“The Ark and the Darkness”: Let’s Take a Look at the Most Recent Multimedia Extravaganza from Answers in Genesis and Liberty University (Part 1)

Over this Thanksgiving break, I decided to rent The Ark and the Darkness, a YECist movie collaboration of Liberty University and the Ark Encounter. It originally came out at the beginning of 2024, but I wasn’t about to pay $20 to buy it, so I waited until I could plunk down $5 to rent it and write a blog post on it. If I was going to summarize it in one word, it would be…boring. Much like what you will find if you visit Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter, you’ll see, admittedly, some impressive-looking things. The Ark Encounter itself is architecturally impressive and many of the displays and animatronics are well done as well. Similarly, The Ark and the Darkness does have some impressive visuals and CGI effects. That being said, most of the Ark Encounter consists of you simply reading YECist explanations of what coulda, mighta, possibly have happened. Similarly, despite the CGI effects, most of The Ark and the Darkness consists of 5-6 men (some from AiG, some from Liberty University) talking into the camera, giving YECist explanations for the historicity of Genesis 1-11. In a word…boring.

Nevertheless, watching it was worthwhile, because it made me realize a few things about the YECist movement that I might not have really taken in before. Ever since I first started writing on Ken Ham and the YECist movement in 2015, and as I stated in my book The Heresy of Ham, I’ve always said that the major concern of YECists like Ken Ham wasn’t really the proper interpretation of Genesis 1-11, or even the actual scientific issues involving the historicity of Adam or the age of the earth. I said that ultimately, Ken Ham and his fellow YECists viewed those things as “fronts” in their culture war. They think that if they can convince people of the historicity and scientific verifiability of Genesis 1-11, they can convince people that the Bible is true (scientifically speaking) and then they would be more likely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and be more willing to “obey the rules” found in the Bible. That, they think, is how Christians can fight against the “godless Left” and the Democrat party.

I still think that is true. That really is at the core of their mentality. The Ark and the Darkness, though, helped me realize another key element to the YECist mindset. Before I get to that, though, let me provide you with a bird’s-eye overview of the content in The Ark and the Darkness. Overall, it will take two posts to cover the movie. Enjoy.

The Opening
The movie begins with a wolf-like puppy, frantically running about a rain forest in the rain. Soon, the camera pulls back and you realize that it’s the beginning of Noah’s flood. Off in the distance is the Ark, while massive waves crash over the rainforest. Then the camera pans down into the depths of the ocean, where we see ancient statues and artifacts of that long-lost pre-flood civilization.

It is then that a host of “experts” from AiG and Liberty University begin their almost two-hour long lecture, interspersed with CGI visual effects. The first claim they make is that the reason most people don’t believe in Noah’s flood is because they have not been shown the evidence for it—our secular school system and universities purposely have covered up the evidence. Things like evolutionary theory and the geological column present false information that lead students astray. Scholars and scientists know this, and they know the true evidence for Noah’s flood, but they don’t speak up because they are afraid to look silly in the eyes of the world.

They go on and claim that Noah’s flood was a global event in history that happened about 4,000 years ago—it was a supernatural event that God used to bring judgment on the wickedness of mankind. And it is important to realize this because a second global judgment is coming, and we’re getting really close to it.

My Comments
Having spent a considerable amount of time researching YECism over the years, most of this opening struck me as the same old talking points YECist “experts” routinely give: (1) modern science is basically conspiring to lead young people away from God; and (2) the reason why scientists…and “so-called” Christian scholars who really know the truth don’t say anything is because they are more concerned with their reputation and want the praise of men more than that of God.

The one part that got my attention, though, is the emphasis that there is a second global judgment coming, and that the time is short—we’re almost there. Having grown up in an Assemblies of God/Evangelical church, I remember the clear “End Times” obsession of many people. Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth and the film series A Thief in the Night hammered home the conviction that we were on the cusp of the “End Times,” so we had better get out and witness to people before the rapture happens and the Antichrist comes to power. Now, I’d come across this thing in the course of my researching YECism, Ken Ham, and “Answers in Genesis,” but this movie helped something “click” for me. This YECist obsession with claiming Genesis 1-11 is history and science isn’t just about “winning the culture war.” There really is a strong “End Times” fervor to it. They clearly have a dogged Dispensationalist view of the End Times, and that affects how they read Genesis 1-11.

Or to put in a different way: because they seem to think Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind is basically what is going to happen in the future (i.e. they think that interpretation of Revelation is historically accurate…in the future), they insist that the beginning of the Bible (i.e. Genesis 1-11) must also be historically accurate and informs and foreshadows the end of their Dispensationalist assumptions about the “last days.”

Claims about Genesis 1-6 and the Original Creation
The first real part of the movie focuses on YECist claims regarding the original creation. Here are the highlights:

• The Bible is inspired and architected by God. It dates back to the real origin of human history. It doesn’t teach millions of years, but rather that the entire planet was created in six literal days, 6,000 years ago, and was originally a paradise, “very good,” and in a state of innocence.
• Dinosaurs were made on Day 6, the same day mankind was made. (The CGI effects showed dinosaurs walking around with people).
• Mankind, though used its free will to sin against God, and when Adam sinned, the entire natural order was corrupted. (Here, the CGI effects showed men roping a brontosaurus, shooting a triceratops, worshipping some sort of minotaur-looking idol, and cheering gladiators fighting dinosaurs in a pre-flood coliseum).
• Before the flood, the global climate was warmer; there were not desert areas because everything was lush, and since everything was so nutrient-rich, that explains the giantism in the fossil record.
• Due to low mutation rates, lifespans before the flood were a lot longer; it was only after the flood that there was a severe decline in lifespans, due to the lack of nutrient-dense foods. But this decline in lifespans happened gradually. Therefore, this exponential decay that we find in the genealogies proves Genesis 1-11 is real history.

My Comments
Again, and especially if you’ve visited Ken Ham’s Creation Museum and Ark Encounter, none of this is really new. To be honest, though, I’ve never heard the claim that the Bible was “architected” by God. And I never heard the Bible described as “dating back to the real origin of human history.” Or maybe I had, but it never really sunk in for me—they are claiming that the Bible (or particularly Genesis 1-11)—the actual written account—dates back to the “real origin” of human history. So…I suppose Genesis 1 was actually written down somewhere, somehow, after the first creation week? And then Adam and Eve sat down to write Genesis 2-3 shortly after they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden?

The “dinosaurs were created on Day 6 along with man” is nothing new. And you can see depictions of human beings hunting dinosaurs, worshipping “pre-flood idols,” and having their own “pre-flood gladiator games” at the Ark Encounter. But the explanations as to what caused “giantism” and the rapid decline in lifespans after the flood was new to me. The food was just much more nutrient-dense! This has about as much evidentiary sense as the claim that the pre-flood civilization had access to advanced technology that would put our modern technology to shame. And the claim that the way the lifespans in the genealogies after the flood decrease somehow “proves” Genesis 1-11 is real history—sorry, not convincing.

The Specifics Regarding Noah’s Ark
In the next part of the movie, the focus is on the particulars of Noah’s Ark.

• The measurements given in the Bible show that the Ark was structurally stable and could have withstood the chaotic waters of the flood.
• Noah only had to bring 1,400 “kinds” on the Ark—amounting to about 6,750 animals. A “kind” is basically at the “family” level.
• II Peter 2 tells us that in the last days people would deny the evidence for Noah’s flood and would mock the Bible. The fact that people are denying the historicity of Noah’s flood—even supposed Christians—shows that we are living near the end. Therefore, just as II Peter 3:5-7 tells us, that past judgment of the world (i.e. Noah’s flood) is equated to the future judgment of the world.
• Noah’s flood wasn’t a local flood. It was a completely global flood.

My Comments
Once again, nothing in this part of the movie is anything new to those who have researched, watched, or read any amount of YECist material. We don’t need to go into how “created kinds” is literally a made-up YECist classification to try to make their claims sound more “scientificy.”

But what caught my attention in this section of the movie is the same thing that caught my attention in the opening. Once again, there was a heavy dose of “End Times” talk. The movie really hits II Peter 2-3 hard. Sadly, yet not surprisingly, though, despite their emphasis on II Peter 2-3, the fact is they grossly misinterpret what is being said in those chapters.

In II Peter 2, Peter is warning about false teachers who bring in heresies and who deny Christ. Then in 2:4-10, he brings up a host of examples from the Old Testament of God’s judgment on the ungodly: (a) the “angels” (i.e. sons of Elohim) in Genesis 6:1-4, (b) the pre-flood ancient world—although God spared Noah, (c) Sodom and Gomorrah—although God spared Lot. His point is that God will just those false teachers, but those who remain faithful to Him will not suffer the judgment of those false teachers. Here’s the point: nowhere in II Peter 2 does it say that “in the last days” people are going to be denying the historicity of Genesis 6-9. And when I say “nowhere,” I mean NOWHERE. Yes, the judgment of Noah’s flood is mentioned in the chapter, but it does not say “in the end times, people are going to start denying the historicity of Noah’s flood.”

As for In II Peter 3:3-7, yes, Peter does, in fact, equate the destruction of Noah’s flood (as a means of God’s judgment) with some future destruction that is equated with “his coming.” That much is true. The question, though, is, “What is II Peter 3:3 referring to when he mentions ‘his coming’?” Dispensationalism interprets this along the lines of that Left Behind vision of Tim LaHaye. I disagree. To get into the particulars of those verses though, goes beyond the scope of this post. But still, I would argue that just because Peter is referring to Genesis 6-9 to explain the significance of the future judgment, that does not automatically mean he is making a historical claim about Noah’s flood. For all intents and purposes, let’s say he did think Noah’s flood was historical. The fact is he is interacting with the story and using the story…at the level of a story. He is not engaging in a discussion about the historicity of the story of Noah’s flood. It is the same principle we see in other places where YECists argue, “Oh, Jesus, or Paul, make a reference to something in Genesis 1-11 to make a theological point…therefore it must be historical.” Sorry, that is not true. If I refer to a Parable of Jesus to make a theological point, that doesn’t mean I’m claiming there was a historical Good Samaritan. Simply put: A mere reference to make a theological point does not automatically entail making a historical claim.

Until Next Post…
That is enough for now in this “conversation” with The Ark and the Darkness. In my next post, I’ll discuss the rest of the movie.