Boys and their toys

One of the stock objections to the local flood interpretation is that if Noah's flood was merely regional in scale, the ark was unnecessary. Humans and animals could survive outside the flood zone. 

That's a reasonable question. I've addressed that from various angles. 

Now I'd like to consider it from one more angle. Last year, Ken Ham unveiled a theme park centered on his life-size reconstruction of Noah's ark. 

This is meant to graphically illustrate the feasibility of a global flood. There is, though, a sense in which the exercise subverts the aim. After all, we could redirect the objection to the local flood interpretation to the Ark Encounter. The outlay for financing, planning, and building the mockup was much greater than for Noah's ark. More resources were put into designing the floor plan, the furnishings, and so forth, than for the original ark. 

Yet it's not as if the survival of the human race was hanging on Ham's ark. It's not as if the survival of the animal kingdom was hanging on Ham's ark. In fact, his ark will never leave dry dock. His ark will never function as a boat. 

In one respect it's a giant model toy that serves no practical purpose. So what's the point? Its only purpose is the pedagogical value it serves. But ironically, that's in large part what local flood interpreters would say about the purpose served by Noah's ark. 

Bill Nye's challenge

On Facebook, Bill Nye issued the following challenge to Ken Ham:

I would challenge him to build a real ark. Instead of trying to fund an ark park, Ken, why not build a real one and take it to sea for a full year? And Ken, if you're too busy with your flock there in Petersburg, KY, have your most competent parishioners take a shot. Send 8 of your toughest, smartest people to, say, Norfolk, have them design and build a 500 foot wooden boat, load it up with 17,000 pretty good-sized animals, and show us how straightforward it would be to have it remain seaworthy for a year. They have to gather all the food needed locally before they set sail, of course. It's one more thought experiment that would illustrate how unbelievable the literal story of Noah is, as translated into modern English. Also, we'd have to stipulate that all humans and animals come ashore alive … 

i) The Genesis flood account doesn't say there were "17,000 pretty good-sized animals" on the ark. It doesn't specify the number of animals.

ii) Likewise, it doesn't specify what sorts of animals were on the ark. 

iii) Apropos (ii), why assume a sample of current species will correspond to the ark's original cargo?

iv) Assuming the conventional length of a cubit (which is disputable), the ark was 450 feet long, not 500 feet long.

v) Why would they have to gather all the food ahead of time? Can't Ham's parishioners fish while they are at sea? Can't they take fishing poles or fishing nets with them?

Likewise, couldn't Noah and his family collect rainwater while they were at sea?

vi) In what sense does Bill Nye think a wooden ship can't be seaworthy for a year? 

vii) Why would all the animals have to come ashore alive? Why assume no animals died on the ark? To begin with, there were extra unclean animals. 

And even if some clean animals perished on the ark, so what? Even if that meant some animals became extinct, the flood account doesn't preclude that possibility. 

viii) Nye is tacitly assuming and attacking a global flood interpretation. There are, however, Christians who construe the account in local terms (e.g. Arthur Custance, Carol Hill, John Walton, Ronald Youngblood). Nye needs to show "how unbelievable" the literal account is on a local as well as global interpretation.  

Soft science

According to reviews of the Ham/Nye debate, Ham drew a hardline distinction between historical sciences and observational sciences. Nye countered by citing astronomy. Ham may well have overstated the case. But it's possible to overstate the case in both directions. Can we generalized about different branches of science? Is there an overlap between observational and historical science in every branch of science? Or does Ham's dichotomy hold in some branches of science, but not others? Likewise, which branches of science intersect with creation science? For instance, paleontology has a reputation for being a soft science. 

Missing links

"5 Christian Arguments Left Out of the Ken Ham, Bill Nye Debate"

I'll note in passing I don't agree with everything in the article. But I'm glad to see other possible focal points in the debate over "Christianity and science" broached. At the least they help better round out what should be involved in such a debate.