The largest and best-funded apologetics organization in the world today is the Institute for Creation Research. They are strongly supported by fundamentalist Christian groups that have dispensational theologies. While they promote several denominational doctrines that aren’t supported by the Bible, and some of their science is not accurate, they do have a great deal of useful scientific data that supports the existence of God. However, they ran into a problem concerning “dinosaurs and the Bible.”
The most fundamental problem with the position of ICR is stated in these words from the November 2019 issue of their magazine Acts and Facts (page 4):
“Instead of attempting to harmonize the inerrant Word of God with a flimsy scientific model, Christians would do far better to simply take God’s Word at face value.”
The fact is that not all science is flimsy. Also, taking the Bible at face value when “face value” means a questionable interpretation of an inferior English translation. We have often dealt with dinosaurs and the Bible before. You can find some of our previous posts HERE and HERE.
There is no question but that those of us who believe in God and the Bible as His Word share common problems. In that same issue of Acts and Facts, Jayme Durant, the editor of the magazine, tells of trying to put up billboards in the Dallas area. They wanted to advertise the Discovery Center, a new multi-million dollar museum they have opened in the Dallas area. The billboards had their logo with the simple message “Dinosaurs and the Bible?” Two of the billboard companies would not allow ICR to display their message as long as they used the words “Bible” and “Dinosaur” together.
Here is the complete message of the sign owners:
“It’s controversial to have a statement that may challenge local beliefs. Saying ‘Dinosaurs and the Bible?’ may stir the pot in that area and cause problems for the sign in that area.”
Durant points out that “…making people think about something that might be outside their paradigm is apparently unacceptable by much of the American public.” Our society continues to show its bias and antagonism toward God and the Bible. Durant concludes her essay by writing, “You might be accused of stirring the pot. But that’s okay–your life is your billboard. And every day, you can choose the message you display.” We may not agree with ICR on dinosaurs and the Bible, but we certainly agree on that.
— John N. Clayton © 2019
As we read the Genesis account of the flood, we find that most of the claims of religious fundamentalists about Noah, the ark, and the flood are derived from denominational traditions, and not from the Bible. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all of their beliefs about Genesis 6-9 are wrong. However, when people present traditions instead of Bible facts, errors are possible. One issue where people are often wrong is the location of Noah’s ark.
The Ark Encounter attraction in Kentucky is a major promoter of many of the traditions about the flood. While it gets a lot of press and a great deal of money, it also provides atheists and skeptics with ammunition to attack the faith of believers. The recent case where the Ark Encounter managers sued their insurance company for rain damage is a classic example.
Over the years, we have published numerous articles about attempts to establish the location of Noah’s ark. You can find them with the search engine on doesgodexist.org. One of the points that we have made repeatedly is that the Bible does not say that the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat. Modern-day Ararat in Armenia is almost certainly not what was called Ararat in Noah’s day.
Genesis 8:4 tells us the ark came to rest in “the mountains of Ararat.” People who know the topography of that area tell us that a continuous belt of peaks called the Kagizman Ridge is known as “the mountains of Ararat.” That ridge is located west of the present Mount Ararat in the country of Turkey. Those who have climbed Ararat and brought back what they claim are pieces of the ark, have credibility problems. They not only have the problem of how wood could survive all that time and the effects of glaciers, but they are almost certainly on the wrong mountain.
The July 2019 issue of Acts and Facts, published by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), carried an interesting article about the ark. It admitted that the ark did not come to rest on present-day Mount Ararat and it discussed the geology of the area. It concluded that saying the ark came to rest on “the mountains of Ararat” was the most accurate way to describe its landing spot.
The ICR is a promoter of the young earth denominationalism that is so popular today, and with which we disagree. But they are endeavoring to be accurate and factual in what they are saying concerning the location of Noah’s ark, and we applaud them for that.
— John N. Clayton © 2019
For more on Noah and the flood, see these previous posts:
Did Noah’s Flood Really Happen?
When Did Noah’s Flood Happen?
How Could All Those Animals Fit in Noah’s Ark?
Where Did the Water Go After Noah’s Flood?
How Extensive Was the Flood of Noah?
Modern Misconceptions About the Flood