Ken Ham’s Ark: My Close Encounter of the (un)Biblical Kind (Part 3)—Odds and Ends

🔊 Listen to Post  In this final post about my visit to Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter, I want to just touch upon a few odds and ends (as the title of this post suggests). The things I’m about to say do not necessarily relate to each other, but I think they are worthy of comment nevertheless.

First: A Shameless Promotion!
One of the reasons I’ve written these posts (as well as many others that you can find on this blog) is to not only call attention to the very odd and rather dangerous teaching of young earth creationism. It is also to let you, the reader, know of my book, The Heresy of Ham, that lays out the case that young earth creationism is not only unscientific, but more importantly unbiblical and with no standing in the history of the Church.

Truth and Lies About Evolution
Ken Ham acknowledges evolution happens. Yes, he really does. In the Ark Encounter there are displays in which clearly say that natural selection and genetic mutations have been the driving force that has produced the wide variety of life in the world. One display even says, “Observable processes show speciation within kinds.” That statement is 100% completely half true, and 100% completely fanciful.

It is true in that it acknowledges natural selection and genetic mutations have given rise to new species. In fact, that is pretty much what Charles Darwin himself said. Remember, the name of his famous book is Origin of Species. That’s what Darwin argued; that’s what evolution is. Hence, Ken Ham acknowledges evolution is true.

…but then he turns around and ruins it. He ruins it in basically two ways. First, he misrepresents what evolution is. In another display he claims that evolution claims that life sprang from non-living matter—that is not true: evolution only describes the observable processes of natural selection and genetic mutation that give rise to the varieties of life here on earth. Evolution does not even address the question, “How did life original begin?” Remember, Darwin’s famous book is Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

Second, Ham claims that in verses like Genesis 1:24 (“God made the wild animals…cattle…and everything that creeps on the ground of every kind”), that that word “kind” is an actual scientific classification of animal, akin to the modern scientific classification of “family.” Well, no—Genesis 1:24 is not giving us a scientific classification of animal, pure and simple. A plain and simple reading of the text (the way I am willing to bet Christians throughout Christian history have read it) is simply this: “God made all kinds of animals,” meaning, “a lot of different ones, a bunch, a whole mess of them.”

It is from that extremely faulty claim that Ham then bases his whole argument that modern species didn’t descend from a common ancestor, but rather from about 1,000 different “kinds” of “common ancestors,” a mere 4,000 years ago. The problem with that argument isn’t necessarily even with the idea that there was more than one “ancestor” from which all life descended—I’ve often wondered that. But that is a detailed scientific issue that someone more learned in that area should address. The problem is the idea that all that variation could have happened in a mere 4,000 years. I’ve written about that before. Long story short, unless you believe two beagles could procreate so much that in 7 years you’d have Siberian huskies, and then another 7 years you’d have coyotes, etc.—Ken Ham’s claim of hyper-evolution on steroids is just totally unbelievable.

But it is evolution, nonetheless, even if Ham refuses to admit it. So it’s true: he does believe in evolution (natural selection and genetic mutation giving rise to new species); but his definition of evolution is false, as is his insistence that he doesn’t accept evolution—he does, but it’s an impossible form of hyper-evolution.

Oh the Wondrous, Imaginative Ingenuity (that Ham thinks Noah must have had)
One of the things you’ll notice if you visit the Ark Encounter is the amazing technology that Ham claims Noah must have had. It is highly imaginative, to be sure. As I mentioned in my first post, there are the what I like to call “PetSmart water containers made of clay” that were attached to the countless wooden baskets and cages that supposedly held all the different kinds of small animals. These cages were also designed with rather a very clever waste removal system. Hey, if I ever decide to have enough gerbils as pets that would necessitate ten cages stacked on top of each other, I might try that waste removal system—but let’s face it, that’s not mentioned in the Bible, nor is there any evidence of that in the ancient world…anywhere.

And then there is the really cool waste removal system for the larger animals. I was so impressed that I took a video of it. As you can see, Shem carries a wheelbarrow full of excrement, and dumps it down a shoot, to where Jephthah spends the day shoveling the mountain of excrement into buckets on a pulley system…powered by an elephant…that then is able to dump the excrement into the sea.

All I can say to that is, wow…that really is imaginative, and yes, kind of cool! But also, I’m pretty sure I saw that on the Flintstones. Now, to present something like that as just a purely imaginative and creative way to make the story come alive would be fine; but to present that within an entire project that is attempting to “prove” that the Noah story was historical, and to then claim if you don’t believe it, that you’re a compromised Christian who is undermining the Bible…I’m sorry—what could be considered a really creative and artistic interpretation of the flood story becomes something that is silly and ludicrous.

Blurred Lines
No, I’m not talking about the Robin Thicke song. I’m talking about claims like the picture shows. The irony is this sign is in a small little room on the Ark Encounter dedicated to attacking how Noah’s Ark is often portrayed in children’s books. Yes, the way it is portrayed (i.e. happy Noah, happy animals) is pretty weird, when you come to think what the actual story is about. But, Ken Ham thinks it’s wrong because it makes kids think the flood story isn’t history. And for Ham, if “secularists” can convince your children that Noah’s flood isn’t historical, then the next step is to reject the belief in heaven and hell (and as he says elsewhere, the miracles and resurrection of Jesus).

Needless to say, that’s a really big leap to go from a legitimate question of genre (i.e. what kind of literature is the Noah story?) to denying the resurrection of Christ. In addition, the irony is this: in his attempt to “prove” the story of Noah’s flood is historical, Ken Ham has built the Ark Encounter that displays fictitious animal kinds—at least in children’s books you’ll see elephants, giraffes, tigers, and other animals that are actually real and historical. At the Ark Encounter, though, the animals aren’t real, and they aren’t historical. Isn’t it ironic? Don’tcha think?

What Have the Reactions Been?
Finally, I have to say something about the various reactions I’ve come across of people, both Christians and atheists alike, who have visited the Ark Encounter. To the point, the reactions were much like mine: surreal, just odd, rather disappointing, and overall pretty boring. One common observation has been that, despite Ham’s claims of thousands upon thousands just pouring into the Ark Encounter, the parking lot is often rather empty. Simply put, it just isn’t attracting too many people. My friend Joel Duff of Naturalis Historia recently visited and came away with the same impression as I did—he’ll be writing his own observations on his blog. In addition, Tracey Moody of The Friendly Atheist actually wrote a post entitled, “Ken Ham isn’t a Bad Ogre,” in which she admitted she felt sorry for Ken Ham. It’s a really thoughtful article actually.

But the point is this: there hasn’t been scores of people flocking to the Ark Encounter, and there hasn’t been (at least not that I’ve seen) unmitigated vitriol leveled against it, now that it has opened. The overall mood seems to be, “Meh, why bother? It’s just all pretty odd and silly.”

As I said in “Part 1,” I think that within a year or two the Ark Encounter is probably going to be relegated to “that odd attraction out in Kentucky that has dinosaurs on a boat.” In a way, the Ark Encounter might be the best thing for people like me who are alarmed at the growing influence of young earth creationism within Evangelicalism. When someone reads an article or blog post about by Answers in Genesis about young earth creationism, one might think, “Wow, that’s convincing!” especially if one doesn’t know much about science, history, or proper biblical interpretation.

But when one actually sees something like the Ark Encounter up close, chances are one is going to get an odd twinge in his/her brain that will say at various displays, “Wait…what? Really? That’s weird.”

With the Ark Encounter, Ken Ham has successfully brought young earth creationism into the full light of day. It will now be exposed for what it really is: something really odd, with no basis in science, history, or the Bible—and something that is ultimately just boring.