Creationism Intelligent Design News

From Karl Giberson: How Ark Encounter got funded

Spread the love

<em>Coffee</em> Tins Readers may vaguely remember Francis Collins’* colleague at BioLogos, Karl Giberson. In an expected pan review, he tells us:

Dogged by controversy since its conception, the project overcame many challenges. Tax incentives were controversial, given the organization’s view on LGBT hiring. Raising funds was a problem, solved partially by Ham’s high-profile debate with Bill Nye, who was an early visitor to the Ark Encounter. Scientists expressed concern about the promotion of pseudoscience. Biblical scholars objected to treating the myth of Noah’s flood as a historical event. Having overcome so many problems—which he views as the work of Satan—Ham now confidently states, “The Lord has worked mightily over the years to make this project a reality.”

The Ark Encounter is based on one of the grandest tales in Western Culture, although the 2014 Russell Crowe version was a bit flat. (Ham described it as “unbiblical, pagan” and “the worst film I’ve ever seen.”) More.

Russell Crowe was a gift to Ark Encounter. The film coinciding with the Encounter project probably convinced a lot of people that Noah and the Ark must be a big deal.

*BioLogos, we’ve been told, has moved on from the vision of its founder, Francis Collins. (Giberson isn’t there now either.)

But the real story here is Nye. Is Ham paying him to help raise funds? Nye can’t be doing all this for free, can he? Or maybe he just doesn’t get it?

Aw, back to work. But below, the Russell Crowe Noah trailer, now that Giberson mentions it.

See also: Bill Nye Encounters Ken Ham’s Ark: Nye is certainly adapting well to his new career as a pill.

Also: BioLogos Encounters Ark Encounter

Follow UD News at Twitter!

9 Replies to “From Karl Giberson: How Ark Encounter got funded

  1. 1
    johnnyb says:

    Unlike many of my friends, I liked the Noah movie for the most part. The part that I thought was bad was not the environmentalism or the rock monsters or anything like that. It was right before the flood. The entire goal of the ark was to save anyone who would respond to God’s call. Right before the flood, Noah was out trying to *convince* people to go on the ark. The reason that Noah’s family alone was on the ark was because no one else was willing to go.

    In the movie, the opposite happened – Noah was trying to *prevent* people from getting on the ark, which sends the opposite message. In the Biblical story, Noah was trying to save anyone willing to be saved, and in the movie version, Noah was trying to make sure that as few people were saved as possible.

    Whether you think the story real or just an important moral tale, the movie got the moral backward.

  2. 2
    suckerspawn says:

    But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. Genesis 3:18…This was before construction of the Ark started.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    Whether you think the story real or just an important moral tale, the movie got the moral backward.

    I never saw the movie. But think of the outrage if Jesus was ever portrayed in a movie as trying to *prevent* people from doing what was required to escape the coming wrath.

    Oh, wait. Noah was right but Jesus was wrong. Duh.

  4. 4
    Mung says:

    Matthew 3:10. Already, however (it is then high time), is the decision near at hand, according to which the unworthy are excluded from Messiah’s kingdom, and are consigned to Gehenna.

    Futurism is false.

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    As usual a witty observation. YES. Nye is responsible for some funds raised. Good point.
    In rephy to Giberess, I mean Giberson.
    Accuracy and integrity and hold the bitterness .
    1. It was not dogged by controversy. This label should only count if the accusers pass a threshold of having made a big enough fuss. Its not defined by controversy because of a few obscure complaints in tiny circles. Thats surely false reporting by this guy.
    2,A religious group, or anyone with concerns about influence have the moral and nust have the legal right to not hire honosexuals. Its religious freedom and moral freedom where it would sincerely be a negative influence. Like childrens groups like boy scouts etc.
    3,.Well its great if the Ham/Nye debate brought in funds. Yet I think this is a insinuation that Ham was conniving the debate for funds and not for education. Hmm.I don’t know if the debate brought iin money. How does this critic know?
    4, YEC and ID have scientists doing origin research for our view. Its a lie to pretend we don’t have, or think we have, sciency types.
    5, Biblical scholars agree and disagree with YEC. Its a lie to pretend biblical scholars consider the bible as false or wrongly understood. We have plenty and schools paying them to teach.
    6, I don’t know if HAM thinks Satan was behind frustrations to the ark thing. Fine if he did. does GIB know this or can quote?
    Satan would be behind fristrating the truth of God’s word. Is there no Satan too GIB. How do you know. In fact what do you know?
    Make your own successful creation theme complex!I don’t think Satan would frustrate you but maybe God eh!
    The bad guys always have the worst case and usually make a bad case on a curve.
    I was banned at biologos. I wonder if it was….hmmmmmmm.

  6. 6
    George E. says:

    Make no mistake, the Ark Encounter is a scientific experiment, the positive results of which will not be buried in some obscure academic journal, but will be visually impressed upon the minds of all the young people who visit the theme park.

    The hypothesis of this experiment, of course, is that a vessel with the dimensions of that of the ark found in the Book of Genesis could contain all the basic types or kinds of animals found in the world that would need to be in the ark in order to survive a global flood. And the proof of this hypothesis? Well, Ken Ham invites you to buy a ticket and see for yourself.

    I take my hat off to Ken Ham. In my opinion, he and those like him have done more to prevent young people from being absorbed into the Darwinist Borg than any other group… although the ID movement has also had a great impact.

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    johnnyb @1

    In the Biblical story, Noah was trying to save anyone willing to be saved, and in the movie version, Noah was trying to make sure that as few people were saved as possible.

    Whether you think the story real or just an important moral tale, the movie got the moral backward.

    johnnyb,

    Good point. I didn’t see the movie, but would have been very disappointed by that scene. The Bible makes it clear that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. I highly doubt that means he was simply calling people a sinner without giving them a chance to repent. God of course knew that none would respond, but they did have the opportunity to do so.

    I am really looking forward to visiting the ark. I think it will be quite impressive. Seeing the ark built to the actual dimensions listed in the Bible will help give credence to the historical nature of the story. I think it will help my kids to trust God’s Word even more so I definitely want to take my whole family – if I can save up enough money.

    It will be a couple of years yet until we can go, but am already looking forward to it.

  8. 8
    anthropic says:

    6 George E

    My son took his family to this last week and was surprised to see so little about Noah, or the reasons why God decided to bring the flood. Instead, there was a great emphasis on Young earth theology, Ham’s obsession, including scenes of people feeding dinosaurs on the Ark.

    Ken Ham, in my view, has had a tremendously negative influence, particularly among young Christians. When they learn how irrational and unscientific Young Earth is, they naturally infer that the Bible is irrational and unscientific, too.

  9. 9
    johnnyb says:

    anthropic –

    Just to give another side, I used to think YEC was ridiculous and would make fun of YECs. I was an OEC, and considered the OEC position can be a biblical option (I still do, actually). However, I became convinced of YEC after seeing the evidence. Additionally, being YEC also strengthened my faith considerably. I certainly think that we shouldn’t pressure young people to take one option or leave Christianity, but I do think that YEC has been on the whole beneficial.

    One thing that I wish that people like Giberson would see is that, if this were any other structure, he would probably be hailing it. That is, if someone were rebuilding King Arthur’s round table, they would think that was cool, whether they believed King Arthur really existed or not. Even if the person who rebuilt the table believed in King Arthur, and the person writing about it did not, they would probably speak approvingly of it, and say they wished more people could see it.

    But somehow, the ark seems to be assumed to be unworthy. People like Giberson who disagree with Ham’s assessment of the ark’s truthfulness can’t bring themselves to at least appreciate Ham’s goal of showing people what is in the story. Even if I didn’t believe the story of Noah, I would find the idea of someone building one that I could look at and touch very awe-inspiring and not something to criticize, even if I didn’t agree with the person building it.

Leave a Reply