Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park in 1990, the movie came out in 1993… and today in 2025, 32 years after the above scene was shot, “science” has caught up to literature.
Hey! Play the video and hear Dr. Malcolm’s objections: then go on to the resurrected dire wolves.
Is it real or is it Memorex?
By now you’ve probably heard the rejoicing, the congratulating, and the bragging–“We’ve brought the dire wolf back from extinction! Ain’t we the onions!” Dire wolves, supposed to have gone extinct some 12,500 years ago, are very similar to today’s grey wolf, only much bigger and stronger. Brought to you by Colossal Biosciences, Dallas, TEX (https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/07/science/dire-wolf-de-extinction-cloning-colossal/index.html)!
Good grief. Crichton got it almost word for word, and 30-plus years early.
Now, think. Would it be immoral, or irresponsible, to “bring back” through scientific legerdemain some animal that only went extinct, in modern times, because people killed it off? Australia’s thylacine, say. It should still be here–right? We have film clips of the last one living in a zoo in the 1930s.
I think most people would say, “Oh, yeah, okay. We shouldn’t have wiped ’em out.”
The dire wolf probably, we don’t know for sure, died out because it couldn’t compete with humans for the same meat. It’s possible that that theory is malarkey. The fact is, for reasons unknown as yet to science, the Ice Age came, the Ice Age went, and Ice Age animals like the dire wolf, the sabertoothed cat, and the woolly mammoth went with it. Could human hunters have been responsible for all that extinction? Or a unique, way-against-the-odds concatenation of rare events?
With so much remaining to be understood, is it wise–is it even humane?–to just yell “Damn the unknowns, full speed ahead!”? Michael Crichton spent several decades warning us not to do that. Funny, isn’t it? His books were tremendous best-sellers, and yet no one seems to have listened to him.
Happens all the time.
God help us.
Even those who should know better, still fall for evolution’s lies, it’s timeline, which leaves out of earth’s history “minor” events, such as the worldwide flood about 5,000 years ago, in which water covered the entire earth, and drowned all land animals and people not onboard the ark. They ignore God’s creation of the earth and everything else, which occurred about 7,000 years ago.
Thus, when we read things like this about the Dire wolf, “A species of wolf that died out some 12,500 years ago lives again as the “world’s first successfully de-extincted animal … Our team took DNA from a 13,000 year old tooth and a 72,000 year old skull and made healthy dire wolf puppies.” Christians must understand, those dates are piffle and nonsense, plain old hogwash from ignorant folks.
There was no earth 12,500 years ago, it didn’t exist. There are no prehistory events which took place before “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Thus, there are no such things as prehistoric animals. Right in the beginning, starting on day six, man lived with Dire wolves, saber-toothed cats, woolly mammoths, dinosaurs (dragons) and every other beast that once roamed the earth. When they speak about an animals closest living relative, they are speaking about evolution, in which all animals, once upon a time, going back far enough, its father and mother were rocks.
Besides which, the new dire wolves are only facsimiles–counterfeit, if you will.
I’m in agreement with Mike, on this. For the record, I had been taught the day-age theory, growing up, and until perhaps 10 years or so in the past, I was quite comfortable taking about deep time with regard to earth’s history, but between seeing some of the incredible leaps of faith in logic contained in evolutionary dogma, and giving an open minded listen to Christians, many with PHDs in various scientific fields, and hearing how they explain the biblical timeline, it’s obvious that the biblical timeline is entirely compatible with science.
A very coherent explanation of the Flood has been proposed by such Christians and this explains much. Speciation, within created kinds is not evolutionary, but simply part of the amazing ability of animal life to adapt, and to take on needed traits, from the abundant variety design into their genetic makeup.
After the Flood, there were some rough times, with an Ice Age that brought very harsh conditions. Keep in mind that Joseph was used by God to preserve Abraham’s line through a time of famine, but scripture tells us that all the earth came to Egypt to obtain grain, during those seven lean years. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if many animal species died out, but none of the kinds, the “baramins”, have not ever been lost, to the best of my understanding. Because ago preserves His creation, just as he did in the Flood.
Give thst a moment’s thought, every land animal on earth descended from an animal that was on the Ark. (Including the Siamese who is curled up next to me, as I write this.) we can take comfort from our Creator’s saving power.
When a species becomes specialized, genetic information is actually lost. Find a place where everyone has red hair and blue eyes, and that means that the genetic information for darker hair and brown eyes has been lost, to that small population. However, just a handful of marriages to people with other traits restores this genetic information and this is one reason that we see unexpected variety in various populations.
These wolves will probably not make a big difference, but then again, one never knows. The judgment exercised in this project strikes me as poor, at the very best. Many genetic manipulation projects end up failing. We are not Hod, and should never try to be.
There’s something about that dire wolf story that really, really stinks. I strongly suspect fraud.
That wouldn’t surprise me, in the slightest.
I also had been taught the day-age theory.
In a soon to be published book “Evolutionary Delusions and Compromised Old Earth Creationists,” on this subject, genetic information found in the wolf, here is a portion of one chapter.
“Professor Potter wrote an article titled Dogs Prove Evolution, in which he asks the questions, “Where did dogs come from? How did the wolf get transformed into a woof?” He shares the evolutionary consensus: DNA evidence shows that all dogs, with their diversity, are derived from a single source, the wolf. I and science are in agreement with this evidence, which simply relays how microevolution functions, which we discuss in this chapter. Natural selection, kin to artificial selection, has produced about 450 recognized dog breeds, making it the most variable mammal on Earth. Although his article is titled Dogs Prove Evolution, in it, he never touched upon, nor discussed any evidence which would show macroevolution is true. How so?
He starts with the repository (the wolf), which already had an enormous, bulging inventory, a reservoir of genetic information from which all varieties and breeds of dogs have descended. He states:
It is remarkable to consider that the wolf had enough genetic diversity in its DNA to give rise to all of the dog breeds we see today.
How peculiar—his whole book explores, studies, and mulls over artificial and natural selection, but never considers the origin of the dense amount of genetic information residing within the forefather of all dogs, the wolf. The processes discussed provide answers; as to where the hundreds of breeds came from, but science delivers no answer to the question, how did the enormous inventory of DNA potential and genetic diversity arise within the first wolf? The processes discussed cannot build nor create genetic information, but only, as the term natural selection affirms, it’s a selection process, selecting from genes and other information that already exist, which processes discussed did not, nor cannot create. His discussion only focused on the loss of genetic information, not an increase.”
That’s the crux. It comes down to information. A new feature requires information to be added, and that information cannot come into existence, randomly, it has to have a source.
Various kinds may have some degree of similarity in design, but they are not truly related to one another. Within kinds, that is another matter. One neighbor has a Quarter Horse, a majestic looking, beautifully proportioned, quite large and quite spirited horse; large but not bulky like Clydesdale. Another neighbor used to have a miniature horse, who was a smaller version of the quarter horse, with the same proportions and, itself, quite spirited. These two steeds were quite different from one another, but of the same kind, and truly related.
By way of contrast, the Mule Deer which have the run of the neighborhood bear some similarity in design to these horses, but they are quite different, not inter-fertile with the horse kind, and behaviorally are significantly different. Humorously, one day there were a small group of deer standing outside the Quarter Horse’s corral, staring in wonderment with the Quarter Horse watching them, with the same degree of curiosity. There was overlap of design, but they are far different from one another.
Meanwhile, where does he say the original, archetypal “dog” species came from?
Exactly. Romans 1 tells us that it is inexcusable to look at creation and not acknowledge God’s hand in it. The mathematical odds against so much as one amino acid self assembling, spontaneously, are staggering. The odds against all the necessary amino acids self assembling and being present at the some time, and in the same place are beyond staggering, and even if that were to happen, there is no reason to expect that these would self assemble into a cell. Simply put, it isn’t going to happen, no matter how much time you want to allow. The 14 billion year age of the Universe, proposed by much of the scientific community would be grossly inadequate to account for the spontaneous assembly of even the base chemicals required for life.
So the existence of an archetypal canine would be incalculably more difficult to explain from random occurrences. There is room within the dog kind for tremendous variety, because that was planned. God made an animal that is very useful to humans, and made that kind with exceptional variety, to allow specific strains to be bred. It’s just one more gift, and one more proof that an Intelligent Designer, filled with love for His creation, was behind all of this.
They never tell you where the original mode., the prototype, came from.
I admit I’m uncomfortable with the Young Earth paradigm. But that’s my problem, not anybody else’s.
Lee, recently I became cognizant of the time-honored fallacy concerning the meaning and misuse of the words old and young by evolutionists and their fellow believers, the OEC. In their attempt to lead us astray, they advocate that something 6,000 years old (the earth), is in reality very young. Nevertheless, the account of creation is true, and the record of history going back to the beginning is a true chronicle of events occurring since that time. The earth is not young as many suggest, that’s a misconception.
I think most everyone would agree, anything 1,000 years old or older (most certainly 6,000 years), is old indeed, ancient in fact, be it an artifact or relic, Stone Age structure, coin, civilization, or a redwood tree. Sadly, we have been seduced by evolutionary notions of “deep time,” pronouncements of billions of years, etc. By contrast, 6,000 years, which denotes antiquity, is supposed to represent a minuscule period. However, a 6,000-year-old Earth cannot in any way or fashion, be considered young! I believe in an old Earth, ours, which has been around for an exceedingly long time, 6,000 – 7,000 years. Anything that old is not new or young.
The Scientific Method is to make observations, come to conclusions based upon these observations, make predictions based upon those observations, and then observe to see if those predictions hold true. If they do, the theory behind those predictions is supported, but if not, then the theory can be discounted. That is observational science, and when practiced ethically, it is capable of doing much good.
When it comes to Historical Science, it gets a bit murkier. One can observe something unearthed and come to conclusions based upon these observations, but predicting history is a bit of a trick. All that can be done is to make observations and try to decipher what this reveals about the past, but this process is subject to the influence of opinion. The timelines are perhaps sincerely believed, but it’s pretty hard to calibrate any testing, when you can’t know the baseline conditions.
Radiocarbon dating has a theoretical limit of about 50,000 years, at which point all carbon 14 would be depleted, so that is a limited tool, if you are trying to prove deep time, and relies upon assumptions of what the baseline state would have been. If there was less carbon 14 in the past, that would make the age of a sample appear older. We can’t know, because none of us were there.
Ice cores are used as a measurement device, but the assumption it thst each layer represents a year, but perhaps each layer represents a major snowfall. Once again, the popular assumption would skew the results in favor of longer periods of time.
Most stunning, however, is the fact that red blood cells and elastic tissue have been found in many dinosaur fossils. This discovery calls the standard 65-66 million year timeline into question. I was taught, all the way back in grade school, that fossils were fully mineralized, and contained no actual organic material. That has been disproven in spectacular fashion, and it has been admitted that the smell of putrefied flesh is present at some dig sites. A global flood explains this much better than the tap dance that some scientists have been doing, trying to salvage their deep timeline.
Whether God could create the earth, and all upon it is not that hard to comprehend. This is the Alpha and the Omega; a spirit which is not bound by time. I could spend the rest of my life trying to make “life in a test tube” and fail, as has happened with numerous efforts by scientists with impressive credentials, but God has the power to work miracles.
When Jesus resurrected Lazarus, every cell in Lazarus’ body was dead, and decaying. It wasn’t some simple task, like performing CPR. Essentially, in the power of His Father, Jesus resurrection was the entire re-creation of Lazarus’ physical body and the restoration of Lazarus’ mind, including all of his memories. If this gargantuan task could be accomplished, before onlookers, we can be assured that the power of our God is off the charts. He doesn’t need billions of years to accomplish creation.
I didn’t always feel this way. There were decades of my life when I was convinced that God caused a Big Bang, roughly 14 billion years ago, and that the Earth, and all of the planets, stars, galaxies, etc. came into being as gravitational accretion drew gas clouds into stars, which gave birth to planets, etc. But my opinion has since changed, and I’m now more than satisfied to take the Bible literally. I’m not dogmatic about it, if someone chooses to interpret these matters differently, I will respect their right to see it that way, keeping in mind that I didn’t always see it this way, myself.
You were kind, you didn’t mention the political and ideological corruption that seeps into this area of science. That makes it harder for us to know anything!
The equation: Science + Politics = Politics
That is the root of the problem. Unfortunately, the struggle for funding has made research science into a very political thing. If you don’t tick all the right boxes and cover all the right political bases, a scientist will be sidelined. Speaking out against mainstream science, and especially not parroting the party line as regards evolution, it’s a rough slog, indeed.
For example, Michael Behe, a major figure in the Intelligent Design movement, didn’t really publicize his views until he had attained tenure. Since then, he published Darwin’s Black Box, which is a striking refutation of biological evolution, citing irreducible complexity as proof that intermediate steps would be problematic, because for a new “feature” to work, it would have to be formed completely enough to function, before it would be of any advantage.
For perspective, Intelligent Design is a scientific argument, and not a theological one. It does not seek to define the Creator, but sticks strictly to the scientific aspects of whether evolution could actually explain life, and points out that in order for change to happen in a living thing, there would have to be an increase in information, and that this information could only come from an external Intelligence.
The scientists in this movement tend to be persons of faith, and in many cases are very devoted to one denomination or another, but they do not include this in their scientific arguments. They are not trying to define the Creator-personalize God, but simply restricting their arguments to that which can be established scientifically.
I mean, really, what do you do with half a pterodactyl?
That would be a lot to deal with. 🙂
That’s true about Radiocarbon dating. As you state: “We can’t know, because none of us were there.”
You mention Ice cores being used as a measurement device. Check out these two links about “Glacier Girl” a P-38 buried in ice.
Glacier Girl – The Lost Squadron (Recovery of a P-38 from beneath a Greenland ice cap)
Glacier Girl on a mission – creation.com
I didn’t write this, it’s from the links I posted.
“On July 15, 1942, a flight of six P-38s and two B-17 bombers … took off from Presque Isle Air Base in Maine headed for the U.K. What followed was a harrowing and life-threatening landing of the entire squadron on a remote ice cap in Greenland. Miraculously, none of the crew was lost, and they were all rescued and returned safely home after spending several days on the desolate ice.
Fifty years later a small group of aviation enthusiasts decided to locate that squadron, who had come to be known as “The Lost Squadron,” and to recover one of the lost P 38s. It turned out to be no easy task, as the planes had been buried under 268 ft of ice and drifted over a mile from their original location.
Glacier Girl’s story is a powerful reminder to us that thick layers of ice don’t have to take immense time spans to form. Rather, this ‘slow and gradual’ belief of how such things form is so ingrained in our society today that it comes as a shock to people when they read stories like that of Glacier Girl. This is exactly what happened with the salvage team, who expected the planes to be under a thin sheet of snow and ice. This belief had nothing to do with the actual evidence, but was an assumption made about the past used to interpret the evidence in the present.
It’s ironic to note the basis on which some evolutionists have critiqued CMI’s use of the ‘Planes in Ice’ story. They say things like, ‘We know from actual measurements that snow and ice builds up fast enough in that part of Greenland to account for the buildup of that much ice in only 50 years’. They seem to be implying that this somehow undermines the creationists’ use of this evidence. But that is precisely the point we’re making! Many today believe that it must take hundreds of thousands of years to build up the huge ice sheets that exist today. But if planes can be buried under that much solid ice in 50 years even at today’s rates of deposition (not even taking into account the increased precipitation from the warmer waters after the Flood) then clearly there is ample time to lay down the ice sheets of today well within the biblical timeframe of history. When we start from the Word of God and its history, Glacier Girl’s story makes sense.”
I followed the story of Glacier Girl, when it was happening. 268 feet in 50 years; tells quite a tale.
I’ve watched videos made by Answers In Genesis, ICR, etc. and have come to the conclusion that the evolutionary timeline is pretty much self referential. Fossils are dated by the layer they are found in, and ground layers are dated by the fossils found in them. At the end of the day, things we were taught as facts in our school years, have all too often turned out to be more opinion than fact.
Holy moly, that’s a lot of snow! And a lot of good for thought, too.
There are several YouTube videos questioning that these are actually Dire wolves, but are instead sort of an imitation which is still basically a Gray Wolf.
They’re facsimiles, nothing more.
Exactly. But it sure makes for a great press release. Sickening, if you ask me.
Here’s what we all need to understand about each “science” story such as this one, in mainstream media. All of the time it’s mixed with evolutionary nonsense.
“… those who receive a PhD in evolutionary biology or any similar branch of “science” have learned a huge amount of information, which they can easily recite to dazzle the less informed and ignorant. The information received, studied, and taught is the accumulation of decades of thought, data, and material. And there is an ever-growing, ever-expanding river of evolutionary indoctrination and propaganda which pours each year into the ocean of philosophy taught by the “science” departments of universities and colleges. Each year the mounds of data accumulated are disseminated among the faithful. The bulk of this data is printed in books, research papers, scientific journals, periodicals, reports, and newspaper articles. If all the information accumulated each year were printed in book form and stacked in a pile, it would make one immense mountain of piffle.
Assuredly, some will ask: “You want me to believe that all this accumulated information and data, which has taken years to assemble and collect is nothing more than nonsense, absurdity, and rubbish? That what they teach is a scientific-sounding delusion? That all these intelligent and “well-educated” men and women, some of which have dedicated their lives to this pursuit, has all been for naught?” The answer to these three questions is a resounding “Yes!” People who spout this stupidity (evolution) have not been educated, for they have not acquired true knowledge or wisdom. It makes no difference how much nonsense is learned, nor how long it took to accumulate that blather, nor how sure or confident they sound whenever sharing that drivel with anyone—it’s useless, worthless piffle.”
Let me qualify my last post.
I have not implied or insinuated that because a scientist believes in evolution, all his efforts, labor, or toil in his respective field is worthless. I am sure some evolutionist somewhere, may have contributed a mite to our understanding of the mysteries of the natural and physical world, the solar system, and the cosmos. However, whenever their religion (Evolutionism) is injected into any topic or subject, that portion of their studies or research is piffle, and any conclusions based upon evolutionary thinking will be useless, and of no value or help in understanding the mysteries, workings, and wonders of God’s creation.
And that’s the point; it’s a religion. I have met people who had sincere beliefs, but couldn’t look at those beliefs objectively and examine whether their beliefs were accurate. They believed what they were taught as children, and never really made their faith their own.
The same is true of the religion of the evolutionists. They believe what they were taught, and feel that they have good reason to believe that, but they’ve never stepped back and listened to any information that questions what they’ve been taught.
Actually, that is what happened to me. I was schooled in the day:age theory, so when Sagan talked about billions of years, I was willing to accept that. When I finally took the time to look into the beliefs of those whom took the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally, I changed my way of thinking, and feel that this is much more compatible with the whole of scripture.
Somehow “Evolution” got carved in stone and never replaced. I don’t know how. Wish I did.
Indeed, evolution believing scientists have done some good things. Just because I disagree with them on evolution, does not mean I desire to denigrate what they have accomplished. There is a lot of good science out there. The very devices by which we access Lee’s blog are miracles of Quantum Mechanics, but that doesn’t make the Universe 14 billion years old. 🙂
(Lee has to go to bed. *sigh*) Conking out.
Well, don’t two half a pterodactyls make a whole pterodactyl?
It depends upon whether you have a right half and a left half, or two right valves, or two left halves. 🙂
Evolution is a philosophy of life, a religious belief. It is a religion in which faith in its processes is the main tenet. It is a belief from which the scientific methods of testing, replicating, observing, and verifying evidence and proof have been divorced and do not play a part in its study.
Religion for most means belief in a god, divine being, or deity. It entails faith and devotion in service to their chosen object of affection. However, for something to be defined, delineated, and presented as religion requires no god or worship of a deity. To be religious does not necessitate or require service to a holy being. Webster’s Dictionary defines religious as: “relating to that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality: manifesting devotion to and reflecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of ultimate importance.” An evolutionist’s ultimate reality and importance does not include a divine being, but faith in its teachings is paramount.
Without contradiction, modern science with its evolutionary foundations is a religion with its own high priests. Those are the aristocrats who hold power and influence in universities and colleges. Deans and professors hold sway over those who want to publish scientific papers and limit access to those who are not true believers. They do not wear black robes and read from the Bible; they wear suits and ties, and their minions don white lab coats, habitually fraternize and hobnob with the remains of ancient creatures long dead, read lab reports, carry clipboards, and normally have pens and pencils in their shirt pockets.
Have you been following that “dire wolf” story? I find it has a kind of smell to it… that does Science no credit.
Well, follow the money trail, who has something to gain, who stands to lose. Are any funds or big grants involved or any big business?