Archaeopteryx Identity Crisis: Feathered Dinosaurs and Creationists

I have been doing a bit of research on the idea of feathered dinosaurs. It started when I was looking at some photographs of the skeletons of Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Anchiornis, and some other genera. I immediately noticed that the creatures in question were definitely feathered; true, pennaceous, primary flight feathers. And it also struck me that, merely at first glance, these animals look no different from other dinosaurs, namely those belonging to the group known as the Deinonychosauria (which includes Velociraptor). Now, the popular view of the genus Archaeopteryx, among both creationists and evolutionists, has often been that of a bird. And, in creationist circles, it’s the same situation for the other feathered deinonychosaurs. I don’t mind the evolutionists calling Archaeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur or something in between; they speculate within the realm of their own theory on evolution, and I disagree with that starting point.

I just drew this Archaeopteryx last month, and I'm already dissatisfied.
First, in a strictly artistic sense, The hands and the feet get all mixed up so
it is hard to tell exactly how many legs it has at first glance. And,
scientifically, I suppose it is not likely that the hand would move so
independently of the wing feathers. I illustrated the head bald in an
attempt to be more accurate, but I later read that it only appears that way
because the feathers on the head were erased during preparation of the
fossil. Oh well. The pigments (dark wing tips and coverts) are true to what
has been found in the feathers.

However, I don’t like how creationists refer to feathered dinosaurs. It seems they are often making the claim that any deinonychosaur that is found with undeniable feathers is one hundred percent bird. That claim has been made many times about Archaeopteryx in various creationist organizations. I think such a claim is out of place for a number of reasons. First, to say it is definitely a bird is merely to say it is best classified within Class Aves. Such a statement has little to do with creation science at all; it is merely a man-made classification system. Whichever class you place it in is irrelevant. However, I think that what many creationists mean to say is that Archaeopteryx is more like the members within Aves than those members within the Dinosauria. That claim is also of little importance because it is very clear that Archaeopteryx has many features in common with both groups. Why does it matter that Archaeopteryx is more like one than the other? Being adamant that Archaeopteryx is a bird because it has feathers (and a number of other features) is like saying that the platypus is better classified as a bird because it lays eggs and has a bill (among other features). These kinds of statements, whether right or wrong, are irrelevant to the creation evolution debate. As is demonstrated by the platypus, God has not created all animals to fit into a specific order, or class, or any other manmade classification method.

But what did God really say? That they should “reproduce after their kinds.” The “kind” is God’s classification of his creatures and, from a creationist’s perspective, each animal “kind” was created and diversified from each one’s ancestors. And creationists are very aware of this Biblical principle. They have even composed their own classification system to accommodate God’s perspective. For example, a “kind” is defined in their system as a monobaramin. A group of similar animals that may be one created kind (monobaramin) but could easily represent many similar created kinds is defined as a holobaramin. These terms, very useful in the study of created kinds (baraminology), will reappear throughout this research series. So the valid question for the creationist to ask himself is, exactly what monobaramin does Archaeopteryx belong to? That is the first question that this paper aims to address.

Of course, there are some words in society used to refer to certain clumps of animals, such as “birds” or “dinosaurs.” True, they are manmade. However, they are useful in describing these broad groups in an understandable manner to fellow English-speakers. My own personal view of Archaeopteryx (well supported by the evidences examined later on, I believe) is that there is no reason not to consider Archaeopteryx a dinosaur. Along with many paleontologists, I think Archaeopteryx is aptly classified within the Deinonychosauria (though evolutionists do so for different reasons), keeping in mind it is just a human classification. Thus, if Archaeopteryx is a deinonychosaur, it is also a dinosaur. The deinonychosaurs (such as Velociraptor) have nearly universally been considered dinosaurs, though one may make a case that they are really birds (in fact, many evolutionist do believe that Velociraptor and the deinonychosaurs were all dinosaurs “advanced” enough to be considered birds). I will simply go along with the majority that the deinonychosaurs are dinosaurs. If you disagree at this time, bear with me as we investigate Archaeopteryx, because I will likely frequently refer to it (and other members of the Deinonychosauria) as a dinosaur.

Archaeopteryx has always been of interest to creationists because of its publicity as a “missing link” or “the first bird.” Of course, both terms are saturated with evolutionary thinking, so it is no surprise that creationists should investigate. A “missing link,” the way it is usually meant, is not compatible with creationism. So what does a creationist do with an animal that appears to be part bird and part dinosaur? Before the many better-preserved Archaeopteryx specimens had been uncovered, some concerned creationists made the claim that Archaeopteryx was really just a coelurosaur dinosaur with fraudulent feather impressions and wishbone. In light of today’s wealth of specimens and data, however, fraud, in any practical sense is impossible. Besides the many well-preserved specimens with no sign of fraud, the specific design of Archaeopteryx for its ecological niche very clearly defies such a view. After all, if an animal is so perfectly designed for gliding or flight in the bush in every aspect of its anatomy, with no inconsistency, it is very unlikely to be a fake. This design will be demonstrated later on. Indeed, the vast majority of creationists today do not consider Archaeopteryx as anything like a fraud. Thus came the claim that it was “one hundred percent bird.”

Anyone writing to convince his readers of anything (even if it is a right or noble case) has an agenda. And creationists (such as myself) are no different. We often attempt to emphasize certain discoveries that fit with what we expected or desire, while seemingly ignoring those that do not fit in. I feel that most creationists have been negligent of a wealth of information and research that has been conducted on Archaeopteryx and other feathered dinosaurs that paints a picture of Archaeopteryx, not as “one hundred percent bird,” but as a member of a unique kind of dinosaur. Creationists should not unnecessarily try to make Archaeopteryx less dinosaur-like than it really was, but acknowledge that the Deinonychosauria (along with Archaeopteryx) were a unique group, perhaps best classified in the Dinosauria, that had characteristics shared by both birds and dinosaurs. This research aims to make it clear that the Deinonychosauria represent a viable holobaramin and possibly a monobaramin that includes Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, Velociraptor, Troodon, and others.

This should not be alarming to creationists. A seeming mix of traits does not prove macroevolution to be true. It merely illustrates a mixed lifestyle. The second goal of this paper is to paint a picture of Archaeopteryx (and the other members of the Deinonychosauria) as a creature well designed for its own ecological niche. As the characteristics of Archaeopteryx are explored and compared to other dinosaurs, an accurate picture of Archaeopteryx in life can be created.