- Genesis 7:1-10:5
- 1 Chronicles 1:5-7
- Genesis 10:6-20
- 1 Chronicles 1:8-16
- Genesis 10:21-30
- 1 Chronicles 1:17-23
- Genesis 10:31-32
Faith-Stretching Verse(s):
- Take with you seven pairs—male and female—of each animal I have approved for eating and for sacrifice, and take one pair of each of the others. Also take seven pairs of every kind of bird. There must be a male and a female in each pair to ensure that all life will survive on the earth after the flood. – Genesis 7:2-3, NLT
Thoughts:
When you think of all the varieties of life forms that exist, and then imagine trying to fit a pair of each species (seven pairs of some of them) onto one boat, it seems impossible. But could it have been do-able?
After reading some thoughts on this from an article on the Answers in Genesis website (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind#fnList_1_10), I have enough clarity to at least be able to give you one scientist’s (Todd Charles Wood, Ph.D.) explanation of how it was possible. It does require me to eat a little bit of humble pie as I admit that in my very first post of the year I was using scientific terminology (species) imprecisely, and should probably have gone up the biological classification system two steps to the “family” level to argue my case about plants and animals reproducing their own kinds. So, that done, let’s look at this Wood’s ideas.
What Wood does is return to the idea that we have already examined, the Bible’s declaration that God created life to reproduce itself within created kinds. He also returns to the notion that mutations and variations exist within various created kinds of life, as also agreed to above. And Wood, a published biochemist, has done about a decade of preliminary biological research whose results are beginning to show a pattern. He suggests that, when the Bible describes God creating life forms to reproduce their own kinds, those “kinds” correspond to what biology now calls “families.”
For instance, the coyote, wolf, jackal, dog and fox all share the Canidae family name. So without arguing for evolution in the sense that all today’s dog varieties spring from a common single-cell organism which itself sprung from non-life at some point way back in history, Wood argues that varieties within biological families probably came from a micro-evolutionary process following the flood. He says it would not have been necessary for Noah to have two dogs, two wolves, two foxes, etc., on the ark with him, but just to have had one pair of Canidae. If Noah’s ark simply included a pair of animals from each biological family, Wood says that as few as 2,000 individual animals may have been on the ark, probably a few more than that. And for that number of animals, he claims that “there would have been plenty of room to house these and their food, plus Noah and his family.”
This is not a new idea. In his article, Wood records that as far back as 1559, 1675, and 1668, scholars were arguing the same kind of thing. Humans have understood the concept of micro-evolution for a long time, far prior to Darwin’s claim that the process of evolution could be responsible for life itself.
I know that I have only addressed one challenge to believing that the story of Noah’s ark is factual. Other challenges include the concept of a global flood and the length of time that Noah and his ancestors lived (which would be required if one man like Noah was going to have time to build a massive boat). Also, to believe the story of Noah’s ark requires being willing to believe that God exists and cares enough about His creation to be concerned with whether men are living morally or immorally and to intervene through both a flood and an ark. Thankfully, there are plenty more people who are writing and have written volumes and volumes of books helping anyone who is willing to read them to understand why faith in these things can be and is reasonable.
I’ve only had time to re-explain an argument that shows how the ark could preserve the world’s life. This modern look at the story of Noah’s ark is one of the reasons that I can believe the Bible. I’m well aware that there are plenty of stories that don’t even try to appeal to the laws of the natural world, though, stories of God’s miracles. And yes, I still have reasons for believing them, even if scientists can’t help me out the way they can with the Flood. We’ll get there. But for now, part of the reason that I can believe the Bible is that stories like this can still be understood through modern science. To be a Christian does not require me to ignore my experience of the world around me.
For an overview of this year’s blog, please see http://threequartertank.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-do-believers-believe.html.
Posts
