Does ones religion disqualify that person from being an objective scientist? Sir Isaac Newton is widely regarded as a giant in the history of science. Who would reject his scientific theories by referring to his religious views? Hardly anybody would. Yet he was very religious, believing in Biblical prophecies with a firm faith in their validity.

So why do some critics of researchers of pterodactyl eyewitness testimony emphasize the religious beliefs of those researchers? Why not simply examine the eyewitness testimonies themselves? That seems more objective than complaining about a religious belief in the scientist.

The eyewitnesses of apparent live pterodactyls seem to have a variety of beliefs, for they come from a number of countries and cultures. If observing an apparent pterosaur* depended on the religions of the eyewitnesses, then we would not have such a variety of people who have declared that they were eyewitnesses. So why should critics make a fuss about the religious beliefs of some those who interview eyewitnesses? To the testimonies!

Read also: Modern Pterosaurs and Philosophy

And: Flying Creature — Like Dinosaurs but Flying, Those be Pterosaurs

*  “Pterodactyl” is actually used by many non-scientists when they mean “pterosaur.”

According to nonfiction author Jonathan Whitcomb, “at least 1400″ Americans have seen an obvious living pterosaur in the United States within the past three decades. One cryptozooology forum-blog has challenged that crude calculation, but what would be a better estimate? How can anyone estimate what is not reported?

We know, from what eyewitnesses have told us, that some people just will not come forward and admit that they have seen an obvious pterosaur. The Chasepeake Bay area sighting is one example: several men saw the creature in daylight, but only one of them wanted to talk about it. This is part of Western culture, for it is considered crazy to report seeing something like a “live pterodactyl.” Considering the many eyewitnesses who have come forward, it seems that there must have been at least hundreds of eyewitnesses within the past three decades.

The point is, we can no longer accept the old criticism: “If pterosaurs were still alive, we would have seen them.” That circular reasoning, to dismiss sightings, becomes more obviously invalid now that we have begun to consider how many eyewitnesses there really are.