What do you think?
Rate this book
Dinosaurs: The Bible, Barney & Beyond
In-depth look at evolution, creation science, and dinosaurs in the media and toys.
192 pages, Paperback
First published December 25, 1994
18 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 19, 2023
I read HALLOWEEN AND SATANISM by Phil Phillips and Joan Hake Robie around the holiday last year and found it completely ridiculous—I really enjoyed it. On the “strength” of that book, I purchased Robie’s TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES EXPOSED! and Phillips’ DINOSAURS: THE BIBLE, BARNEY & BEYOND. I read Robie’s book in March and found it nearly as enjoyable as the first I’d read. She’s a terrible writer who seems to have no central thesis and makes the most bizarre assertions. I read these books for the “so bad it’s good” factor and Robie’s book really delivered. However, I did find it notable how light on religious references it was, given how much it was emphasized in HALLOWEEN AND SATANISM. Reading Phillips’ solo book, it’s apparent to me that he’s the main driver of the evangelical Christian stuff. His writing is more straight-forward apologetics and has less of the cuckoo stuff except to the extent that he’s defending young-Earth creationism to the point that he finds himself compelled to argue that dinosaurs are maybe still living today and that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are also likely real.
There are essentially two parts to the book. In the first, Phillips discusses the suitability of various dinosaur-related entertainments for children based partially on his strict religious beliefs and partly on his own critical views. A large chunk at the beginning focuses specifically on Jurassic Park and one of Phillips’ complaints is that “the nature of the romantic relationship between the paleontologist and paleobotanist is unclear”. Mostly, though, his complaints are about dinosaur-related movies and television shows toeing the evolutionist line. He adds, of Jurassic Park, that its failure to clearly state that creating life is wrong is “hard-core heresy and not at all unlike the deceit of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.”
Later, he claims that The Land Before Time is bad because it supports evolution (naturally), has “Zen philosophy”, and necromancy (because Little Foot sees visions of his dead mother). Necromancy! Incidentally, Robie was also pearl-clutching about Zen philosophy in her TMNT book, but Phillips explains why here. He states that Zen belief is that if one can take an inner voyage to confront life and develop courage, then one can emerge whole and healthy and capable of relating to and loving others. This is in contradiction to Christianity, which holds that “only the Holy Spirit brings about a regenerated heart and mind on acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Phillips concludes that The Land Before Time is “decidedly ungodly” because it suggests that natural forces govern life, not God. The horror! He also brings up The Super Mario Brothers, which he says has “a midget dinosaur” named Yoshi: “He’s probably in the video stores by now. I suggest you leave him there.” He thinks the values that 'Barney' the purple dinosaur teaches are good, but states that he finds “the metaphysical aspect of the show troubling” (i.e. the fact that Barney is a stuffed dinosaur that comes to life); Phillips objects that it is “only one step removed from a shaman-like spirit-guide character” and that Barney “does what Jesus Christ alone can truly do—give abiding comfort and be a source of divine inspiration.” He references Adventure in Dinosaur City (1992): “Overall, I found the video demeaning to humanity and from a story standpoint, would consider it a waste of time.” What a pull-quote! And when it comes to Disney movies, in general, he asserts that they pretty much all have “occultic underpinnings: ‘You don’t need God… you just need a little magic.’”
There are a few properties he has some positive thoughts about. Serendipity: The Pink Dragon, for instance, which I’ve never heard of. He states that it’s okay for kids to watch this, but then goes into a bizarre authoritarian aside about Pela-Pela, a rebellious, talking female parrot character. “One might argue that Pela-Pela should serve the full ten-day sentence as imposed by the judge and jury that finds her guilty of leaving the island without permission. (She is never required to serve the term in the video.)” He also feels positively about Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend, which is about scientists who find a living dinosaur hidden in the jungles of South America. Although he states that it is NOT appropriate for children due to multiple murder scenes, drug references, and sexual overtones, he ultimately approves it because, on the plus side, it “stands in contrast to a theory that states all dinosaurs died out more than sixty million years ago.” Regardless of the merits of any individual dinosaur-related movie or television show, Phillips concludes, “Overall, I believe strongly that your children can make it just fine through life without ever watching a dinosaur of any variety on television!”
The other part of the book is fairly conventional young-earth apologetics, which denies that the earth is billions of years old and, consequently, insists that dinosaurs and man lived alongside one another. The Bible has no mention of dinosaurs, of course, but Phillips suggests a description of the Leviathan in the Book of Job is actually a description of a plesiosaur. He gets around some of the detail about the Leviathan shooting flames from its mouth by pointing out that lightning bugs and electric eels also seem fanciful but do exist—is it so unbelievable that maybe plesiosaurs actually breathed fire? To that end, he suggests the fact that cultures the world over have stories about dragons is evidence that dragons are really dinosaurs and that dinosaurs therefore lived alongside humans at some point. He also argues that “evolution scientists”, as opposed to what he terms “creation scientists” (also known as not scientists), believe many preserved dinosaurs were killed by “local floods”—isn’t it possible that there was actually just one WORLDWIDE flood? And isn’t it possible that Noah’s ark is real and that he took two of every dinosaur on-board with him? I know that sounds crazy… but what if Noah took the dinosaurs as babies! What if he took all of the animals as babies! Doesn’t that make the Noah’s ark story even more realistic? No it doesn’t, you dipshit. Of course, this all is the nature of apologetics: the shell game of first getting the mark to admit that something is theoretically possible and then jumping to an assumption that it must be true. In apologetics, the hypothesis IS the proof.
Surprisingly, it takes until Chapter 7 before we get to the argument that evolution is just a theory. Funnily enough, he sneers that Darwin did not begin with evidence and attempt to formulate a theory to accommodate it but began with an idea first (rebellion against God/the Church) and tried to seek facts to support that conclusion. The gall of this man to criticize another for starting at a conclusion and working his way backward is astounding. Of course then there’s arguments that radiometric and carbon-14 dating of fossils is unreliable based on isolated errors, and arguments supported by definite hoaxes and misread evidence, e.g. a claim that there is a fossil site where dinosaur and human footprints were found alongside each other in Texas. Although he doesn’t use these terms, he of course is open to microevolution, such as the transition of wolves to dogs, but remains steadfastly opposed to the idea of macroevolution, the change of one species into another. Why the one is any more difficult to embrace than the other is not explained except that for him accepting evolution is to accept that the Bible is not literally true, as the Bible claims that God created all creatures simultaneously on the sixth day. “One often hears that Creation science isn’t science because it can’t be proven,” he writes, “but evolutionists fail to point out that many points of evolution are still unproven.” That may be true, but Phillips fails to point out that Creation “science” is deliberately unprovable. It is designed to evade proof… because it is bullshit.
I’m getting a little worked up here, but I swear I will never stop being amazed at religionists trying to poke holes in evolutionary biology because, for example, links in the evolutionary chain can only be inferred rather than directly observed, while at the same time having no problem arguing that everything was just magicked into existence. Not even an alternative theory, but just, “God did it through magic!” I don’t have enough FAITH to believe in evolution: I believe God said a magic spell and—poof!—dinosaurs appeared. It’s the only thing that makes sense! “Creation science” holds that Adam and Eve were created perfect in every way and immediately invented agriculture after being cast from the Garden of Eden. How foolish to believe this took millions of years, when this thing I made up out of whole cloth without any observation whatsoever is so much more plausible! And instead of adaptive evolution, doesn’t it make so much more sense to believe that “thorns, thistles, disease-producing viruses and bacteria, blood-sucking parasites all developed as a result of the Fall of man into sin”? At one point in this book Phillips objects to being characterized by his opponents as “naïve, ill-informed, and dangerous (in that [he is] attempting to push science back to the Dark Ages)”, but in HALLOWEEN AND SATANISM he literally advocated for the Salem with trials. I’m sorry, Phil, but kindly fuck off.
This review is going long, but one thing I haven’t covered yet which bears mention is how many glaring typos there are in this slim book. Even the most cursory proofreading would have caught a lot of these, which shows how little Starburst Publishers, the outfit responsible for putting Phillips’ words into the world, cared about the final product. At various points in the book, it refers to fossils found “swventy-five miles south” of another location; there is a reference to meat-eaters which “hung for their food” (instead of “hunt”) and which “prayed on the plant-eaters” (instead of “preyed”); in a conversation about the television series ‘Dinosaurs’, the character Fran is referred to as a “stay-at-home monarch” (instead of “mom”); there is, it will not surprise you, frequent use of “it’s” instead of “its” and apostrophes in plural words. The most amazing of all, though, comes in a discussion about a pterosaur allegedly found alive by railway workers in France in 1856. It was stunned, but not dead; when it was brought out from the cave where it was found, Phillips writes, “it began to shake its wings, made a horse cry, and died shortly thereafter.” That poor horse! What on earth did that pterodactyl say to that horse to upset it so much??? Obviously, he meant to write “hoarse cry”, but the way this typo changes the meaning of the sentence is hilarious.
“In the end, all we really need to know is that we have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him, the Creator of dinosaurs,” Phillips concludes. As ridiculous as the author’s religious beliefs are, to me they’re strangely commonplace. Aside from that bit about Noah bringing baby dinos onto the ark (and they all ate plants, mind you, because did you know that in fact NO dinosaurs were carnivores? Could be!), I’ve read all of these arguments before. So to me, for the most part, this actually read as more tame than Robie’s solo book but when I consider them on their own the suggestions here are totally bonkers. DINOSAURS is written marginally better than TMNT EXPOSED! and has a better grasp on what it’s trying to achieve, but really trying to rank one over the other in terms of quality is a fool’s errand. They’re both awful, but I had fun reading them.
There are essentially two parts to the book. In the first, Phillips discusses the suitability of various dinosaur-related entertainments for children based partially on his strict religious beliefs and partly on his own critical views. A large chunk at the beginning focuses specifically on Jurassic Park and one of Phillips’ complaints is that “the nature of the romantic relationship between the paleontologist and paleobotanist is unclear”. Mostly, though, his complaints are about dinosaur-related movies and television shows toeing the evolutionist line. He adds, of Jurassic Park, that its failure to clearly state that creating life is wrong is “hard-core heresy and not at all unlike the deceit of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.”
Later, he claims that The Land Before Time is bad because it supports evolution (naturally), has “Zen philosophy”, and necromancy (because Little Foot sees visions of his dead mother). Necromancy! Incidentally, Robie was also pearl-clutching about Zen philosophy in her TMNT book, but Phillips explains why here. He states that Zen belief is that if one can take an inner voyage to confront life and develop courage, then one can emerge whole and healthy and capable of relating to and loving others. This is in contradiction to Christianity, which holds that “only the Holy Spirit brings about a regenerated heart and mind on acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Phillips concludes that The Land Before Time is “decidedly ungodly” because it suggests that natural forces govern life, not God. The horror! He also brings up The Super Mario Brothers, which he says has “a midget dinosaur” named Yoshi: “He’s probably in the video stores by now. I suggest you leave him there.” He thinks the values that 'Barney' the purple dinosaur teaches are good, but states that he finds “the metaphysical aspect of the show troubling” (i.e. the fact that Barney is a stuffed dinosaur that comes to life); Phillips objects that it is “only one step removed from a shaman-like spirit-guide character” and that Barney “does what Jesus Christ alone can truly do—give abiding comfort and be a source of divine inspiration.” He references Adventure in Dinosaur City (1992): “Overall, I found the video demeaning to humanity and from a story standpoint, would consider it a waste of time.” What a pull-quote! And when it comes to Disney movies, in general, he asserts that they pretty much all have “occultic underpinnings: ‘You don’t need God… you just need a little magic.’”
There are a few properties he has some positive thoughts about. Serendipity: The Pink Dragon, for instance, which I’ve never heard of. He states that it’s okay for kids to watch this, but then goes into a bizarre authoritarian aside about Pela-Pela, a rebellious, talking female parrot character. “One might argue that Pela-Pela should serve the full ten-day sentence as imposed by the judge and jury that finds her guilty of leaving the island without permission. (She is never required to serve the term in the video.)” He also feels positively about Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend, which is about scientists who find a living dinosaur hidden in the jungles of South America. Although he states that it is NOT appropriate for children due to multiple murder scenes, drug references, and sexual overtones, he ultimately approves it because, on the plus side, it “stands in contrast to a theory that states all dinosaurs died out more than sixty million years ago.” Regardless of the merits of any individual dinosaur-related movie or television show, Phillips concludes, “Overall, I believe strongly that your children can make it just fine through life without ever watching a dinosaur of any variety on television!”
The other part of the book is fairly conventional young-earth apologetics, which denies that the earth is billions of years old and, consequently, insists that dinosaurs and man lived alongside one another. The Bible has no mention of dinosaurs, of course, but Phillips suggests a description of the Leviathan in the Book of Job is actually a description of a plesiosaur. He gets around some of the detail about the Leviathan shooting flames from its mouth by pointing out that lightning bugs and electric eels also seem fanciful but do exist—is it so unbelievable that maybe plesiosaurs actually breathed fire? To that end, he suggests the fact that cultures the world over have stories about dragons is evidence that dragons are really dinosaurs and that dinosaurs therefore lived alongside humans at some point. He also argues that “evolution scientists”, as opposed to what he terms “creation scientists” (also known as not scientists), believe many preserved dinosaurs were killed by “local floods”—isn’t it possible that there was actually just one WORLDWIDE flood? And isn’t it possible that Noah’s ark is real and that he took two of every dinosaur on-board with him? I know that sounds crazy… but what if Noah took the dinosaurs as babies! What if he took all of the animals as babies! Doesn’t that make the Noah’s ark story even more realistic? No it doesn’t, you dipshit. Of course, this all is the nature of apologetics: the shell game of first getting the mark to admit that something is theoretically possible and then jumping to an assumption that it must be true. In apologetics, the hypothesis IS the proof.
Surprisingly, it takes until Chapter 7 before we get to the argument that evolution is just a theory. Funnily enough, he sneers that Darwin did not begin with evidence and attempt to formulate a theory to accommodate it but began with an idea first (rebellion against God/the Church) and tried to seek facts to support that conclusion. The gall of this man to criticize another for starting at a conclusion and working his way backward is astounding. Of course then there’s arguments that radiometric and carbon-14 dating of fossils is unreliable based on isolated errors, and arguments supported by definite hoaxes and misread evidence, e.g. a claim that there is a fossil site where dinosaur and human footprints were found alongside each other in Texas. Although he doesn’t use these terms, he of course is open to microevolution, such as the transition of wolves to dogs, but remains steadfastly opposed to the idea of macroevolution, the change of one species into another. Why the one is any more difficult to embrace than the other is not explained except that for him accepting evolution is to accept that the Bible is not literally true, as the Bible claims that God created all creatures simultaneously on the sixth day. “One often hears that Creation science isn’t science because it can’t be proven,” he writes, “but evolutionists fail to point out that many points of evolution are still unproven.” That may be true, but Phillips fails to point out that Creation “science” is deliberately unprovable. It is designed to evade proof… because it is bullshit.
I’m getting a little worked up here, but I swear I will never stop being amazed at religionists trying to poke holes in evolutionary biology because, for example, links in the evolutionary chain can only be inferred rather than directly observed, while at the same time having no problem arguing that everything was just magicked into existence. Not even an alternative theory, but just, “God did it through magic!” I don’t have enough FAITH to believe in evolution: I believe God said a magic spell and—poof!—dinosaurs appeared. It’s the only thing that makes sense! “Creation science” holds that Adam and Eve were created perfect in every way and immediately invented agriculture after being cast from the Garden of Eden. How foolish to believe this took millions of years, when this thing I made up out of whole cloth without any observation whatsoever is so much more plausible! And instead of adaptive evolution, doesn’t it make so much more sense to believe that “thorns, thistles, disease-producing viruses and bacteria, blood-sucking parasites all developed as a result of the Fall of man into sin”? At one point in this book Phillips objects to being characterized by his opponents as “naïve, ill-informed, and dangerous (in that [he is] attempting to push science back to the Dark Ages)”, but in HALLOWEEN AND SATANISM he literally advocated for the Salem with trials. I’m sorry, Phil, but kindly fuck off.
This review is going long, but one thing I haven’t covered yet which bears mention is how many glaring typos there are in this slim book. Even the most cursory proofreading would have caught a lot of these, which shows how little Starburst Publishers, the outfit responsible for putting Phillips’ words into the world, cared about the final product. At various points in the book, it refers to fossils found “swventy-five miles south” of another location; there is a reference to meat-eaters which “hung for their food” (instead of “hunt”) and which “prayed on the plant-eaters” (instead of “preyed”); in a conversation about the television series ‘Dinosaurs’, the character Fran is referred to as a “stay-at-home monarch” (instead of “mom”); there is, it will not surprise you, frequent use of “it’s” instead of “its” and apostrophes in plural words. The most amazing of all, though, comes in a discussion about a pterosaur allegedly found alive by railway workers in France in 1856. It was stunned, but not dead; when it was brought out from the cave where it was found, Phillips writes, “it began to shake its wings, made a horse cry, and died shortly thereafter.” That poor horse! What on earth did that pterodactyl say to that horse to upset it so much??? Obviously, he meant to write “hoarse cry”, but the way this typo changes the meaning of the sentence is hilarious.
“In the end, all we really need to know is that we have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him, the Creator of dinosaurs,” Phillips concludes. As ridiculous as the author’s religious beliefs are, to me they’re strangely commonplace. Aside from that bit about Noah bringing baby dinos onto the ark (and they all ate plants, mind you, because did you know that in fact NO dinosaurs were carnivores? Could be!), I’ve read all of these arguments before. So to me, for the most part, this actually read as more tame than Robie’s solo book but when I consider them on their own the suggestions here are totally bonkers. DINOSAURS is written marginally better than TMNT EXPOSED! and has a better grasp on what it’s trying to achieve, but really trying to rank one over the other in terms of quality is a fool’s errand. They’re both awful, but I had fun reading them.
April 19, 2024
Phil Phillips wrote books in the eighties and nineties about the bad effects that media has on children. He was mainly concerned about sex and violence. Another major concern was that children might be brainwashed into believing evolution.
Phillips claims Hinduism is the main influence for evolution. In the next paragraph he explains Darwin and his grandfather were at odds with the Church in England, and came up with the anti-God theory of evolution. He never connects the Darwins to Hinduism.
Humans and animals, including dinosaurs, lived on vegetables before the "fall." There were no animals taken for food on the ark before the flood, so it was after the flood that there were carnivores. I’m not sure how the fall of Adam and Eve figures into that.
Phillips gives the usual creationist evidence of human footprints and bones found alongside that of dinosaurs. It brings to mind a sort of Fred Flintstones world.
Phillips claims Hinduism is the main influence for evolution. In the next paragraph he explains Darwin and his grandfather were at odds with the Church in England, and came up with the anti-God theory of evolution. He never connects the Darwins to Hinduism.
Humans and animals, including dinosaurs, lived on vegetables before the "fall." There were no animals taken for food on the ark before the flood, so it was after the flood that there were carnivores. I’m not sure how the fall of Adam and Eve figures into that.
Phillips gives the usual creationist evidence of human footprints and bones found alongside that of dinosaurs. It brings to mind a sort of Fred Flintstones world.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews