Noah's Ark Skeptically Inquired

This article, from the Skeptical Inquirer, is mostly filled with unresearched gibes and jabs at the account of Noah’s Ark. For example, early on, the comment:

The Ark story is scientifically implausible; there simply wouldn't be enough space on the boat to accommodate two of every living animal (including dinosaurs), along with the food and water necessary to keep them alive.

Well, is the Ark story implausible? Yesterday, we responded to a feedback item sent in by a web visitor on that oft-asked question. And if you're looking for more, John Woodmorappe has a well-researched, 298-page book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, that analyzes the plausibility of the Ark in detail.

In reality, most critics who comment that the Ark was too small haven't researched either how huge the Ark was or how many animals actually needed to be on the Ark. For the answers, see How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

The difficulty is for those who base their belief in the Flood on archaeological discoveries rather than the Word of God.

The focus of the Skeptical Inquirer piece, however, is on the recent claim-the latest of many-that the remains of the Ark have been found. Is this just pareidolia (seeing something in a random pattern or other undefined object, such as seeing things in the clouds), as the author writes? Certainly, that has happened before, and appears to be the case with the most recent “discovery.”

The difficulty is for those who base their belief in the Flood on archaeological discoveries rather than the Word of God. The article states, “Still, Biblical literalists … have spent lives and fortunes trying to validate their beliefs.” For some Christians, that might be true. But the Word of God needs no validation; if we believe in the Flood only because a scientist says the evidence points to a global flood, we are placing man's ideas ahead of Scripture. This opens the door to what's called eisegesis.