It has been almost 40 days and 40 nights since my last post and it is Father’s Day . . . so, obviously, that calls for a post about Noah’s Ark! But, alas, I have not visited Noah’s Ark—and Ancient Dan, out of principle, does not post about things without direct contact. However, I have recently visited the “Ark Encounter” and (surprise!) have some thoughts about it.
For the uninformed: The Ark Encounter is a Christian creationist theme park in northern Kentucky. It is owned and operated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a young-earth creationist non-profit founded and directed by Ken Ham, a master purveyor of pseudoscience. AiG also operates the Creation Museum nearby. The Ark Encounter was developed by AiG’s for-profit partner, Ark Encounter LLC (whose corporate office is in the Creation Museum), with the benefits of huge and controversial local tax incentives. AiG, like many other “non-profit” Christian institutions, has plugged into the “business model” and is not shy about commercialization. From the moment one enters either attraction ($48 for the Ark, $35 for the Creation Museum), there are endless opportunities to spend more money on overpriced food, trinkets, and propaganda. Among other things, the Ark [Encounter] certainly provides a refuge from taxes.
How did I end up there? I would never have done so on my own, but three other long-time friend couples planned a trip to the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter. So Mrs. Ancient Dan and I joined them, fellowship with good friends, curiosity, and the principle of direct experience before commentary overcoming my reticence to give money to AiG.
Time, space, and decorum preclude any full systematic reaction to the exhibits at the Creation “Museum” and Ark Encounter. Rather, I will offer here a couple of observations on the presentation that struck me as important.
I expected a barrage of pseudoscience-based arguments, but there was not as much of that as I anticipated. Other aspects of the presentation, however, troubled me more. After my visit, I discovered that Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) had a similar reaction. The Science Guy noted, “every single science exhibit is absolutely wrong; not just misleading, but wrong.” But that is not the disturbing part. The presentation made no serious attempt to document its claims apart from woefully out-of-context biblical references. Some might suggest that the curators of the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are incapable of proper argumentation and citation; but I don’t think so (although one exhibit had undecipherable English syntax). Ken Ham is no scientist, but he is a crafty presenter and an able politician. The exhibits do not seek to educate; rather they aim to confirm the views of those already on board with the ark, so to speak. Preaching to the choir works! But it also erodes the choirs’ ability to think critically or for themselves.
The crowds at both facilities were themselves an exhibition of credulity. Their faces and T-shirts proclaimed a desire for confirmation of heartfelt views and a yearning for refuge from that threatening outside world—the world of science. The latter was characterized throughout the displays as the “Evolutionary World View” and tacitly blamed for the ills of human society. The Ark [Encounter] is thus a refuge from the deluge of the modern world; a place where one can be comforted that God is in control despite the chaos outside. Is there anything wrong with that? As a late secular songwriter declared: “It don’t really matter to me . . . you believe what you want to believe.” The insightful words are “what you want to believe.” The main point of the song, however, is in the next line: “you don’t have to live like a refugee.” Still, is there anything wrong with seeking psychological refuge from a scary world?
Unfortunately, the Ark also provides a refuge from facts. One example will suffice here. Fundamentalist Christians are (in my opinion, unreasonably) disturbed by the notion of evolution. The Flood story provides a potential avenue to explain away all those pesky and undeniable fossils (which support the “Evolutionary World View.” But if the fossils were all the result of the single Flood event, all the weird lifeforms represented in them must have coexisted with humans at the time of Noah and the Ark. The “biggest” obvious (but certainly not the only) problem, then, would be the dinosaurs. A challenge for the young-earth creationist view is the cynical question, “were there dinosaurs on the Ark?” Ken Ham’s answer to that is: “absolutely.” So the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter go to great lengths to create a narrative in which dinosaurs lounged around with Adam in the Garden of Eden (display in the Creation Museum) and had quarters on the great boat. Indeed, an inordinate percentage of the animal replicas in the Ark Encounter are dinosaur or other paleo- “kinds.”
At this point I should note that the craftmanship of the Ark replica is top-notch, the grounds are beautiful, and presentations are slick and high-tech. It is, in a word, impressive. The result is a massive container for a story that provides limited details. To flesh out visitors’ Encounter experience, numerous entertaining displays answer those idle questions that come with a literal understanding of the account. For example, names of Noah’s daughters-in-law are provided along with their specialized contributions (and ethnic features to match their assumed descendants). Living quarters of unexpected luxury are recreated and set the stage for other “poetic license” additions, like the library of written records (in a bizarre imaginary script). Viewers are thus invited into a storyland world not so unlike Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, the Christian fiction genre, or other fantasy theme parks.
What I find troubling is this: with the help of the theme park atmosphere, the visitor is encouraged to accept the presence of dinosaurs on the Ark as naturally as they might expect a huge clothed hi-pitched bipedal rodent interacting with visitors at Disneyworld.
I return to the question: is there anything wrong with all that fantasy? Not in principle; but the ability of the public to evaluate information has always been suspect. In this “Dis-information Age,” flashy presentation, repetition, and volume make discernment more of a chore (see “Russia and the 2016 election”). The real peril of Ken Ham’s efforts are a weakening of critical thinking and an indoctrinated distrust of “science.” This is already a huge problem in America, as the Anti-Vaxxer movement and the current resurgence of Measles highlight.
Ironically, Ken Ham does what the original writer of the Noah’s Ark account in Genesis did: the retelling of a well-known and beloved account infused with new details that support a particular theological view. Flood stories were written adapted in Mesopotamian cultures long before the composition of the Torah (even if one assumes the most conservative view of Mosaic authorship). Those accounts feature conflicting actions of multiple gods with humans as simple annoyances. The Genesis author was concerned with eliminating the other deities from the narrative, leaving the one God of Israel in control with a focus on human morality. Ken Ham’s retelling is concerned with eliminating the established fossil record, scientific method, and critical thinking.
What does any of this have to do with Father’s Day? The Genesis Flood story presents Noah as the father of all mankind through his three sons, Shem, Ham (not Ken!), and Japheth. Unsurprisingly, the Ark Encounter takes up this approach. This is a danger zone because literal views of the Shem, Ham, and Japheth division was used to justify slavery in this country (primarily through interpretations of Gen 9:20-27). Happily, Ken Ham denounces racism in numerous displays—which I wholeheartedly applaud. So the Ark should be a refuge—from bigotry and hatred, because we are all in this boat together.
Happy Father’s Day!
 “Company Overview of Ark Encounter, LLC,” Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=134385996 (accessed 15 June 2019).
 I am gratified that Bill Nye also felt the need to see it first hand—and would like to think that our common engineering backgrounds are the reason for our similar approaches.
 Erik Ortiz, “’Absolutely Wrong’: Bill Nye the Science Guy Takes on Noah’s Ark Exhibit, NBC News, 16 July 2016; https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/absolutely-wrong-bill-nye-science-guy-takes-noah-s-ark-n608721.
 Tom Petty (and Michael W. Campbell), “Refugee,” 1979.
 BONUS FOR PEOPLE THAT READ FOOTNOTES: The earlier Mesopotamian flood epics mentioned above have undeniable parallels to the Genesis account in terms of building details, the releasing of birds, and a post-flood sacrifice. But the Mesopotamian stories do not emphasize the notion of the variously-named boat builders populating the world. This aspect of the tale is found, however, in the less well-known Greek flood myth of Deucalion, where the hero repopulates the world through three sons. A new study of these parallels is found in Guy Darshan, After the Flood: Stories of Origins in the Hebrew Bible and Eastern Mediterranean Literature [Hebrew], Biblical Encyclopedia Library 35 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2018).
Thanks for looking!