The Atheist Blogger

A group of teenagers challenged members of my atheist forums to a debate on Evolution vs Creation. We happily obliged, and decided that to make things more interesting and less “trollish”, we would create a new forum which only specific people could post in, but which everyone could view. Choosing 4 people from each side we started the debate, asking them what they meant by “Evolution” and “Creation” in the first place. One of their group responded that they didn’t believe in “macro” evolution, but did in “micro” evolution. When elaborating on the difference, one of the creationists remarked:

Macro evolution is the theory of a species changing to another.

Micro evolution is small changes that DO NOT create a new species.

Ok, so it was the standard definition that creationists use when covering the topics of micro and macro evolution. One of them sent me an article from Answers in Genesis to read in response to one of my points about evolution and “increasing” information (Dr. Lenski’s famous E. coli experiment). From that article I clicked through to an article about Noah’s ark, and that is when it struck me.

Noah’s Ark is a paradox.

At least, it is a creationist paradox. If we are to take the Bible as literally true, that Noah took 2 of each “kind” of animal on the ark (or 7 of each clean animal) then we have an immediate clue as to the cryptic meaning of the word “kind”. It cannot mean “species”. There are far more species in the world today than there could have fitted on Noah’s Ark, even if you reduce the number by the species who could survive on water or in water.

Yet the creationist denies macro evolution (one species changing into a new species). To them, it is impossible. This leaves them with the tricky situation of explaining how all the animals today could possibly exist. As “kinds” are not species, or at least not every single species, then the only way for us to have the animals we do today is for the animals on the ark to have macro-evolved. If macro-evolution is wrong, then every single species today must have been on the Ark, which is impossible.

So either Noah’s Ark is a paradox, or it helps the evolution theory along. Assuming Noah’s Ark isn’t a paradox and is true, then macro-evolution must be true as well. If the creationist denies this then they have to admit that the Noah’s Ark story is inaccurate, and if Noah’s Ark is inaccurate how many other parts of the Bible are as well? Not only is the evidence for evolution clear, but it has to be for this simple biblical story to start making sense.

Personally, I don’t believe a word of the Noah’s Ark story. The paradox goes well beyond that of just elementary biology, but into boat construction and the amount of water on the planet, as well as the lack of geological evidence. However it poses a serious problem for believers, who must either admit that evolution is true or their story is false.