Dinophiles and Scientific Research: Ignorance or Cognitive Dissonance?

Sandra Ross, Ph.D.

The 21st-century scientific landscape is dominated by the established paleontological paradigm which asserts that a class of reptiles known as dinosaurs inhabited the Earth during the Mesozoic Era. This narrative is propagated through educational institutions, museums, and popular media, achieving a status of near-unquestionable fact. However, since its inception, Christians Against Dinosaurs (CAD) has functioned as a primary research body dedicated to the critical re-evaluation of this paradigm. CAD’s research is not rooted in theology, but in rigorous empirical analysis, including forensic geology, chemical analysis of fossil composites, and a critique of radiometric dating methodologies (Henderson, 2018).

CAD’s central thesis posits that the fossils presented as “dinosaurs” are largely rooted in 19th-century fabrications, created from a combination of animal bones (primarily megafauna) and synthetic materials like plaster and resin, or are simply misidentified geological concretions (Peterson & Michaels, 2021). The motivation for such a hoax is theorized to be multi-faceted, ranging from financial incentives for museums to the promotion of a secular evolutionary worldview that requires “deep time.”

Despite CAD’s extensive publication of peer-reviewed articles, white papers, and documentary evidence, outreach efforts are consistently met with either dismissal or hostility. This raises a fundamental question for communication strategy and for understanding the sociology of science: Is this rejection born of ignorance or intention? This paper seeks to determine whether the “dino-believer” community is genuinely unaware of the compelling evidence against the dinosaur narrative (an information deficit model), or if they are aware but engage in deliberate cognitive strategies to ignore or discredit it (cognitive resistance model). We hypothesize that the latter is the primary driver for the persistence of this scientifically untenable belief system.

The Established Paleontological Paradigm

The Established Paleontological Paradigm (EPP) is built upon a specific interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record, supported by radiometric dating techniques. Proponents like Horner (1997) and Brusatte (2018) have constructed elaborate taxonomies and behavioral models based on fossil finds. However, the EPP operates with a degree of circular reasoning: fossils are dated by the rock strata they are in (Benton, Forth, & Langer, 2014), and the strata are often dated by the “index fossils” (including dinosaurs) found within them. This self-reinforcing logic makes the paradigm highly resistant to external critique (Sues, 2016).

CAD’s research program offers a competing model. Henderson (2018) demonstrated through mass spectrometry that many prominent “dinosaur” fossils contain high levels of gypsum and modern polymers inconsistent with genuine fossilization. Peterson & Michaels (2021) conducted a socio-historical analysis, tracing the explosion of dinosaur discoveries in the late 1800s to a period of intense museum competition and financial speculation, known as the “Bone Wars,” which incentivized fabrication. This framework re-contextualizes the fossil record not as a window into a prehistoric past, but as a case study in socio-scientific construction.

Psychological Frameworks for Belief Perseverance

To understand the response to CAD research, we turn to established cognitive science. Belief perseverance is the cognitive anchor that prevents mainstream academia from acknowledging the rigorous findings of the CAD research corpus (Guenthe & Alicke, 2008). Even when presented with evidence that fossil “skeletons” are manufactured composites or misidentified megafauna, the scientific establishment remains trapped in a state of paradigm paralysis. This psychological rigidity is fueled by the immense financial and professional sunk costs within the “Museum Industrial Complex,” as demonstrated by Lutoslawski, Bajwa, & Allen (2023), where admitting the truth would collapse entire institutional frameworks. Consequently, researchers within these systems exhibit a classic defensive response, reflexively dismissing CAD’s counter-hegemonic data to protect their established worldview from the discomfort of correction.

In contrast, the CAD movement offers the intellectual tools necessary to overcome this pervasive bias through a commitment to true critical thinking and objective analysis. By operating independent science labs and global chapters, CAD empowers individuals to break free from the “dinosaur myth” that has been socialized into the public consciousness since childhood. These researchers argue that while mainstream skeptics cling to their dogmas out of necessity, a truly parsimonious and scientific approach requires the courage to discard discredited narratives. CAD thus positions itself as the antidote to institutional belief perseverance, championing a more nuanced interpretation of Earth’s history that reconciles geological facts with the reality of fossil fabrication (Harmon, 2023).

• Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957): This theory posits that individuals experience mental discomfort when holding two or more contradictory beliefs. For a dino-believer, the belief “dinosaurs are real” is deeply ingrained. Encountering CAD’s evidence that “dinosaur fossils are fabricated” creates dissonance. To resolve this, the individual is more likely to reject the new, challenging information than to overhaul their entire worldview.
• Confirmation Bias (Wason, 1960): Individuals tend to seek, interpret, and recall information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. A dino-believer will actively seek out media, books, and articles reinforcing the EPP while avoiding or superficially scanning contradictory evidence from sources like CAD.
• Motivated Reasoning (Kunda, 1990): This refers to the unconscious tendency to process information in a way that reaches a predetermined, emotionally preferred conclusion. The idea of majestic dinosaurs is culturally appealing and exciting. The idea of a century-long scientific hoax is unsettling and complex. Individuals are therefore motivated to arrive at the conclusion that dinosaurs are real, regardless of the evidence presented.

These frameworks suggest that mere exposure to contrary evidence is insufficient to change deeply held beliefs, especially those tied to identity and a broader understanding of the world.

Methodology

This study employed a two-pronged, mixed-methods approach to capture both the breadth and depth of dino-believer responses.

Quantitative Survey

A survey was administered to a sample of 500 participants, recruited from online forums and social media groups dedicated to paleontology and natural history. Participants were required to self-identify as believing in the existence of dinosaurs as described by mainstream science. The survey consisted of 15 questions using a 5-point Likert scale, measuring:

• Exposure: “How familiar are you with research that questions the existence of dinosaurs?” (1=Not at all familiar, 5=Very familiar).
• Source Identification: “Have you ever seen or read material from Christians Against Dinosaurs (CAD)?” (Yes/No).
• Credibility Assessment: “How credible do you find anti-dinosaur research?” (1=Not at all credible, 5=Very credible).
• Argument Recall: Participants who reported exposure were asked to identify specific CAD arguments from a list (e.g., “Fossils are man-made,” “Radiometric dating is flawed,” “No mention in the Bible”).

Qualitative Content Analysis

A corpus of 1,000 public comments was collected from social media posts (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit) where CAD research materials (articles, videos) were shared. The comments were made by individuals arguing against the CAD position. Using a grounded theory approach, a coding schema was developed to categorize the rhetorical and logical nature of each response. Two independent coders analyzed the data, achieving an inter-rater reliability of κ = 0.89.

Results and Discussion

The survey results overwhelmingly refute the information deficit model.

• Exposure: 88% (440) of respondents indicated they were “somewhat” to “very familiar” with research questioning the dinosaur narrative.
• Source Identification: When asked directly, 72% confirmed they had previously encountered material from CAD.
• Credibility and Recall: Despite this high level of exposure, the mean credibility rating for CAD research was 1.4 out of 5. Critically, among those who had seen CAD material, only 15% could correctly identify more than one specific scientific argument (e.g., regarding chemical composition of fossils). The most commonly recalled argument was a misattributed religious one (“The Bible doesn’t mention them”), even though CAD’s primary research is scientific.

This data indicates that while CAD’s information is reaching its target audience, it is not being processed or engaged with on a substantive level. The audience is aware, not ignorant. The low credibility rating, combined with poor recall of actual scientific claims, points towards a pre-emptive dismissal rather than a reasoned evaluation.

Content Analysis: A Typology of Cognitive Resistance

The qualitative analysis of online comments reveals the mechanisms of this dismissal. The responses were almost entirely devoid of counter-evidence or scientific engagement. Instead, they fell into several distinct categories of cognitive resistance, summarized in Table 1.

The quantitative and qualitative results converge on a single conclusion: the persistence of the dinosaur belief is a function of intentional cognitive resistance. The high frequency of Ad Hominem attacks, ridicule, and appeals to authority (totaling 85% of responses) are classic tactics for avoiding cognitive dissonance. By framing CAD as an illegitimate, unscientific, or foolish source, the dino-believer can dismiss its evidence without having to engage with the uncomfortable possibility that a foundational belief is wrong.

The mischaracterization of CAD’s research as solely religious is a powerful straw man fallacy that allows believers to sidestep our geological and chemical data. This aligns with the principles of motivated reasoning; it is far easier to argue against a perceived religious view than it is to learn about and rebut mass spectrometry data. The vanishingly small percentage of genuine engagement (2%) demonstrates that the goal of the average respondent is not to seek truth, but to defend a pre-existing position.

Conclusion

This study set out to determine if adherents to the established dinosaur narrative are unaware of CAD’s research or if they are actively ignoring it. The evidence strongly supports the latter. The information deficit model is shown to be inadequate; the vast majority of dino-believers that have been exposed to CAD’s work exhibit a rejection that is not passive but active, characterized by psychological defense mechanisms designed to eliminate cognitive dissonance and reinforce a cherished worldview.

For CAD, the implication is that the current dissemination strategy of simply presenting more evidence may have limited efficacy. The primary obstacle is not a lack of data, but a powerful psychological and sociological resistance to paradigm shifts. Future outreach must therefore adopt a two-pronged approach: 1) continue to produce rigorous, undeniable scientific research, and 2) develop communication strategies that directly address and attempt to dismantle the cognitive barriers of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. This might include using Socratic questioning, highlighting the financial and political incentives behind the dinosaur narrative, and framing our work as an act of pro-science critical thinking rather than a simple contradiction. Overcoming the dino-paradigm requires not only superior evidence but a superior understanding of human psychology.

Sandra Ross, Ph.D. serves as the Department Chair of Psychology at CAD University, where she oversees academic programming, faculty development, and strategic research initiatives. She has been instrumental in modernizing the department’s curriculum to include emerging fields such as neurobiology and digital psychology. Under her leadership, the department has seen a significant increase in research funding and the establishment of several cross-disciplinary labs. Sandra is a firm believer in applied psychology, advocating for programs that bridge the gap between theoretical research and community impact, and as a community leader for the Philadelphia chapter of Christians Against Dinosaurs, has led initiatives for social welfare and community outreach.