Talk, we
(33:00):
now have a variety of ways to support the show,
all with convenient links at MonsterTalk dot org forwarde slash support.
That's MonsterTalk dot org forward slash support. We have links
there to our Patreon page as well as a donation button.
Another great way to support the show is to buy
books from our Amazon Monster Talk wish List, which directly
(33:22):
helps us with our research. We love used books very much,
so don't feel compelled to buy new ones, and we
love kindles so we can share our digital libraries with
each other. And finally, without spending any money at all,
you can support us by leaving a positive review at
iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. Positive reviews help
keep us visible in iTunes, which is a great way
(33:44):
to help us find you listeners, and please share our
show on your favorite social media platforms. Monster Talks theme
music is by Pete Stealing Monkeys. Thanks for caring about
monsters and science enough to make this show a part
of your life. This has been a Monster House presentation.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
Are they bullshit or not?
Monster House presents.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
It's actually quite unlike anything we've ever seen before.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
A giant, very creature party part.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
In Luckness, a twenty four a mile long bottomless lake
in the Highlands of Scotland.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
It's a creature known as the Luckness Monster.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Monster Talk.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Welcome to Monster Talk, the science show about monsters. I'm
Blake Smith.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
And I'm Karen Stolsner.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Hey, welcome back to part two of our two part
chat with doctor Phillip Center about his new book, The
Real Story of Dinosaurs and Dragons. It's funny how sometimes
when an idea is in your mind, you'll start seeing
it everywhere, and psychology will tell you that's a kind
of observation bias, your brain looking for patterns. This gets
even worse when Internet ecosystems like Google scour your emails
(01:21):
looking for patterns that might interest you, or when news
outlets discover a story is getting a lot of traffic
and reporters start posting similar stories, which creates this public
feeling that something must be going on, and that's going
to be exacerbated even more soon by the advertising arbitrage system,
which is forming a deeply lucrative relationship with large language
models that can generate hot articles from thin air with
(01:43):
convincing photos. We're in for a ride, folks, and I
don't think we can stop it from happening, because at present,
the ecosystem of content generation has become uncoupled from any
value for whether the said content is, for lack of
a better word, bullshit or not. I said last week
that this is an epistemological war, that there's different ways
(02:04):
of deciding whether someone believes something or not, and I
come down hard in the camp that values evidence based approaches.
But I also believe that people may have a biological
reason for wanting simple answers that conform to their existing beliefs.
I'll be exploring this in my book about technology. But
even if I'm wrong about the deep causes, it is
evident in many scientific disciplines and even folk wisdom that
(02:28):
our biases always nudges to the answers that fit our
existing beliefs. I've never heard it more succinctly explain that
in Simon Garfunkel's song The Boxer, when the lyrics say
all lies in jest. Still a man, here's what he
wants to hear and disregard to the rest, I know
people have a tendency to think in terms of culture
(02:48):
war these days, and that implies there's two sides and
that one will eventually win, which brings me to another
insight from my work on technology. People crave simplicity and
will take a simple explain nation that feels good over
a hard, complex answer that more closely hues to reality.
We work on models in our brain, and there's probably
no simpler explanation for the magistic complexity of the world
(03:11):
we're in than God did it. That kind of naive
simplicity is very satisfying for folks who want to believe
they understand the world. But it's the kind of simple
answer designed to make one stop asking questions and has
the big capital letter truth, which is very satisfying to
some fold. This isn't a judgment against such people. I'm
(03:32):
here today because of such people and because they love
me and cared for me. But they're not the kind
of people who want to solve medical problems, for example,
or maybe they have a hybrid view that includes going
to the doctor, but they also pray, and when they
finally get better, they curse the thousands of dollars in
medical expenses in medicine and they thank the Lord for
his miraculous healing. We don't hear as much from the
(03:54):
purists who reject medicine entirely for prayer, because on average
they end up dead quicker, and that's quieter. But taking
the science side of things means acknowledging complexity, and you
don't get the big capital T truth there. Even though
statistically an evidence based rational worldview gives you more reliable models,
science truths are always provisional. Yes, scientists are people and
(04:17):
they have their biases, but the methodology itself insists that
we have to change our models to comport with reality
and not the other way around, and that is hard.
But again, the real world is complicated, and many scientists
aren't atheists, they just don't have a naive iron age
view of the world. Scientists, when faced with a difference
between their faith and their evidence, have to acknowledge the evidence.
(04:41):
This battle already happen. Literalist interpretation of creation myths just
don't stand up to scrutiny. They could be beautiful and
moving and poetic and exciting, but they're not useful for
understanding the complex process that created the world we live
in today. Science tells us with a great deal of
certitude that the Earth is billions of years old and
(05:03):
the universe even older. And with these evidence based theories,
we can make testable hypotheses. And we live in a
world with satellite communication and nuclear power, incredible medical capabilities,
amazing technologies, chemical insights that have allowed us to expand
agriculture and grow our population to billions without starvation. All
of these things can exist in a world of faith
(05:25):
and a belief in divine care. But we would not
have any of this, nor would any of you likely
be alive, if our species had stopped with God, did it?
Speaker 2 (05:36):
So?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
I guess I get annoyed at creationists because they get
all the benefits of this network of interconnected discoveries while
proudly rejecting the science that allowed this to come into
existence in favor of three thousand year old myths. Anyway,
litteralists want simple answers, but the world is not simple.
And when they come after the science books, it's a
(05:58):
direct attack on the very system that allow us to
discover more about the world. And when they come after
cryptids and monsters, I can't help but feel us a
direct attack on Monstrutle.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Well, welcome back.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
We're going to continue our interview now talking about the
rest of your book and kind of the heart of it,
which is how creationists are using dragons to promote anti
science narratives. Kerrien, why don't you kick us off?
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Yes, we'll do well. Phil, welcome back, and let's get
in the second part of our discussion. So your book
refers to dinosaurs being used by creationists as missionary lizards.
So can you tell us a bit about what this
phrase means and how dinosaurs strategically are employed in Young
Earth narratives.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Well, the phrase missionary lizards, if I'm not mistaken, is
the brainchild of ken Ham, who is the head of
Answers in Genesis, and it refers to the fact that
they can be used as a proselytizing device to sort
of bring people to the faith. And the specific version
(07:13):
of the faith that Answers in Genesis promotes is one
in which Genesis and the Biblical timeline are both taken
literally as a historical fact. And if that is correct,
then the earth was created about six thousand years ago
(07:36):
and all the different kinds of animals were created simultaneously,
which means that humans and dinosaurs encountered each other.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Well to Jorassic Book.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
If we take this to its logical extreme, then maybe,
just maybe dragon legends are based on human in count
with live dinosaurs. And where it gets very entertaining for
me is the idea that fire breathing dragon legends are
(08:11):
based on human encounters with fire breathing dinosaurs. And that
is just so fun to write about.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Yeah, you actually dig into that quite a bit, So
you delve into what we call the fire breathing hypothesis,
which ranges from methane vents to electric eels. What's one
claim that really stood out to you as wild, wildly
implausible but still pretty widely repeated. Which is easy to
write but hard to say.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
But one of my favorites is the pyrophoric chemical idea. Now,
so far, no younger creationist writer whose writings I have
read has used the term pyrophoric, but they describe it
the the term Pyrophormit. Pyrophoric has to do with any
(09:03):
chemical that will spontaneously cause flame when it's exposed to oxygen.
So the idea is, if a dinosaur is producing a
pyrophoric chemical from its throat or its nose, then a
fireball will emerge from the mouth or the nose, And
(09:25):
it is incontrovertible that if a dinosaur did produce or
if any vertebrate produced a pyrophoric chemical and great enough
quantity from its nose in its mouth.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Yeah, it would produce a flame. The problem with.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
The hypothesis is what happens next, Because if there's a
fireball in your nose, or a fireball in your mouth,
or a fireball even at the edge of your nose
or your mouth on the way out, there are serious
health issues that will result in mediately. Just ask anybody
(10:02):
who's had facial burns or oral burns. They are They
are both clinically serious conditions that if you don't get treated,
death is almost inevitable. So if a fire breathing dragon
truly existed, it would have had the opportunity to earn
its name once.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Yeah, these are such creative ideas and I always feel
like I need to apologize for ken Ham whenever anyone
talks about him being a fellow Australian. In analyzing biblical
monsters like a Leviathan and Behemoth, how do you separate
literary or metaphorical interpretation from more literalist misreadings. And how
(10:46):
does biblical scholarship help here.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Oh, biblical little scholarship helps a lot. If you've studied
the Hebrew language, it makes a huge difference, because it
is almost useless to read the Behemoth passage in Joeb
forty in English. It is the most mistranslated passage line
for line in the entire Bible. And the translators did
(11:14):
not know what sort of creature the ancient poet was
talking about, and they tried their best, but you have
to know the ancient context in order to translate those
lines correctly, and very very few people are familiar with
the mythological context of the Behemoth passage. Thankfully, I live
(11:46):
in an age in which translations are out there and
interlibrary loan is out there, and I can get my
hands on this stuff.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
It's great.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Some of the Yugaritic texts, for example, from where Syria
and Canaan that's kind of the border between them. In
ancient times, the city of Yugurt was right in that area,
and the the people there left a whole lot of
(12:19):
clay tablets with a cuneiform writing on it that in
some cases was medical tacts about dispelling demons. And one
of the things we learned from those is when you
when you dispel a demon, you you you tell it
to go to the mountains and stop feeding on this
person's energy and instead go to the mountains.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
To feed on plants.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
And you may even specifically mention reeds. And what do
we see in the Behemoth passage. He's been banished to
the mountains and he's surrounded by plants, and what is
he eating grass? And so this is it's a passage
about a creature that is of the supernatural variety, that
(13:01):
has been treated like a demon or like a dangerous
entity and been told go to the mountains and stay there.
And in fact, there's another part of the Behemoth passage
that says that the animals in the flat areas mock him.
It's as if they're going, yeah, and yeah, you can't
get us now, you know, you've been banished a way
(13:23):
over there. But this has been mistranslated as play, and
it makes you wonder why are animals playing. It doesn't
really have anything to do with the rest of the passage,
but when they're mocking him, now, okay, now it makes sense.
And there's other examples to within the same passage that
(13:44):
demonstrate this is a supernatural thing. For example, his maker
approaches him with the sword, And why would a deity
approach something like a crocodile or a or an hippopotamus
or any ordinary animal, including a dinosaur, with a sword.
Why is God going to fight a sauropod or a hippo.
(14:06):
It doesn't make any sense. It's got to be a
dangerous supernatural being that only a very powerful deity could
keep control.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Maybe it was a dinosword. Those translations are trinking. I
should mention here you have a lot of commentary about
this idea of dead varmint vision, which I think is
just such a fun term, and it's something that we
see a lot, not just in cryptozoology and with the
(14:36):
idea here is that people in modern eyes are looking
at ancient art and seeing creatures that they think might
be real. But it also comes up in upology and
people seeing images that artists know exactly what's going on.
Medievalists know exactly what's going on, but modern ancient aliens
theorists are like, oh, it must be a spaceship. That's
(14:59):
not a commet. Comets don't have little people in them,
you know, just really misunderstanding the art. But can you
talk a little bit about did Varmit vision?
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Yes, Dead Varmit vision is all about misunderstanding the art.
It's all about ever having read a book on medieval
art and what it means, and then going to medieval
art with your brain as a blank slate, and then
trying to interpret things without without having a little knowledge beforehand,
(15:28):
and then you start to see stuff and it's it's
so exciting because it is. It is a great example
of this. It isn't a medieval one, but my favorite
one is from ancient Egypt. There's these cats, these long
necked cats. For some reason, their necks have been exaggerated
(15:49):
in length. But the rest of the animal is a cat.
It's got a kitty cat head, it's got kitty cat haunches,
it's got a kitty cat tail, they've got kitty cat pause.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
It's a cat.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
From stem to stern, but its neck has been exaggerated,
and several Young Earth creationist authors are calling it a
brontosaurus or some other soropod dinosaur. Obviously they are seeing
only the neck and they're not seeing the rest of
the animal, which to me is like having a tarantula
(16:20):
with a little bit of frosting on it and seeing
the frosting calling it a wedding cake.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Yeah, it's a problem, and I don't know why. I mean, obviously,
the concept of abstract art, you know, it's not new.
You look at those ancient rock paintings. Those are very abstract,
They're very figurative, and they there's nothing quite literal about them.
Yet again, in a different field, ufology, ancient aliens that stuff.
(16:49):
People were like, look, those must be aliens because they
don't look like real people. And it's like, well, you know,
some of the stuff that Picasso did doesn't really favor
real people. Abstraction didn't develop in the nineteen twenties and thirties.
It's been around for human history. You know, it's a
hard lesson to tell people.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Yes, quite a few critters in ancient are are aren't
even meant to look realistic. They're they're meant to you know, Well,
they have stylization, which the ancients would have understood, their
ancient audience would have understood it, but we moderns require
some study to understand it. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
Well, this talk of of moments, and I keep thinking
of usimity Sam and loony tunes.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Oh yeah, that's fuck too flopping and slimy farm at
this time?
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Or my name made yo semity sound.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
I keep saying creationists as cartoonists, but I dug.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Gress so well, the level of silliness between the creationist
literature and Yosemite Sam is rather similar.
Speaker 5 (17:55):
Oh I'm glad you said that.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Phil.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
So you write that some creationist authors are using this
dragon dinosaur equivalents in grade school textbooks. So how significant
is this for science literacy and what kind of misinformation
is being taught to our kids?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Well, I'm hoping very very few people use these particular curricula,
but I don't know. I've actually tried contacting one or
two of the publishers and asking how how many copies
of this are, you know, are in circulation actually being taught,
(18:40):
and I could not get a straight answer. But there
are at least two different curricula from one from Bob
Jones University, one from Pensacola called.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
A Becca Book b E Ka Becca.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
And both of them at least at one point in
this century had science textbooks in which they were saying
that dinosaurs breathed fire, and they were proffering suggestions as
(19:13):
to how the fire could have been produced. Oh let
me throw a disclaimer in there too. When I mentioned
the textbooks I had the Flaming Dinosaurs, I might have
misspoken about a Becca book if I remember right, they
endorsed the idea of dinosaurs as dragons without the fire thing.
(19:36):
And it was two different editions of the Bob Jones
textbook that was advocating the fire breathing. It's sad to
see that in a science book. It's also sad to
see dinosaurs being touted as the dragons of legend in
(19:58):
these so called science books, considering that dinosaurs went extinct
sixty six million years ago. So these are the sorts
of things that are being taught that.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Tell me about you know, there are animals that have
explosive properties, and I maybe you should we should talk
a little bit about how creation is. Talk about the
Bombardier Beetle.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Oh yes, Oh that is a wow capital W.
Speaker 4 (20:31):
Wow is the.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Word that comes to mind with their their literature on
the Bombardier Beetle, which is full of misinformation, but.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
It's so exciting to read.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Look, all the Bombardier Beetle does is shoot hot liquid.
That's it. Of course it's hotter than usual for a
liquid that comes out of an animal's body.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
But it's just hot liquid.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
There's no explosion, there's no spark, there's no flame, there's
no fire, there's none of that exciting stuff. And yet
when you read the younger creationist literature on the bombardy
or beetle, whenever the dragon comes up, almost every single
mention of it will say either there's a spark, or
there's an explosion, or it generates flame. And one one
(21:17):
author even said that if these two chemicals met inside
the animal's body, it would blow itself to smithereens.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
That's an actual quote.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
It is, it is, I've seen that.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
Yeah, yes, and loony tunes again.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Right, there's no basis for any of that.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
In reality.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
All it does I accidentally stepped on a bomb of
your beetle and it blew my foot off.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
I guess that's what they're expecting.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Yeah, I think so, I really do. I think that's
what they think would happen. Yeah, but what really happened.
Sorry I didn't mean to interrupt.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Oh yeah, all that happens is the the the animal
has two chemicals that meet inside it its body or
very close to the exit and when they meet, they
react and it's an exothermic reaction, so it generates some heat,
and so when the resulting liquid flies out, it's hot.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
But you know it's not going to give you third
degree burns or anything.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
It's it's not that hot.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
It's like if you have a dry leaf nearby, it
will not catch fire.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Uh, it's so not Starship Troopers, it's not.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Okay, the point, if.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
You're using the Bombardier beetles as a basis for saying,
look what animals can do, then the most you could
say about what a dinosaur might have been able to do.
That's like what a bomber deer beetle does is maybe
yack up some liquid that's just extra hot and could
keep your hands warm and toasty in the winter. But
(22:56):
you know they won't be burned as the the flesh
won't be coming off your fingers and there will be
no smoke there. I look at the videos of the
the Bumbardier beetle on YouTube and you'll see that when
the when the liquid comes out, if it's back lit,
it ultimately becomes this fine spray that it's rather lovely.
(23:20):
When back lit, it's this nice mist but you know
there's there's no smoke.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
There's no fire.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Wow, how coolould cool would that be if there were?
Speaker 1 (23:29):
But'd be fantastic? Yeah, yeah, I mean in sex are well.
I mean biology is amazing, evolution is amazing, and and
I love you know, we haven't talked about it much.
I'll probably talk about it in the intro to these episodes.
But natural selection is such a beautiful explanation for diversity,
but it needs a lot of time, and so arguing
(23:52):
for a young Earth is one way to argue that
if it can't be true, there hasn't been enough time.
So that which is interesting in its own but wrong.
And yes, I think, you know, I get the appeal.
That is an exciting world that they live in. It's
just not the real world. I mean, it feels like
we're What we have ultimately is an epistemological difference for
(24:14):
where do you get your evidence and what do you
think constitutes truth? And I liked it when we started
this show. There was a lot of argument to be had,
but I didn't feel like we were in danger of
losing to lunacy. And it feels like the rational evidence
(24:36):
based epistemology has sort of been subverted, and I think
this is just one of many battlefronts where it feels
like we're losing, And I wonder what do you think
about our chances here? Like is your book? I mean,
I think your book is great and be really useful
for finding this one particular front, and I hope people
pick it up for that purpose. But how do you
(24:58):
think about the bigger picture? You know, what do you
think it is we're sliding into this pseudoscientific framework all
across the world right now.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Well, if you take a look at the literature of
past centuries, and I think you will find that probably
the ratio of people who base their opinions on observation
and fact versus the the folks who base it on
(25:33):
what's exciting and unrealistic, the ratio is probably held constant
through the centuries. At least that's my impression.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
I hope you're right. I hope you're right.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Yeah, I don't think it's getting worse. I think it's
just staying the same, and we can try to make
it better, but I think that's a futile effort. So
what we should be doing instead is just giving the
other side no excuse and that's what this book is about.
I know I cannot convert people who have made up
(26:04):
their minds, and I'm not trying to, but I do
want them to have no excuse.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Wow, that is a noble approach. I hope, I hope
this works. Yeah, it's it's there's no winning conditions. As
as my friend and colleague art friend of the show
Daniel Watson likes to say, this is not a task.
It's a chore. It has to be revisited constantly. It's
a garden that has to be tended constantly. So I
(26:35):
thank you for doing some gardening. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Yeah, and it just say so happens at this particular
form of weading.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
I just find it fun, So try and stop me.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
I mean, if somebody's having fun at something that that
that's an intrinsic motivator. It's very difficult to get them
to quit.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Nice like, did you have any questions?
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Or Oh, I think we can. I think we're good here.
I think we could roll into our final question. And Phil,
I think I really appreciate your book. It's a lot
of fun. It's got some great images in it, a
lot of good info, It's well written. Easy reads, not
super long. I'd urge our listeners to pick up a copy,
go to battle, take this book with you.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
Yeah, I think most most of our readers are going
to be interested in this book. And this has been
a really interesting discussion and to look at the two
sides of this book as well. But Phil, we've got
a final question. We're starting to wrap up the show
now and we always like to ask our signature question
at the end, and that is what's your favorite monster?
Speaker 2 (27:41):
Oh? There is no contest, hands down. It is Cookie
Monster from Sesame Street.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
See it's for cookie.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
That's good enough for me. See it is for cookie.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
That's good enough for me.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Oh really absolutely? How can you not love those googly eyes,
the pupils that just a roll in his head every
time he moves. And the poor guy he's he's cute
as can be and always hungry. And the reason for
that is he has no throat, and so you put
(28:17):
cookies in his mouth and they just fall right back
out and he never gets to swallow.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
But you know it doesn't stop him.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
He keeps trying. There's you got to admire that.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Oh you do as I tell my doctor when I
go to my diabetes checkup. A one C is for cookies.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
That's and from cookies. That's right.
Speaker 5 (28:42):
Good love that four year old language and the love
of cookies. But I think that's the first time we've
heard that for sure.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
Sure, Yeah, yeah, he's a great monster though.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Yeah, yes, And can I share a little bit more
about cookie Monster. My daughter Becca was taking violin lessons
when she was in well grade school, and the violin
cases that they had for these school violins were lined
(29:15):
with blue fur. And when she brought this home and
opened it, I couldn't help myself. Well I couldn't have,
but I didn't, And I said, do you know how
many cookie musters they had to slaughter.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
To make these things? And Becca thought it.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Was funny, but her mother did not, And I found
that funny anyhow.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
Yeah, you talked a little bit about electric eels and
Bobbeder beatles in the book, and I just thought I
just was watching. Are you familiar with James Burke's documentary
series Connections.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Yeah, I've heard of Connections, Yeah, they did.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
I think the first series started maybe in seventy eight
or seventy nine, and then he did a few in
the nineties and he just apparently did one like two
years ago that picked up the series again, and it's
just about connecting ideas. But I did not realize that
Volta had used research on electric eels to develop the
concept for his battery, which is really fascinating to me.
(30:16):
So he looked at the cellular structure of electric rays,
not eels, electric rays, which also you know have this
you know, vertical column of specialized sales, and he basically
duplicated that material form using different kinds of materials to
make first dry cell battery, which is really cool. But
(30:36):
I mean, evolution comes up with some really cool solutions,
and I love it when we were able to use
those as inspirations for innovation and invention. I just think
that's really neat. So yeah, that's all that would just
me rambling. I like technology.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Well, yeah, and that is a pretty cool episode in
the history of technology.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
It really is. I Well, I'm working on my own book.
We'll get that another day. But anyway, Okay, Bill, thanks
so much for spending some time with us. Talk about
your work.
Speaker 5 (31:06):
Yes, just in closing that, Phil, what are you working
on next?
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Hmm, I've got a project in the works that's almost finished.
It's a book on taxidermic dragon hoaxes through the centuries,
and the title is Bullshit Dragons nice right, these chapter
is a different hoax, and it's got it is profanity riddled,
(31:36):
so you've got to have a problem with that to
read this book. Bullshit is in the title, Bullshit is
in every chapter. And yes, I am a happily practicing
Greek Orthodox Christian and this would not be a problem
at all for my particular perish because the Greeks don't
(31:58):
have a problem with profanity at all, even within the
church building on Sunday morning.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
But that's really funny. That's really but my family, which.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
Is all Baptists, will look upon the title of the
book with a little trepidation. Monster.
Speaker 1 (32:11):
You've been listening to Monster Talk, the Science show about monsters.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
I'm Blake Smith and I'm Karen Stolsner.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
You just heard part two of our interview with Philip
Center about his new book, The Real Story of Dinosaurs
and Dragons Science Sets the Fossil Record Straight, which details
how creations try to use dragons to undermine the science
of natural selection and evolution. I hope you'll check it out.
Links in the show notes. Oh and there was a
well timed new article in New Lines magazine about creationists
(32:39):
hijacking Machilley Mabimbay that perfectly lines up with doctor Center's book,
so I put a link there for that to check
it out. We hope you've enjoyed this episode of Monster Talk.
Each episode we strive to bring you the very best
in monster related content, with a focus on bringing scientific
skepticism into the conversation. If you enjoy Monster Talk, we
(33:00):
now have a variety of ways to support the show,
all with convenient links at MonsterTalk dot org forwarde slash support.
That's MonsterTalk dot org forward slash support. We have links
there to our Patreon page as well as a donation button.
Another great way to support the show is to buy
books from our Amazon Monster Talk wish List, which directly
(33:22):
helps us with our research. We love used books very much,
so don't feel compelled to buy new ones, and we
love kindles so we can share our digital libraries with
each other. And finally, without spending any money at all,
you can support us by leaving a positive review at
iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. Positive reviews help
keep us visible in iTunes, which is a great way
(33:44):
to help us find you listeners, and please share our
show on your favorite social media platforms. Monster Talks theme
music is by Pete Stealing Monkeys. Thanks for caring about
monsters and science enough to make this show a part
of your life. This has been a Monster House presentation.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
Are they bullshit or not?
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!