On the day Ark Encounter opened to the public, one Christian group expressed its frustration about the false narrative being peddled by Ken Ham.
We at BioLogos fully affirm the authority and inspiration of the Bible, while believing that proper interpretation of Genesis 6-9 does not conflict with modern science. The story of Noah’s ark and the Flood is an essential part of the Bible’s divine teaching about God, his relationship to creation, and the just punishment that sin deserves. The story points to the magnitude of Christ’s work, saving us from judgement and giving us new life. We must remember that the first ancient readers of the text saw its primary message as theological, not scientific.
The perspective offered by Answers in Genesis forces people to choose between the Bible and modern science, and reinforces the harmful cultural stereotype that modern science and biblical Christianity cannot mix. Sadly, Answers in Genesis is staking the authority of the entire Bible — and Christianity itself — on the view that a global flood is a viable alternative to abundant scientific evidence for a longer chronology of creation. To do so, they must add in many speculative details not found in the biblical text, such as the “biogeographical rafting model”. And they must rely on a theory of post-Flood animal evolution in which species diversify at rates many times faster than any known evolutionary mechanism. These theories, along with many others posited by young-earth creationists, are not based on credible scientific evidence; in fact, they contradict the clear evidence in God’s creation.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you can be so right and so wrong at the exact same time.
It’s true that many Christians accept science and find a way to merge their faith with reality, but they have to twist themselves into knots to do so. On this point, I agree with Ham: If you can dismiss the Book of Genesis as merely a story, what’s stopping you from saying that about the rest of the Bible? If Adam and Eve are fictional, what about Jesus? If evolution works as scientists say, how could it possibly have a “purpose” (as BioLogos believes)? If you accept the natural world with its natural laws, then why act like God can circumvent all that through miracles and your prayers?
Ham even alludes to that irrational thinking right in the Ark:
I’m glad that BioLogos opposes Ham and Ark Encounter, but the group’s own assertion that evolution is guided by God’s hand is backed up by the exact same amount of evidence that you’ll find in the Creation Museum: None.
At some point, when you realize just how much evidence supports evolution, shouldn’t you admit it’s time to cut out the middleman? It’s disingenuous to say God didn’t create the world in six days when you also believe God guides natural selection.
Either accept the evidence we have or reject it. But don’t pretend there’s some happy middle ground.
(Image via Shutterstock)