Ken Ham responds to critics

The big problem with this is that the “Ark” is more or less an archiacally styled apartment building and proves nothing about whether the Genesis account could be true—well, at least not until the New Madrid fault moves and dumps her into the Ohio River ten miles away! The thing is supported on concrete pilings every dozen feet or so, has modern steel fittings, and thus tells us nothing about whether a 450’ long ship built with ancient building methods could have weathered the seas with a load of animals, food, and the like.

If you want to show that such a ship is practical, you’d build it and put it on the ocean or at least one of the Great lakes. My guess is that the real Ark was built in much the same way the middle ages Chinese treasure ships were built. Other wooden ships of comparable size are listed here, and it’s worth noting that most of them were not particularly seaworthy.

And yes, favorable tax treatment is a subsidy in all but name. We can argue about whether or not it’s fair for AIG to take this, given that it’s available to lots of others, but they’re backing their bonds with tax credits. It’s a subsidy. Why debate the obvious?

Bert attacks AGI again. Why debate “the obvious”? BECAUSE secularists complain that this TIF financing is public financing of religion. DUH!

As for the Ark, I understand it to promote the idea of a young earth with how life on the Ark was, etc., rather than trying to build sea worthy version of the Ark.

Pointing out an attraction is rooted in the earth is an attack? Sorry, Mark, but if iron is to sharpen iron, we need to be able to disagree without just doing this “my team or the enemy” nonsense. Same thing about tax subsidies—whether it’s money up front or backloaded as a tax cut, it’s still something AIG gets that the rest of Kentucky does not. We might quibble over the exact term, but “subsidy” works fine if we’re not too persnickety.

Anyone in Kentucky that plans to bring several million visitors and plans to make the local economy lots of money can apply for TIF.

What’s your real beef with AIG?

I don’t think you are “iron sharpening iron”. I think you are stabbing anyone in the back that you don’t agree with.

1. The tax issue is an important one. What if the area Muslims want to build a full scale replica of Mecca or something and get the same tax deal? Perhaps the area papers would be all for it, but the “evangelicals” wouldn’t. It becomes a religious liberty issue.

2. The apologetics issue. The whole idea of “proving the Bible true,” as many tend to see this project (I don’t know that AIG/K.Ham see it that way) suggests (a) that it needs to be proven true by some external truth standard (i.e. empirical evidence) and (b) that you can actually convince unregenerate minds by that route. So there’s plenty to debate there. But as a tool for strengthening the faith of believers and getting some skeptics thinking twice—God does sometimes use this kind of “proof.”

3. Apart from the issue as of models and exhibits as apologetics, what can a ship on the ground prove? Well, it’s really not the seaworthiness of the structure that is the main problem with the “flood story” in the eyes of critics. It’s one of the points sometimes made, but made along with many others. The biggest problem is the assumption of historical “nonliteralness” of the Bible as a starting point. For the most part, skeptics assume the Bible does not mean what it says and that the burden of proof lies on anyone who reads it like normal language. Couple that with a heart commitment to avoid faith in its claims and you see that a sea-born model would only be slightly more persuasive, if that.

I see, me criticizing Bert = Bad. Bert criticizing AIG = Good.

Thank you, I understand.

The reason I complain is, historically, most posters at SI have criticized AIG. OK fine…buts let’s not pretend you are “iron sharpening iron” when you criticizing AIG. They aren’t even reading what you wrote! And very few people even post here anymore to argue against the cabal of like minded people that do post…

1. If a group of Muslims could convince a city or county that a life sized Mecca could generate enough revenue to warrant TIF financing, then it would be considered. What’s the big deal?

2. AIG it seems to me that AIGs mission is not to “prove the Bible true” but to show ways that a literal interpretation of the Bible is consistent with science.

3. I don’t get the criticism of the Ark museum by saying it isn’t a real boat. Sure, some do criticize the sea worthiness, but that can be tested in a lab with mock-ups. You don’t have to build the full boat.

Sure, you can be cynical and say all AIG is doing is trying to make money, but some people do want to have a “Christian” alternative to Disney World, etc. If you don’t, then don’t go. But why join in the cacophony criticizing your fellow brothers in Christ just because you don’t like it?

Mark

…is really simple. It shifts the burden for local government services from the new guys to the guys who have been paying their taxes for decades. More or less, it’s taxing the local barber and florist to pay for the new Wal-Mart—really taxing people to fund their competition. It’s done a lot, but just like stadium funding, it’s obnoxious.

Regarding AIG, I appreciate their ministry, and Ham does the church a great service by pointing to how creation is a key issue in Scripture. He is, more or less, re-awakening a consciousness of the significance of Biblical and systematic theology in a church all too often content to do a couple of proof-texts and call it a day. However, if we are trying to demonstrate the plausibility of the Ark, building a retro apartment building simply doesn’t make that case.

And yes, if people will listen, that is iron sharpening iron—let us not forget that the process of sharpening a blade is abrasive and involves some friction. In other words, it’s not always pleasant, and definitely isn’t what people always want to hear. The quickest way to derail Ken Ham’s ministry might not be from an adverse action, but rather by letting him get away with things that simply don’t pass logical and theological muster. Look at any number of former fundamental icons who fell into grievous sin and horrible theology when they “got too big for their britches” like Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap.

Really? You are sharpening Ken Ham’s blade by posting on Sharper Iron?

When did Ken Ham say the purpose of the Ark Encounter is to justify that the Ark floated and was sea worthy? Maybe there is a display inside of it, I don’t know, but the outside structure is a building. HENCE, it needs to follow civil construction code. Its ridiculous to come with a straw man attack against a building by berating it for not proving the sea-worthiness of a boat!

Mark, I’ve been around AIG for a while, and if you’re going to argue that Ham is not trying to justify the possibility of Noah’s Ark, I’ve got a nice bridge I’d be willing to sell to you cheap. Sorry, but anyone who’s familiar with AIG is going to find that contention laughable. Plus, I happen to have visited a number of ships used as museums—the replica Mayflower, the Constitution, the Olympia, the Missouri, the Texas, the U-505, and others—and I guarantee you that it is possible to have something that floats acting as a museum, even one made out of wood.

Sorry, but for $1000/square foot, Ham owes his supporters better.

Bert, I don’t think the point has ever been to build the Ark in order to prove that it would float. It’s more about being able to experience the size of the ark by walking inside it, and pointing to the larger spiritual truths the Ark represents.

And again, the article is wrong. Taxpayers are NOT helping to pay for this.