We’ve Seen the Dire Wolf Movie and it Doesn’t End Well: Guest Column

Recently, TIME magazine announced that the biotechnology company Colossal has resurrected the dire wolf, a species that went extinct thousands of years ago. “This is Remus,” read the caption over a photo of a robust-looking white wolf. “He’s a dire wolf. The first to exist in over 10,000 years.” According to Colossal, this is a first step to resurrecting other long-extinct animals, like the woolly mammoth. 

As it turns out, the headline is an exaggeration. Remus, his brother Romulus, and their sister Khaleesi contain no DNA from the dire wolf. Rather, they are modern gray wolves with genes tweaked by the company to mirror the DNA of the dire wolf. And they were more than likely engineered to look like the fictional giant wolves from HBO’s “Game of Thrones.” 

The most common comment on the TIME story was some variation of the sentiment, “I’ve seen this movie, and it doesn’t end well.” Most people likely had in mind Jurassic Park, in which a company uses genetic technology to bring back dinosaurs. Spoiler alert, it doesn’t end well. In fact, the seventh installment of the franchise will release this summer, each containing the same message as the 1993 original: Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should

Dozens of movies reflect the dangers of genetic tinkering, human reengineering, and other forms of scientific hubris. From The Island of Dr. Moreau to Gattaca to Planet of the Apes to The Island, not to mention about half of all zombie movies ever made, we’ve been thoroughly warned about the illusion of human control over nature.  

Maybe this is just the story of directors sprucing up a plot, or perhaps a surprising amount of wisdom in the arts has been overlooked or ignored by scientists and tech pioneers. A popular meme from Twitter quotes an imaginary science fiction author saying, “In my book, I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale,” immediately followed by a tech company exec announcing: “At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don’t Create The Torment Nexus.” Even more, there is a strange disconnect between pop culture’s ability to anticipate the negative consequences of our scientific advances and our overall willingness to volunteer as guinea pigs.  

This is as true for Artificial Intelligence as for medical technology. From 2001: A Space Odyssey to A.I. to Terminator to I, Robot, to Avengers: Age of Ultron, we’ve been warned about AI. Wall-E warned how we’d lose our humanity if we relied on technology to solve all our problems. Ready Player One warned against getting lost in virtual reality. Children of Men depicted what would happen if society stopped having enough babies. Minority Report questioned the justice of a surveillance state.  

What all these movies have in common is that their warning has been ignored in the real world. People will jokingly say, “I’ve seen this movie, and it doesn’t end well,” but we continue to adopt every new technology that promises comfort, convenience, and control without a serious discussion about purpose or boundaries.  

Even when the warnings aren’t exactly accurate or even realistic, these films often raise questions worth asking. And yet, our curiosity wanes once the credits roll. As in the Terminator movies, artificial intelligence continues to gobble up vast areas of life and human creativity without much protest. And despite all the Jurassic Park references, Colossal’s wolves will likely be the first of many bioengineering projects that prioritize profit and publicity over the welfare of animals or humans.  

You won’t hear me say this often, but it’s time to pay closer attention to Hollywood. Despite the garbage that comes from the entertainment industry, there’s a willingness to question “progress” that is lacking at MIT, medical labs, and Silicon Valley. 

C.S. Lewis wrote that reason is the organ of understanding, and imagination is the organ of meaning. We need both, which is why we should listen when someone asks, even in film, “What could go wrong?” Asking whether we should do something is a skill that should not be extinct.

Copyright 2025 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Here is What Public School Students Learn in Elective Bible Courses

Recently, we have written about how Arkansas law lets public schools offer elective, academic courses on the Bible — and how enrollment in these courses has grown this year.

In 2013 Arkansas passed Act 1440 letting public schools offer elective, academic courses that study “the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture, and politics.”

The law says the course must be objective and nonsectarian, and it must meet the same academic standards as other elective courses offered in public schools. Anyone wishing to teach the course must be licensed to teach in the State of Arkansas. In 2019, the Arkansas Legislature passed Act 1016 making technical clarifications to Act 1440 of 2013.

The Arkansas Department of Education’s academic framework provides an outline for these classes and what students learn from them.

Under the framework, the academic study of the Bible is a one-semester English elective course.

Students learn about the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, and culture.

As part of the course, students demonstrate “an understanding of narratives, poetry, and epistles contained in the Bible and how these biblical genres have influenced literature, art, and music.”

Students are also expected to:

  • Recognize the variety of literary devices in biblical text;
  • Identify major characters of the Bible;
  • Identify themes expressed in the Bible, making comparisons with modern society today;
  • Analyze poetry and songs of the Bible, making comparisons with modern poetry and music;
  • Compare different translations of the Bible;
  • Analyze the influence of the Bible on art and literary works;
  • Examine the influence of the Bible on historical and modern day political and social movements;
  • Analyze the Bible’s influence on the creation of American institutions and law.

The academic framework also notes that the Bible courses must be taught objectively.

This year lawmakers passed Act 400, the Religious Rights at Public School Act by Sen. Mark Johnson (R — Little Rock) and Rep. Alyssa Brown (R — Heber Springs). This good law affirms public school students’ and teachers’ religious liberties, and it highlights the freedom that schools have to offer academic courses on the Bible under state law.

It’s good that Arkansas’ students have the opportunity to enroll in academic courses on the Bible. After all, no single book has been more influential on our civilization.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.