Look at the alluring title of the latest post at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. The title is Your Ark Questions Answered. Seriously, dear reader, how could we resist that?
Actually, we don’t have too many ark questions. We pretty much satisfied ourselves years ago that the whole thing is nothing more than a children’s tale. Over the years, the most clicked-on post at our humble blog is Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology.
But the title of Hambo’s post certainly got our attention. We hope it’s not too much of a spoiler if we tell you that it turned out to be a big disappointment — and when we say big, we mean really big. We’ll let you judge for yourself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
How did Noah fit the animals on the ark? Would the ark really have floated? What evidence is there that this event actually happened? These are some of the common questions we’re asked by skeptics and others about the biblical account of the global flood.
So far, so good. You’re hooked, aren’t you? So were we. Then he says:
We answer these questions, and many more, throughout the Ark Encounter [Link omitted.] and the Creation Museum [Link omitted.] in Northern Kentucky as well as on our website. There are good answers to these questions!
Well, what are the answers? Come on, Hambo! *Curmudgeon pauses and calms himself down* Okay, we’re under control. Hambo tells us:
For example, did you know Noah wasn’t commanded to take two of every species on the ark, as skeptics often claim? Only two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind (seven pairs of some). [Ooooooooooooh! Kind, not species!] That means he only had to take fewer than 1,400 kinds on the ark (actually the number could be as low as around 1,000), or under 7,000 individual animals (that’s even including the now-extinct kinds!). It’s really a simple answer to a very common question!
Amazing, huh? Want more answers? Sure you do. He continues:
Tim Chaffey, the content manager for the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum, recently sat down with Billy Hallowell, the host of PureTalk, a Pure Flix interview program (you can find this show on Facebook [Link omitted.]), to answer all the questions I mentioned above.
That means you’re not going to get the answers here. Let’s read on:
They also discussed the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave and Tim’s battle with cancer. It’s an encouraging and equipping conversation.
That’s nice. Does Hambo tell us anything else? Here’s another excerpt:
This interview was filmed at our Ark Encounter [Link omitted.] and is part of the “Answering Atheists” series produced by the leading faith and family video streaming service Pure Flix. I encourage you to watch it below: [Video at Hambo’s post.]
No answers yet — just a bunch of links to click on. Exciting, huh? The rest of Hambo’s post is promotion for Pure Flix videos, so we’re done with it. And now you know why we found Hambo’s post to be such a disappointment.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
“That means he only had to take fewer than 1,400 kinds on the ark (actually the number could be as low as around 1,000) …”
So a fantastically fast and imaginary form of evolution exploded around 1,000 “kinds” to over 8 billion species (including the 99.9% that are now extinct) in only a few thousand years? It is rather odd that none of the early civilizations thought to mention this happening, along with failing to record the worldwide flood (the early Egyptians were very prolific writers). Ken Ham and his merry team of fools are writing apologetics for literal idiots.
“Tim’s battle with cancer”
So is Tim able to explain why his gawd decided to give him cancer?
Number of animals on the ark is inversely proportional to speed of evolution. And we are talking about macro evolution here.
His ‘simple answer’ to how many animals were on the ark is somewhere between 2,000 and 7,000. And no explanation of the fate of the non-land-dwelling, non-air-breathing kinds and how they survived the flood. I’m sure the answers aren’t in the podcast/show. Can they get a 10-year-old on the next show to ask more questions that should have simple answers from Hambo.
If I have a chance to ask Ham a question, it would be this: What did all the animals eat once they got off the ark?
Seems they must have had a taste for rotting seaweed, because that’s all that would have been available, laying about all over the ground. It would have been a long time before any land plants could take root – the soil would have been saturated with saltwater.
C’mon, Ham! Where are all your answers in Genesis? Inquiring minds want to know.
Of course, the answers are based on Biblical texts, rather than fallible human reasoning. None of us were there. Historical science can’t be relied on.
So where does it say in the Bible about a few thousand? Or about micro-evolution? Speciation?
To take a different tack, what about those suddenly carnivorous kinds, and their first meals of flesh. When one of the cat kind had killed one of a prey, did that kind of prey go extinct? And remember that among the birds, the Bible tells us that all kinds were taken by sevens. So take that into account.
So Ol’Hambo has learned how to produce clickbait. Experienced internet users know that clickbait and quackery are inseperably connected.
Alas, any naive questions I might have tend to fall into the cod-philosophical — or existential — to be answerable by Ken, or anyone else with a vested interest in maintaining myths.
Such as: just what is it about the Genesis stories that has the peculiar power to infantalize adults, and render them so dumbstruck with awe?
@chris schilling
Take as an example the first few verses of the Bible to see how much they influence one’s thinking. These opening verses describe the beginning of God’s creation of the heaven and earth.
God’s first act is to speak, let there be light. This takes place in a scene where there is deep water and a wind. Where did that scenario come from? We aren’t told. The beginning presumes that the wind and water were already there.
Now, what is the response of those who rely on the Bible and only on the Bible? It is to make up their own story, where everything is created by God art the beginning.
From the first verses of the Bible, they are already imposing their own ideas.
Some prospect of taking them seriously!
@ChrisS: I don’t pretend to have the ultimate answer, but perhaps I can add something to TomS’ comment. In my view the key is “And God said.”. We find the underlying idea also in Greek philosphy. According to Wikipedia logos “provides the link between rational discourse and the world’s rational structure.” Magical thinking (eg the Harry Potter series) goes a step further: words (which express rational discourse) can influence and change our natural reality.
So language in western culture (I don’t know about other culutres) has become a powerful tool. Perhaps the most unsettling scientific conclusion is that the quality of human thinking is not as neary as high as humans (specifically including me) prefer to assume.
Now we all know that creationism and research don’t go well together. I don’t think this is a coincidence. There is nothing that prevents creationists (whether of the Ol’Hambo kind or of the Klunckerduncker kind) to set up their own programs. Still they don’t do it, with a few clumsy examples (Andrew Snelling).
What they prefer is talk and write. They rely on the power of language to make their case. Because that power is how their god manifests himself. They want to be part of this divine power. Woulnd’t it be terrific if you, when looking at the wrong end of a gun, could wave a stick, think Expelliarmus and the threat is gone?
One aspect that makes the Genesis stories so attractive is that those words are so powerful.
I would like Ken Ham to explain how high social animals that require large communities for breeding (such as the passenger pigeon, which went extinct once its numbers were too low for community breeding) would have survived on the Ark and afterward.
@FramkB
The power of language. Yes, but.
I see no powerful language. It is even worse with certain politicians, who are childishly inarticulate.
What power is there in the failure to stick to the same story – they don’t have a “script girl” to alert them to lack of continuity, or glaring anachronisms. Things which would make them a laughing stock in a movie.
How can a creationist be taken seriously with an argument like this:
All of the smartest engineers and scientists have not be able to produce something like the simplest life,
therefore life must be intelligently designed.
That kind of language does not strike me as powerful.
@PaulD
I am a city boy, but my naive understanding of farm animals tells be that there can be fierce rivalry between males, say between bulls or cocks. How would the original audience for the Ark story understand having miltiple males in close proximity for an extended time?
TomS, that language may not be powerful, not nearly as much as the bible. But it helps obfuscate the truth of science to those listening to those powerful stories. I tell a MAGAr that Trump lied, they just refer to a headline from Fox that disputes the lie or the one revealing the lie to prove to themselves or me that Trump didn’t do it. It doesn’t have to be artful, just a chance to give them an out for their cognitive dissonance.
See:
* Gaslighting
* Chewbacca defense
Both are described in Wikipedia.
If the god in Genesis were the god who created the universe, then why was he portrayed as a small-time tribal deity among hundreds of other tribal deities?
@TomS: “I see no powerful language. ”
No, that’s because like me you’re neither a creationist nor a Greek philosopher nor a Hebrew prophet.
“How can a creationist be taken seriously with an argument like …..”
That’s not the question I tried to answer. The question was something like “how can a creationist be serious with an argument like …..”