The Ark Encounter ties the credibility of the Gospel itself to contrived explanations more befitting an amusement park than a serious inquiry into the truth.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/my-trip-to-the-ark-encounter
Thatâs rich coming from a theistic evolutionist. AIG does not just consist of an ark 
You partially misquoted the article. This is the full quote.
They tie the credibility of the Gospel itself to contrived explanations more befitting an amusement park than a serious inquiry into the truth.
Your quote:
AIG does not just consist of an ark
Youâre right. AIG also consist of the Creation Museum, which rests on the shaky foundation of pseudoscience (it reminds me of a house built on sand). AIG also has misleading books and websites (highly polished design I noticed). It also spent a lot of money on pointless billboards aimed at atheists.
3 Likes
My friend, I didnât misquote anything. I was calling the kettle black. If you noticed, my response was âtheistic evolutionistâ.
That is your presupposition that it is pseudo science. Personally I think that one specie turning into a whole different specie is absolutely ridiculous, compounded by the fact that no one has ever observed this scientific fact, my friend
Again, your presupposition. AIG allows scripture to interpret science; whereas theistic evolutionists do the opposite. I am not saying who is right or wrong, but you are no closer to finding the truth than they are, my friend
(Mark 16:15) âAnd he said to them, âGo into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.â
I have not been to the Ark Encounter but I wonder about the choice of design. I really do not see the design as coinciding with the Bible. The root meaning of ark is chest or box (from the Collins dictionary online). Before becoming a pastor I studies naval history, ship design and development. The engineering challenges in designing a seagoing vessel of that size and shape would challenge us today with advanced technology and adhesives. A water going version of that exhibit would have a wooden structure so massive that there would be little room inside. An actual wooden vessel of that size with a decent amount of interior space would lack the structure to be sound. It would have quickly broken up once it started flooding. Now a pure chest shape, which is consistent with the Biblical account, would not have had that problem. Not only could it be built to those dimensions using traditional wooden ship building techniques, it would have good ability.
Jesus: A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciplesâŚ
Does the building of an ark in any way advance this clear command from the mouth of our Lord? Does anyone who visits or reads of the ark in KY experience or witness the love we Christians are commanded to demonstrate? More like an arrogant, âin-your-faceâ, self-righteous, anti-science attitude than love. No, this ark is only preaching to the choir to hold steady as the âshipâ of anti-science sinks like the Titanic. The only question is how much damage will it do to Christianity in the meantime. May God help us!
You suggest that âtheistic evolutionistsâ do the opposite of AiG. That is, they read scripture in light of science and confirm their interpretation to their scientific theories. Yet, on the on hand, I know of no biblical scholar who has actually taken this approach. Saying something like " I believe in evolution therefore I must find another way to interpret genesis 1 to 3." Rather, studies of other ancient literature and biblical texts lead interpreters to say that the early chapters of Genesis are not, never were and should not be read as scientific texts.
On the other hand, modern scientific discovery has independently led to a general acceptance of the theory of evolution. Young earth creationism is totally incompatible with this theory where as interpreting Genesis in its historical context means that it is making theological statements about the meaning of the world regardless of the latest scientific theory.
You are correct to be concerned about conforming the biblical message to fit scientific theories. However, it is not groups like biologos who are doing this but Answers in Genesis is guilty of frequently reading modern scientific theories into the text, ie perfect human genome, evolution of kinds, continental drift, etc. The ancient authors knew nothing of genetics, speciation, etc. AiG have misread the Bible according to modern scientific expectations and in so doing regularly misinterpret it.
You can read my own journey as a biblical scholar on my blog www.popchrist.com
I appreciate that you believe that Answers in Genesis are defending the Christian faith and defending Godâs word. They see themselves as David against Goliath. I think that is what they think they are doing but in reality I think they are more like Saul than David.
Blessings,
IWP
2 Likes
Wow! is that hyperbole (1 Peter 3:15) âbut in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,â Building an ark is not being rude nor disrespectful, let alone, self righteous??? Again, Wow!
But that is what you do. If it wasnât for evolutionary science, none of you would even see the Genesis 1 different than what it plainly states. It is your bias presupposition that causes you to interpret scripture to fit your presupposition, my friend
People have already given you quotes from Origen showing a non-literal interpretation of Genesis different from yours. That was long long before evolutionary science. So this contention is demonstrably false.
1 Like
Ya, itâs not. Because I am talking about billions of years. That is not in scripture. The only way you can see billions of years is if your influenced by evolutionary science, and that categorically true, my friend
Neither is the theory of relativity. Neither is plate tectonics. Neither is germ theory.
None of which affects Godâs word, because it wasnât stated, but 6 days was stated in Godâs own words, my friend 
The Bible says Miriamâs leprosy was caused by speaking against her brother, not bacteria. So in order to respect the Bible, do we have to deny what we know about germ theory when we are interpreting this account?
I honestly do not know what that has to do with Genesis 1? The bible says that God struck Mariam with leprosy, because she spoke out against His servant. I donât know if bacteria was the cause. Maybe it was some kind of super natural bacteria. I have no idea, nor is it mentioned. So why would I add something to the texts that isnât there?
It has to do with the fact that it is ridiculous to insist we must forget or deny everything we know about the natural world when we are reading pre-scientific descriptions of the natural world. It doesnât matter whether the topic is the ancient earth or germ theory.
Correction. You donât know. Conjecture and assumption at best. Bacteria can be observed. No one was here to observe and record the beginning of creationâŚwaitâŚyes there was. It was God writing down His word in the bible plainly stating how He began creation in 6 literal days
That is a common misconception, but it is totally inaccurate to insist that we canât make valid observations about the age of the universe.
These articles explain the reliability of historical science and the multiple lines of converging evidence for an ancient earth. If you actually expect to engage people who accept mainstream science, youâll have to engage what they observe. You canât just stick your fingers in your ears and say âconjecture and assumptionâ and think that actually counts as a rebuttal to scientific evidence.
1 Like
No one observed anything. That is historical science at best. Science is nothing but a collection of data, put together by well meaning and sincere people with already preconceived ideas taught to them in institutions. They are fallible beings who do best guess work, but whose findings can be tainted by presuppositional bias, faulty data etcâŚ
Wait a minute, I know of no passage in Scripture that states that God was âwriting down His word in the Bibleâ. I thought the traditional position was that Moses wrote it down some time after the fact and that these writings were âGod breathedâ? How did you manage to transform that into; âGod writing down His word in the bible plainly stating how He began creation in 6 literal daysâ? Unsupported by any theologian or Church father that I have heard of, you seem to have a totally new teaching here. Which was fine for Jesus, but maybe in your case, you should take a little extra time to justify the novelty!
While youâre at it, it would help if you would provide the scriptural reference or Mosaic footnote that clarifies the incredibly contested questions of genre, purpose and even ontology (functional or material) in the first chapter of Genesis. If you donât have such a clear and inerrant passage to stand on in handling all of these questions, then I think you have to deal with the fact that this is a level playing field and that you actually have to support your assertions in some way.
1 Like