Observational Science: Out of Time
by Robert Brecha
The second entry of our Putting Observational Science to the Test series comes from Dr. Robert Brecha, Professor of Physics and Research Director for the Hanley Sustainability Institute at the University of Dayton. In this post, Robert questions observational science’s treatment of time, especially its overwhelming reliance on the present.
Ken Ham proposes an interesting view of science as being divided into two realms: that of “observational science” dealing with the “scientific method” and events in the present, and that of “historical science” which is concerned with the past and therefore not available for observers now. The clear goal of this division is to remove from the realm of science any statements about the past, including the age of the earth. As the hosts of this blog explain earlier the strictness of this definition is very problematic partly because it also implies a distinction between the “truth” of observational science and mere “conjectures” available to historical science.
Ham’s distinction between “observational science” and “historical science” raises some basic questions for scientists. For one thing, what counts as “observation”? Are telescopes and microscopes allowed, or are we only to trust the naked eye? What, in the case of a sharp division between past and present, exactly defines “the past”? If I make a measurement today, does that mean I have to start over tomorrow since I cannot say anything about the past?
Without reference to observations of the past, how can we be so confident in the observations of the present? If we recognize that Laws of science remain constant over time, does that not mean that we can indeed infer something about the past based on those theories? It is a truly radical re-definition of science to claim that we cannot look further backward using the same physical theories that we have seen acting consistently over decades or centuries.
Let’s look at one example. I can directly measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a percentage of the total amount of gases in the air. At the same time, I can look at air bubbles that form as snow falls and builds up on Antarctica and measure the carbon dioxide concentration. Comparing these, I see that the observations match, and since I am a careful (and long-serving) scientist, I keep a notebook with my observations over a fifty-year period. They agree very well, so I decide that I will go back to 51, or 60, or 100 years ago by digging down into the accumulated ice on Antarctica and read off the years by looking at snowfall layers – the way others might count tree rings. I don’t have the direct measurements for those earlier years since I was a pre-scientist, or not even born. For each year I examine the air bubbles trapped in the ice and measure how much carbon dioxide is in the air bubble. I am in my lab, making measurements that are exactly the same as the ones I had been carefully, and currently, making each year for the past half-century. Is it really now not a matter of science to say that, given decades of agreement between the measurement techniques, extending the ice measurements backwards will give me an idea of actual carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere? If not, when did the correspondence stop? At year 51? Why?
Clearly we encounter increasing uncertainty as we move back in time. Did I miscount the layers and am I therefore off by a year? Was there a year with no snow and therefore a layer was skipped? But that’s why my friends in Greenland are also making measurements there as a check on my work. And then another group of friends, more biologically oriented, are counting tree rings, or looking at characteristics of pollen, or seashells of creatures that absorb carbon dioxide or oxygen, and so on. When all of these independent techniques give the same answers, we begin to think we understand that bit of nature somewhat better.
In the end, if we cannot say anything about the past through our scientific endeavors, we cannot say anything about the future either. If the laws of physical science, the theories (and I mean this in the sense in which scientists use the term, not as an “uneducated guess,” as is sometimes implied) we use to underpin all of technological civilization, are not constant, then we can have no faith that the apple we drop to the floor today won’t fall twice as fast tomorrow, or maybe even jump upwards out of our hands. If, on the other hand, we can project our theories forward and find them to hold, then it would make for a strange, asymmetrical, and cruel world in which a constant shifting of these laws would render them invalid to make inferences about the past.
Ken Ham and the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
by Allen McGrew
Kicking off our Putting Observational Science to the Test series, Dr. Allen McGrew, Associate Professor of Geology at the University of Dayton, provides some insights on Ken Ham’s distinction between “observational” and “historical” science and the implications of this distinction for geological inquiry.
All science is observational. All science is historical. All science is theoretical. All science is provisional. There is no such thing as “scientific proof.” At its best, science seeks to establish internally consistent systems of explanation (theories) that relate observed reality to natural laws and/or processes. This is not to say that in science “anything goes”; on the contrary, science involves the rigorous and continuous testing and, if necessary, revision of theories in light of new, carefully framed observations. Observations in space have no privilege over observations in time; in fact, the two are inseparable and mutually dependent. Science becomes wholly inoperable if deprived of either.
As he applies it, Ken Ham’s distinction between “observational science” and “historical science” has little to contribute. Consider this thought experiment: Galileo hypothesizes that gravity operates on all objects in the same manner regardless of their mass, density or size. To test his hypothesis he defines an experiment that involves releasing a marble from the top of the Tower of Pisa at the exact moment that he also drops a lead cannon ball; he posts an observer at the base of the Tower with instructions to observe and record the moment when the two land. Classic observational science, right? Or is it?
Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Galileo, his observer is a keen student of the philosophy of Ken Ham. Having dropped his test objects, Galileo rushes to the base of the tower to ask whether or not the two objects did indeed arrive at the same moment as he predicted. Alas, the observer responds, he can only offer conjectures. Perhaps the two did arrive at the same moment – indeed, that is what his notes and his memory now tell him– but since this event is now in the past, how can he be sure? Is it not equally possible that he was created but an instant ago with all his memories intact and his notes in hand?
To live in Ken Ham’s world is to live in “the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind” – a world deprived of one of its most distinctive and fundamental dimensions: time. Human memories, written notes, computer databases, tree rings, layers of sediment, fossils, light from a distant galaxy, DNA patterns in different populations, ratios of parent to daughter isotopes in an ancient mineral grain– all are artifacts of the past. Some probe the very recent past, others the very distant past. Some are highly precise, others more approximate. All are prone to the possibility of misleading disruptions; consequently, rather than relying on any one observation, it is preferable to continually seek consistency tests based on multiple mutually independent observations. Nevertheless, all are valid modes of probing the past. Without them, reconstructing the development of natural systems through time would be impossible.
As a geologist, reconstructing the evolution of natural systems through time is the very essence of what I do. Virtually all I do is study artifacts of past; if deprived of those artifacts, then my entire science is robbed of any means of probing Earth history. Consider how Ham might respond to this: In 2012, scientists reported the discovery of a Great Basin bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California with 5065 rings – but how can we be sure the number of rings corresponds to its age? Granted, thousands of replicate analyses indicate that trees at present typically add one ring per year, but maybe it was different in the past. Maybe this tree added 2, 5, 10 or 100 rings per year. Who can say? Who was there to observe?
Similarly, geologists have recognized environments in Antarctica where a chronology based on annual increments of snowfall can be extended back over 700,000 years (the EPICA core), but how can we be sure that seasonal snowfall accumulated the same way in the past that it does today? Or what of radiometric age dating? Carefully designed laboratory experiments document rates of decay of diverse radioactive elements, but how do we know those rates were the same millions of years ago? Or what about Galileo’s experiment alluded to above? Just because Galileo makes a discovery about the fundamental nature of gravity today, can we assume that the same principle applies for all time?
What Ham misses is that analogous arguments could also be levied against observations in space. Just because Galileo demonstrates a fundamental principle of gravity in Pisa, how do we know the same principle applies in Sydney, Australia, or on the Moon, or on Jupiter? Of course, scientists do worry about such questions, and we continually design new tests to probe the limits and range of applicability of any given theory or natural law. Occasionally we adjust or replace widely respected theories in the light of new evidence– witness how Einstein’s relativity theories displaced Newtonian Physics.
The fundamental point is this: science embraces mechanisms for its own self-correction, but it requires a high bar to displace a theory that has for over a century developed a successful, internally consistent track-record of explaining previously mysterious phenomena. Even more impressive is when the same theory predicts and successfully tests the existence of new and unexpected phenomena. It matters not one whit whether the explanations and predictions apply locally or far away, in the present or the near future or the recent or the distant past.
It is only possible to develop and probe the limits of the unknown by starting from the assumption that the unknown is knowable. Conjectural? Yes, all science (not just historical science) is conjectural; it operates by processes of reasoned extrapolation. However, we also rigorously and systematically test those conjectures against new observations – regardless of whether those observations probe different points in space or different points in time.
To start by assuming the unreliability of a certain class of observation is to surrender before the game has begun. Basically, Ken Ham’s argument boils down to a single foolish syllogism, as irrefutable as it is meaningless: if we start from the assumption that our observations are unreliable, then how can we rely on them? Wow. He has got us there. Ham’s reasoning reminds me of the young racer I once defeated in a 5th grade track competition: “I would have beaten you,” he informed me after the race, “If you hadn’t have passed me.”
Science and the Problem of Inerrancy
by Patrick Thomas
Today’s post is from Patrick Thomas, whose work has mostly been behind the screen of rightingamerica.net. Below, he considers our recent posts on inerrancy at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter to provide an introduction to our forthcoming series Putting Observational Science to the Test.
Central to AIG’s belief in inerrancy is an insistence on literal readings of the Bible. But the Trollingers have shown that neither Ark Encounter nor the Creation Museum evinces the kind of inerrancy and literalism that AIG insists upon. Noah, his family and friends have a cozy, comfy home on the Ark while renderings of dragons in the Creation Museum serve as the mythical proxy of evidence that dinosaurs lived among humans. Despite AIG’s insistence on inerrancy and the literal reading this inerrancy requires, “artistic interpretations” at Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum leave many visitors scratching their heads.
Inerrancy and literalism also pose particular problems for the Creation Museum’s use of science as a means of evincing a young Earth. A prime example of this can be found in the Biblical descriptions of the universe. Taken literally, the Bible’s geocentric cosmology presumes that
…the Earth is flat, circular, and immovable and is surrounded by a sea. Enclosing both the Earth and the sea is a fixed dome or firmament with stars embedded in it. The Sun crosses that dome each day. Above the dome are heavenly waters and a heavenly realm beyond that. (Righting America, 104-105)
Thankfully, AIG recognizes a heliocentric universe. Still, what is the significance of AIG’s departure from the inerrancy and literalism of a Biblical conception of the universe (other than, of course, centuries of evidence to the contrary)? The answer to this question helps to show how science operates at the Creation Museum.
In his book Six Days (Master Books, 2013), Ken Ham provides a revealing distinction between “observational science” and “historical science.” According to Ham, the former is an authoritative approach to scientific inquiry that “deals with knowledge that is gained by observation and repeated testing in our present world” (58). Only observational scientific practices, which borrow from the scientific method to document processes in the present, can be considered “real” science.
By contrast, “historical science” – that is, scientific inquiry that “deals with history – the past” (59) – is rife with contradictions, open to interpretation, and susceptible to scientists’ own beliefs systems. In short, for Ham, because the past cannot be observed, any attempt to explain the past through the scientific method fails the litmus test of observational, aka “real,” science.
[Sidenote: Ham’s reliance on observation as the only true way of knowing also leads to some ridiculous claims about how Noah built the ark.]
In Righting America, the Trollingers explain how AIG’s definition of observational science is used to de-legitimate evolution and reframe any scientific evidence in favor of evolution as erroneous. They also demonstrate that the Creation Museum is unsuccessful in its efforts to thwart evolution as real scientific knowledge (see pages 85-103). But like the Trollingers, I still wonder: how can the Creation Museum both espouse biblical inerrancy and literalism and contradict Biblical cosmology in favor of the modern heliocentric view of the universe?
In fact, it cannot. This is one point that AIG must concede in favor of presenting a scientific display of the universe that appears to employ modern science to confirm a young Earth. Instead, the Creation Museum must display a modern conception of the universe to appeal to visitors and, consequently, retrofit Biblical cosmology around modern scientific evidence. Here, the Trollingers’ conclusion to their “Science” chapter is especially apt:
Rather than dethrone science, science appears to be privileged to the point of imposing a modern universe onto the text of the Bible…Indeed, when it comes to how the universe is made to appear to visitors, it seems that modern science rather than a literal Bible rules at the Creation Museum. (Righting America, 108 – emphasis mine)
What the Trollingers’ examination reveals, then, is that inerrancy and literalism aren’t just problems for and about Biblical interpretation; they are also problems for science. And it is not “science” per se, but a very special, highly constrained type of science – that is, observational science – that counts as valid scientific knowledge at the Creation Museum.
Of course, a true test of any scientific apparatus, like that of observational science, is to see how well that apparatus holds up to scrutiny. In our upcoming posts, that’s precisely what we will do.
We’ve asked a group of scientists to consider Ham’s distinction between “observational” and “historical” science and to apply the apparatus of “observational science” to their own work. Using Ham’s definition of observational science, we wanted to know:
- what kinds of conclusions could they draw?
- what impact might this special conception of science have on their scientific practices?
- what kinds of scientific research would Ham’s observational science enable, and what kinds of research would it inhibit?
We hope you will enjoy their responses (as we do!) and let us know what you think of them.
It’s Literal . . . Unless It’s Not
by William Trollinger
Answers in Genesis (AiG) believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. By inerrant, AiG means that God
“breath[ed] out His Word” to the writers of Scripture and that “the Holy Spirit did not allow error to influence their writings. . . . Thus, they recorded accurately all God wanted them to say and exactly how He wanted them to say it in their own character, styles, and languages.”
In other words, the writers of Scripture got it right such that the Bible is without error.
Given this understanding of the Bible as the actual Word of God and not just some invention or interpretation by the humans who happened to author the texts that were canonized, it stands to reason that AiG is particular about how Christians read it. If the Bible really is the Word of God, then readers ought not mess with it. Instead, they should take it as it is—that is, read it literally. So, if God said that God created the world in six days, then God created it in six days. Not six lengthy epochs. Not in six days with giant gaps in between. Six days. Period.
As AiG puts it:
“We try to find the plain (literal) meaning of the words based on an understanding of the historical and cultural settings in which the book was written. We then follow standard rules of grammar, according to the book’s particular genre, to arrive at an interpretation. We seek to perform careful interpretation or exegesis—that is, to ‘read out of’ the text what the author intended it to mean. This is in contrast to eisegesis, which occurs when someone ‘reads into’ the text his own ideas—what the reader wants the text to mean. In other words, exegesis is finding the AIM (Author’s Intended Meaning) of the passage because its true meaning is determined by the sender of the message, not the recipient” (emphasis added).
Again, given that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, it makes sense that Christian readers ought to be absolutely faithful to the text, neither adding anything to it or taking anything away from it.
Unless . . .
Unless, the readers of the text are employees of AiG tasked with designing exhibits at Ark Encounter. Apparently, in that circumstance (and some others, according to the AiG website) there is no problem with adding what turns out to be quite a lot to the inerrant Word.
In our last post, we looked at three areas inside Ark Encounter where visitors come upon placards announcing that the creators of the exhibits either produced an “artistic interpretation” of or took “artistic license” with the biblical text. In one area, AiG exhibit designers expanded significantly on what Genesis says about the character of human culture prior to the Flood. In another, they came up with a biography of Noah that goes way beyond the few details provided in Genesis. And in a third, they invented specific talents, deep desires, and biographical details for Noah’s three sons along with names, ethnicities, life events, and longings for his sons’ wives.
So, what are visitors to Ark Encounter to think about the Bible and how they ought to interpret it?
- They should read it literally so that their interpretation is true to God’s intent rather than reflective of mere human interpretation, desire, or error.
- Artistic license may be taken even when that means adding a lot to the Word God intended to give us.
While the inerrant Word of God, as AiG insists, may be without contradiction, these two ways of reading the Word sure seem to be in contradiction.
On its website, AiG proclaims its mission. The second of three bullets in the mission statement says: “We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.” Creativity, indeed.
Taking “Artistic License” with a Literal Word?
by Susan Trollinger
As visitors move through the exhibits at Ark Encounter, they come upon placards that alert them to the fact that they are looking at an “artistic interpretation” or that the creators of the exhibit have taken “artistic license” with the content. For an enterprise so dedicated to a literal interpretation of the Bible that it saw fit to build a life-size ark, it is puzzling, to say the least, that “artistic interpretation” or “artistic license” played a role in the production of exhibits at Ark Encounter.
In our next post, we’ll address that puzzle. But first, we’d like to take a look at what AiG’s artistic interpretations and artistic licenses have yielded and how their creations compare to Genesis.
A placard titled “Artistic Interpretation” appears in an exhibit that depicts humans’ “Descent into Darkness” between the Fall and the Flood. The placard says that while the Bible tells us that “the pre-Flood world became extremely wicked . . . it provides little detail about the specific activities of the people.” Given that such information is missing, the placard continues, “[t]he remainder of this exhibit presents an artistic representation of what the world may have been like.”
The placard is right that Genesis doesn’t tell readers much about what human civilization was like prior to the Flood. There are just two chapters in Genesis between the Fall and the Flood, and together they spend more time on genealogies than anything else. Along the way, we do learn that the wickedness on the Earth included violence, corruption, and divine beings who had sex with human women producing giants as their offspring. That’s not a lot to go on, and the divine/human/giants story is just weird.
Via “artistic interpretation,” the exhibit offers quite a bit more detail. For instance, a wall-size artistic rendering of pre-Flood civilization depicts a scene in which men, who are bound at their hands and feet, are kneeling at the feet of giants who are holding spears. (Notably, no mention is made of the divine/human sex that brought forth these giants or the possible connection between God’s anger about that sex and the Flood. For more on this point, see Righting America 126-127.) Nearby, women ascend the stairs of another temple. At the top of the stairs is a fire in a large container and a gigantic statue of a cobra. A miniature diorama shows men and women playing instruments while other barely-dressed women dance for their male audiences. A second miniature diorama shows men and women holding infants as they ascend steps leading to a sacrificial altar.
In another exhibit about Noah’s life, a placard announces that “This exhibit provides a plausible backstory based on clues from Scripture to explain how the Lord may have prepared His faithful servant to fulfill such an important mission.” Here too, Genesis offers little in the way of details about Noah’s life prior to the Flood. All that it says is that his father was Lamech, his first son was born when Noah was 500 years old, he received instructions from God to build an ark, he did all that he was commanded, and he got his family and the animals onto the Ark.
According to Ark Encounter’s exhibit on Noah’s life, Noah
- “clearly learned how to work with wood, and he may have also been trained to work with metals to make tools and braces for the construction of the Ark.”
- He was “driven by a desire for adventure and a love for construction.”
- He “traveled to a small port city where he became an apprentice shipwright.”
- Along the way, “he learned blacksmithing and shipbuilding and eventually married the daughter of his employer.”
A third placard alerts visitors to the “artistic license” taken with the life-size dioramas of Noah’s family’s in their living quarters on the Ark. As before, the placard informs visitors that “the Bible tells us very little about Noah’s family.” A true word. All that Genesis says is that Noah and his wife (who is not named) had three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The placard continues: “Since we don’t have a time machine, we can only make educated guesses about the looks, skills, and personality of each individual.”
Those “educated guesses” include such vivid details as the following:
- Japheth was adventurous like Noah and looked forward to the end of the Flood so that he could “set out” into the world. He was also a successful farmer.
- Shem exceled at taking care of animals and loved to talk to his mother, Emzara, about how to selectively breed them.
- Ham was an especially gifted inventor of weapons, an ability he developed in response to a vicious animal attack that happened years ago.
Noah’s daughters-in-law reflect the physical characteristics of the three main people groups in the world. Japheth’s wife, Rayneh, looks European, while Shem’s wife, Ar’Yel, looks middle eastern, and Hams wife, Kezia, appears African. Also, Rayneh loves crafts. As a child, she was rescued by Noah, which is how she met Japheth. Ar’Yel, whose father made ships with Noah, enjoys deep discussions about God and what the world was like before it became wicked. Kazia “enjoys dressing up and looking her best” and also serves as the Ark’s “medical expert.” She came to know Ham as she treated his wounds after the vicious animal attack.
Wow! What interesting and vivid portraits of Noah, his family, and the wicked world that God had to punish. Such portraits certainly bring Noah, his family, and the pre-Flood civilization to life for visitors. But so much of this goes way beyond the biblical text. Does that make sense in a place dedicated to reading the Bible literally? Stay tuned . . .
Playing Fast and Loose with the Bible
by William Trollinger
In our first few visits to the Creation Museum we were repeatedly surprised by the Creation Museum’s lax treatment of the Bible.
According to Answers in Genesis (AiG) the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, without error and factually accurate in all of its assertions, including its claims about science and history. Because God spoke every word, the Bible has no mistakes and no contradictions. Because God spoke every word, the Bible is so clear that everyone everywhere at any time can understand what it means (Righting America, 111-114).
Given the museum’s strong commitment to a divinely inspired and inerrant Bible, we expected the museum to be extremely careful in its handling of biblical text. But no. Instead, in our examination of the museum’s placards we discovered:
- Verses or parts of verses missing, but with no ellipses to indicate text had been removed.
- A mishmash of biblical translations, sometimes multiple translations used in one verse.
- Creative editing with no alerts to readers that the text had been rewritten.
- A misleading lack of context for the biblical quotes (Righting America, 122-133).
Whatever the museum may claim about the Bible as “God-breathed,” it is certainly not committed to a careful, judicious presentation of the text. But while in the beginning we were stunned by this, over time it came to make sense, as we realized that the museum’s loose handling of biblical text is directly related to inerrancy’s great shortcoming.
While AiG (and other fundamentalists) repeatedly claim that the Bible is “perspicacious,” so clear that it is easily understood, the reality is that Christians – even Christians who are committed to a literal understanding of the text – have developed an incredible variety of interpretations on an incredible variety of topics.
Here is a great conundrum. Biblical inerrancy does not change the reality that written texts are unstable, “roll[ing] around everywhere” (in the words of Plato), falling into the hands of various readers who come up with multitudes of wide-ranging interpretations (Righting America, 135).
But fundamentalists cannot admit inerrancy does not solve this problem. At the Creation Museum there is no acknowledgment that there is a wide variety of interpretations – even among evangelicals and fundamentalists – regarding the Creation, the Flood, and the rest of Genesis 1-11. What you get at the museum is a young Earth creationist interpretation of Genesis, presented not as an interpretation, but simply as the clear and obvious Truth of the Bible.
So there it is. Instead of “the careful presentation of the inerrant biblical text,” the “museum is most interested in making the case for . . . the young Earth creationist interpretation” (Righting America, 137).
Once we understood this about the Creation Museum, then it made perfectly good sense that the museum would cut verses and portions of verses without alerting museumgoers, would mix and match biblical translations, would engage in the creative editing of biblical text, would provide no context for verses that are being used. What matters is not the Bible, but a particular interpretation of the Bible presented as the True Interpretation. If a cavalier treatment of biblical text advances the cause, so be it.
As regards the Ark, it has its own distinctive and equally creative approach to the Bible. That will be our next post.
Is the Ark Sinking, or is that “Anti-Biblical” Propaganda?
by William Trollinger
To say that Ark Encounter is located in the middle of nowhere barely qualifies as hyperbole. 40 miles south of Cincinnati, just off I-75 at exit #154, the Ark is – as Jeff Vrabel writes in a hilarious and incisive GQ article – “the first left after the gas station, down the street from the Mexican restaurant.”
Two miles down KY-36 from the Ark is Williamstown, a sleepy town of 3952 residents. It had four hotels, but the Knights Inn has been shuttered.
Drowsy Williamstown has been very important to Ark Encounter.
In the hopes that Ark Encounter would bring great economic benefits to the town – through an influx of tourists and the development of hotels and restaurants and jobs for local residents – Williamstown granted Ark Encounter $62 million in Tax Incremental Funding (TIF). Over the next thirty years, 75% of the Ark’s property taxes will go toward repaying these bonds, and not to Williamstown.
As Tracey Moody reported on the financing of Ark Encounter, TIFs “can be a great help to the local economy if the development is a long-term success.” But if the development fails to meet projections (not to mention simply fail!), “the developers aren’t held liable for repayment and the burden of debt falls on the investors and taxpayers.”
So what were the Ark’s projections?
The feasibility study produced by America’s Research Group (ARG) – headed up by Ken Ham’s friend, Britt Beemer – to accompany the issuance of the bonds predicted that the Ark Encounter would “attract between 1.2m and 2.0m visitors . . . during the first year of operations” (A-38). In the “Comparable Attractions” section of ARG’s study one learns that that these projected numbers are equal or better than the 1.4m visitors who annually visit Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry (A-35).
In other words, the bet is that Ark Encounter, located two miles outside of Williamstown, Kentucky and forty miles south of Cincinnati, will draw as many or more visitors than a world-renowned museum located in the third largest city in the United States.
Actually, the feasibility study made another bold prediction: the “first-year attendance scenario” will be “followed by annual attendance increases” (A-13).
But as we noted in our July 9 and July 28 posts, there are indications that the Ark could fall short – perhaps even substantially short – of its low-end projection of 1.2m visitors in Year One.
Coincidentally, or not, Williamstown mayor Rick Shermer has expressed concern that – one month after the Ark’s opening, and at the peak of the tourist season – his small town is not seeing the promised economic benefits. Worse, none of the ballyhooed tourist developments have broken ground, as investors are apparently waiting to see if the small town and its Ark are worth the bet.
Of course, Answers in Genesis (AiG) could easily rebut the naysayers and give little Williamstown a boost. AiG could provide official figures proving that the first month was so robust (say, 6500 per day) that – even with the expected dramatic fall-off in attendance that will come in the fall and winter – the Ark Encounter has a chance to make good on its low-end prediction of 1.2m visitors.
So far, however, AiG has been quite vague when it comes to attendance numbers. For his part Ken Ham keeps asserting that “thousands of people are pouring in every day” while also attacking “secularists” for exaggerating how few cars are in the Ark Encounter parking lots. Most recently, Ham blasted the author of an “anti-biblical” article for “insinuat[ing] visitor numbers at the Ark are ‘disappointing,” when the truth is that Ark attendance has been “outstanding and way ahead of minimum projections” (our emphasis).
Way ahead of minimum projections? Way ahead of 1.2m? Is Ken Ham really saying that the Ark is on track to attract 1.6m or even 2m visitors in Year One?
If so, this is great news for investors, taxpayers, and Williamstown public officials who bought ARG’s feasibility study! Surely these folks are eagerly awaiting the official Ark attendance numbers that will substantiate Ham’s assertion. What a great opportunity to prove the “secularists” wrong!
Of course, if those hard numbers are not forthcoming . . .
An Odd, Cruel Trick to Play on Children at Noah’s Ark
by Susan Trolllinger
As children move through the first level of Ark Encounter, they pass by rack upon rack of ceramic jars and burlap sacks. They peer between the vertical bars of large wooden cages; sometimes they see nothing, sometimes they see a realistic-yet-stationary animal figure that looks as though it was frozen in time by a taxidermist.
On level two, they encounter increasing numbers of placards about how Eden was perfect and how human culture in the days of Noah was despicable; how the notion of animal kinds means that a very manageable number of animals were needed on the Ark; the mechanics of water collection, waste removal, and ventilation on the Ark; how Noah might have been a carpenter, blacksmith, and farmer.
It’s a lot for children to take in. And depending on their age, reading ability (or their parents’ interest in reading to them), and attention spans, some take in more than others. But none of this appears specifically designed for children, with the possible exception of a small area that, a bit like The Secret Life of Pets (though without the production values, soundtrack, or humor) promises to show children what the animals do at night when Noah’s family is asleep.
Then they arrive at the Fairy Tale Ark. In contrast to the largely monochromatic interior of the Ark (lots of beige and brown given all the wood), the placards with lots of text talking in detail about the mechanics of life on the Ark, and the various images of hordes of decadent people perishing in the flood waters, the Fairy Tale Ark exhibit welcomes children with what appears to be the exterior of a shiny, fiberglass boat chock full of smiling, big-eyed, cartoon-styled animals who all look to be having a wonderful time bobbing along the floodwaters. A brightly colored rainbow and blue sky can be seen over their heads.
Not surprisingly, children get excited as they enter the Fairy Tale Ark exhibit because it so obviously looks like it is meant for them.
Even better, inside the exhibit is a wall-size glass case filled with about 80 copies of various Noah’s Ark children’s books. The big one in the center even appears to have a three-dimensional Noah’s Ark bursting forth from its pages. Children must think—wow, what a treasure trove of fun reading!
But no. All the books are locked up behind huge glass panels. They cannot be touched, and most can’t be read.
But there are what appear to be seven books that are positioned about waist high (for adults) in a line that runs the length of the glass case. Each of these “books” is open to a pair of pages that seek to show how, wittingly or unwittingly, those 80 children’s books in the case put forth a very dangerous message. These children’s books are dangerous because they distort God’s Word. They make the story of the Flood look like a cute fairy tale about a fun boat ride when the story in Genesis is a real historical account of “the righteous and holy God judging an exceedingly sinful world with a cataclysmic Flood.” Instead of trivializing “the Lord’s righteous and holy character,” the children’s books in the case should be treating the Ark and the Flood as “sobering reminders of divine judgment on a sin-filled world.”
And if visitors don’t take the time to read these pages, the sign on the wall just to the left of the book case makes things clear:
“If I can convince you that that the Flood was not real, then I can convince you that Heaven and Hell are not real.”
Wondering who the “I” is? The sign answers that question with a three-D red serpent that is coiled about the sign and whose head stretches out toward the visitor. Ah, there it is. The true message here.
You unsuspecting, uncritical parent. You might think these delightfully illustrated children’s books are harmless. But they’re not. They make God’s Word look like a preposterous fairy tale. Those books—they are the work of the devil.
Sobering, indeed. And weird, to say the least.
The exhibit presents itself visually as if it is for children—as if this is a space wherein children can just be children who play, think child thoughts, and have fun in the presence of smiling animals and books written for them.
But no. It is all a trick, an odd, cruel trick played not only on the children but also their parents, who now have to explain to their children that these beloved books – the books that drew their children into the exhibit – are actually the work of the devil.
And it doesn’t stop here. Children’s thoughts about a loving God whom they can trust need to be adjusted. What they need to know is that the Christian God is the kind of god who is so righteous and so holy that He had to kill every person and land creature that didn’t make it on the Ark. That’s just the kind of God He is.
For the earnest Christian parents who take this message to heart, what does this mean? When they get home from a day at Ark Encounter are they determined to get rid of these satanic books, determined – when bedtime comes – to tell their child the “truth”? Are they to follow that with “God loves you” and “sweet dreams”? Very odd, indeed.
A Deadly Silence at Ark Encounter?
by Susan Trollinger
In our July 17 blog post, following our first visit to Ark Encounter on opening day, we noted our surprise at being rather underwhelmed by what was on display at Ark Encounter. Yes, the size of the Ark and the carpentry were impressive but the displays and exhibits—not so much.
As we and other commentators have noted, there are lots of empty bins, cages, and ceramic jugs. There are lots of still, fake animals. And there are lots and lots of placards. In general, the placards include a lot of text. Many are dedicated to working out the details of an ark voyage in which eight people sustain the lives of nearly 7,000 creatures (which averages out to about 850 per person on the Ark) for a year.
When we returned for our second visit, we wanted to check out the attendance on what had to be one of the Ark’s busiest days of the year as it was a Saturday in July (see our July 28 blog post). But we were also interested in how visitors seemed to be receiving the exhibits. How do visitors engage them? What kinds of responses do the exhibits tend to elicit?
So, when Bill set out to count visitors, Sue set out to watch their behaviors and listen to what they had to say.
Here is what she observed.
By far what visitors do the most is read. Confronted with many placards, they stand before them and read them silently. Not only are they silent as they read them. They are also silent after they read them. That is, they rarely seem to talk to one another as they are reading or after they have read a placard. Instead, they read a placard in silence. Move on to another one. Read it in silence. On it goes. They also take pictures of placards and other kinds of exhibits.
There were a few exceptions to this general rule, however.
Occasionally, an adult visitor would explain to another adult visitor some aspect of a display. For example, one man explained the mechanics of the animal waste removal system on display in one exhibit. Notably, though, this couple didn’t engage in conversation about that system. She asked a question. He provided the answer. She listened. Then they moved on.
Another exception to that general rule is parents and their children. Typically, parents read the placards to their children, especially to those not yet old enough to read. And sometimes parents try to explain the meaning of the placards. Sometimes this seemingly straight forward activity ends oddly.
One mother moved through the “Fairy Tale Ark” exhibit with her two small children. Her children were clearly excited about this exhibit because, unlike most of the others, this one looks like it is for them. On the exterior of the exhibit there are lots of colorful fiberglass cartoon-like, smiling, big-eyed animals who appear to be on or near the Ark. Inside, there is a wall-size glass case that holds 80-some copies of children’s books that tell the story of Noah’s Ark. Her children were especially excited when they spotted a Noah’s Ark book that they had at home.
In an effort to help her children understand the exhibit, the mother read the placards to them. So, as her children delighted in the smiling animals and familiar books, she found herself telling them that the point of the placards was to say that their beloved book had lied to them. As the mother put it, “what it’s saying is that the story of Noah’s flood was not happy.” On the contrary, she read from a placard: “And everyone died except the 8 people in the Ark” (Genesis 7:23). Not surprisingly, the children seemed at something of a loss to get what that meant.
In another example, a mother approached the animatronic figure of Rayneh (wife of one of Noah’s sons) with her small daughter in tow. Hearing the animatronic woman lament the death of her dear friend along with the countless others on the other side of the closed Ark door (which is adjacent to this exhibit) at the hands of one very angry god, the mother blurted out “That’s freaky” and drew her daughter away in haste.
Beyond the strangeness of parents finding themselves obliged to read placards about mass extermination or to explain how it was that their God thought it made sense to destroy what AiG says could have been as many as 20 billion human beings minus the eight on the Ark, it is notable that neither adults nor children engaged in much conversation about the content of the many placards and exhibits they encountered.
We note in Righting America (58-59) that although exhibits at the Creation Museum often employ state-of-the-art technology, few (if any) are interactive in the way that exhibits at many contemporary, mainstream museums are. While exhibits at the Creation Museum present information, they do not invite critical thinking . . . unless the facts presented are part of the case for evolution.
The same dynamic appears to be underway at Ark Encounter. The visitor’s job seems to be merely to receive AiG’s truth and not to engage it critically. That being so, perhaps it should be no surprise that visitors didn’t converse about it but, instead, just moved from one placard to the next, now and again snapping a photo.
Given all that, it’s interesting that an Amish friend told us that when he asked his aunt and uncle what they thought of Ark Encounter, they thoughtfully reflected that they “had more questions about the Biblical account of the Flood after visiting the Ark Encounter than before they had gone.” Our friend went on to say that they reported that “some of the questions bordered on doubts about whether or not the Flood account is totally reliable.”
Perhaps there is something about being in Ark Encounter that has a silencing effect on visitors. But tooling down I-75 afterward, who knows what kind of critical thinking might be taking place. Could answers in Genesis at Ark Encounter become questions about Genesis later? Our Amish friends give us reason to hope!
The Answers Are Not in Genesis
by Rodney Kennedy
Answers in Genesis (AiG). The name of the organization says it all. But as Dr. Kennedy argues below, AiG has it all wrong.
When Ken Ham claims that all the answers are in Genesis 1-11, and when Christians line up behind such a claim, we are in for a long ride that takes us further and further from the Gospel.
There’s no Jesus in Genesis. There’s no church in Genesis. There’s no cross in Genesis. There’s no resurrection in Genesis.
More than this, when someone thinks we can just read a few verses from Genesis 1-11 and make all things righteous, we are in grave trouble. When someone thinks the answer is to call for a full-scale culture war, the righteous v. the unrighteous, we are in grave trouble.
There are none who are righteous. Instead what we have in America are two groups of sinners shouting at one another and blaming one another and drawing even more lines in the sand. Until we get down to the repenting, the forgiving, the reconciling, the confessing, we will remain in the throes of hatred and violence that grips all of us in guilt and fear.
The answers are not found in a fog-induced craving for an age of innocence back in the Garden of Eden. The Christian gospel is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Something has been done for us, something undeserved and unearned. The answers are among us and within us as we respond to the call of the Gospel on our lives.
The answers are not in Genesis.
Rodney Kennedy has a Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University and 45 years of preaching experience. Among other publications, he is co-author of Will Campbell: Preacher of Reconciliation (Cascade, 2015) and co-editor of Baptists Gathering for the Work of Worship (Pickwick, 2013).
