Expert: Rev C.Brian Ross - 10/16/2007

Question
QUESTION: Hello Reverend Ross,
Even though I only have a B.S. in science, I think I can successfully dispute every argument in favor of the Noah's ark story based upon the principles of geology, genetics, zoology, life sciences, physics, etc. Most such arguments seem downright foolish and my question is this: Do you know of any serious members of the scientific community who believe that any aspect of it could be true. (By the way, I wish it were true!)Thank you for your thoughts.

ANSWER: Dear Charlie,
Thank you for your question.  Although I don't have any degree in Science (even the M.Sc. on which I am working is in Education!), I have done a fair bit of reading on the whole subject of evolution and Creation - into which discussion the account of Noah and the Ark invariably enters!
Personally, I have no doubt that when the Biblical record refers to the whole earth (Gen 7:19-24) it refers to the total surface of the planet.  We are told that "Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth,  standing more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks.  All the living things on earth died — birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small animals, and all the people.  Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land.  Every living thing on the earth was wiped out — people, animals both large and small, and birds. They were all destroyed, and only Noah was left alive, along with those who were with him in the boat.  And the water covered the earth for 150 days."(NLT)
In the New Testament, we might refer to II Peter 2:5: "And God did not spare the ancient world — except for Noah and his family of seven. Noah warned the world of God's righteous judgment. Then God destroyed the whole world of ungodly people with a vast flood." (NLT)
The only members of the scientific community who have supported both the "universal" flood and the account of Noah and the ark, and whose work I have read, are:  H.M. Morris and J.C.Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood,  Evangelical Press, 1961; and Sylvia Baker M.Sc. (Biol), in a published article entitled Bones of Contention, Evangelical Press, 1976 in which she argues the case for a world-wide flood mainly on the basis of the fossil record.  The Flood Reconsidered, written by F.A.Filby, Pickering and Inglis, 1970, has a specific chapter on Noah and the Ark - although he does seem to favour a "partial" flood that only effected the area of the modern "Middle East".   Part of his argument is to do with the migration of animals, e.g. the kangaroo from Australia, and the mastodon of South America.  However, if one accepts (as many in both "camps" do) that, originally, there was just one land mass, then I would suggest that that argument loses its force!  
The Ark on Ararat is written by Tim LaHaye and John Morris, Lakeland, 1976.  There is no author information given, but I understand that Tim LaHaye is not a professional scientist, although I suspect that John Morris is.  Their book certainly provides much interesting information.
For me to go through a complete argument in favour of a total-eart flood, and for Noah and the Ark, would take far longer than an AllExperts answer would allow.  Indeed, I would probably have ended up having written another book!!  However, permit me to throw one final crumb in your direction.  This is with regard to the ability of Noah to build a vessel that would take 2 of every animal (and 7 of some). Firstly, it was not a boat, or ship, in the way in which the average children's story-book represents it, but simply a great big box.  Indeed, the Hebrew word "ark" simply means "box" - as in the Ark of the Covenant.  It doesn't require a shipwright to build a box!  When we check the measurements, we discover that, even if we take a conservative equivalent for the ancient measurements given, we have a structure that would cover three (British!) football pitches, and had three stories .  That's a lot of storage space, especially when it seems not unreasonable that only young (and therefore smaller, and easier to feed) animals were taken aboard.
I know that this is not a fully scientific answer, but I would refer you to a website http://www.csm.org.uk/index.php
which you might find interesting.  Look at the FAQs, and especially the first one!!
Meanwhile, if I have given you any further food for thought, then I am content.
Blessings,
C.Brian Ross (Rev)



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Reverend Ross,
Your information is fantastic!! Thanks, so much, for such an interesting and informative reply. I will look into the matter further and try to find some of the writings that you've so kindly referenced. I have relatives in Scotland whom I'd like to visit someday (I'm from California). If I did, I'd love to meet you. By the way, the amount of water on earth does not vary; it's simply recycled (up and down) so how it could cover the earth is mysterious, indeed. Also, there was, at one time, only one land mass but it was many, many millions of years ago. Thank you, again, for taking the time to share such interesting information!
Charlie

Answer
Dear Charlie,
Thank you for your kind reponse.  I have to answer you like this as, if I didn't, I would be "black-marked" for having failed to answer a question!!  If you do get the opportunity to visit our beautiful little country (probably not even as large a surface area as the State of California!!) just send me a question at AllExperts asking for my private details.  I'd be equally delighted to meet up with you - talking face-to-face is much better than an e-mail correspondence!
I wish you well in whatever you do.
Blessings
C.Brian Ross (Rev)