More rival ark-hunters comment on Ark find claim

Model of Noah's Ark at the Creation Museum

Today two more creationists came forward with their analysis of the latest Noah's Ark discovery claim, pointing out inconsistencies in the account and sharply criticizing the seemingly regular nature of claim after claim by "amateur archaeologists" to have found Noah's Ark, with the public learning only later that the claimants have found no such thing.

Bill Crouse and Gordon Franz of Christian Information Ministries published an e-mail release early this morning detailing their concerns. In all fairness, Crouse and Franz favor another site entirely, not on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey, but on another mountain, 200 miles further south.

Crouse and Franz begin by observing the regular nature of Noah's Ark discovery claims (emphasis in the original):

The problem with this is that it seems like the "discovery" of Noah’s Ark is getting to be almost an annual event.  What in the world is going on?  We think it’s a question that is easy to analyze.  Genesis 1-11 is the most attacked portion of Scripture for its historicity. Finding an antediluvian artifact like Noah’s Ark could be the greatest archaeological discovery ever. It evokes many wannabe Indiana Jones’ to search for Noah’s Ark.  We see no problem with this quest, and would welcome such a discovery.  The problem is not in the finding of the Ark; but in its substantiation.

Crouse and Franz then explain what they mean: that anyone claiming such a discovery should share their findings with other scientists before announcing them to the public.

Amateur archaeologists can and do find things that turn out to be fantastic discoveries....However, to properly document a discovery, the proper scientific protocol must be followed.  Scientists are trained to gather and analyze evidence.  They then publish their research so that other scientists can test their results. These "Indiana Joneses" invariably do not do this.  They put the cart before the horse by announcing the discovery first and declare exactly what it is in a spectacular news conference rather than publishing their results in a scientific journal.  The news media, on the other hand, is all too willing to do what gets good ratings, and at the same time it usually puts evangelical Christians in a bad light.

Crouse and Franz then give details on what is wrong with Mount Ararat as a site, and what is inconsistent about the pictures shared thus far:

1. The claimed site is in glacial ice. A glacier would have pulverized any wooden structure caught within its substance.
2. Mount Ararat is a post-Flood volcano with no sedimentary rock on it at all.
3. The choice of laboratory for the radiocarbon dating (in Iran, a closed country) is suspect.
4. Whether the wood is coated with bitumen, as the Bible specifies, is unclear.
5. Frames of reference for the still pictures and video footage are singularly lacking.
6. The explorers are apparently planning to make a documentary as a for-profit project--before they publish to any journals. While this Examiner has noticed in other contexts that "peer review" tends to be an exclusionary game, by now creation science has a sizeable body of periodical literature. These latest claimants could and should have submitted findings to the Journal of Creation, or Answers, or any of several other such journals.

Crouse and Franz also raise the issue of the reputation that the team's Kurdish guide has for dishonesty--a question that other sources have previously raised. They conclude that the latest find does not appear genuine, though they are willing to be convinced otherwise, and suggest how these latest explorers might convince them:

At this point we are skeptical of the claims but would rejoice in the end if they proved to be true.  If this someday is the case we will be the first to apologize for our doubts. We would strongly urge the Hong Kong group to follow proper scholarly procedures and publish this material in scientific, peer-reviewed archaeological and geological publications so that the scholarly community can examine the material first hand and critique it in order to offer helpful, and constructive, criticism.  For the person in the pew, we caution you to not get too excited about something that is at best, unsubstantiated; and at worst, a fraud perpetrated by the Kurdish guide!

This article is part of the Noah's Ark series.

Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.