
By: Sue Armstrong
Re: Noah's Follies 1/15




Note from the editor of this scanned ASCII formatted version:

Several compromises were make in the scanning and translation from 
the
printed text to the ASCII format.  1) The underline character  _  
has been
used to denote italicized words in the text.  2) The small bold 
print of
subheading starting sentences has been placed one line apart from 
the text.
3) The large bold print of subject headings has been text centered 
and word
capitalized. 4) Paragraphs are blocked and spaced rather then 
indented.

Although I have endeavored to make this translation as error free as
possible, some errors may in fact still exist in this text.  These
errors are not to be taken as errors in the original text.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the publishers of
"Creation/Evolution", have been contacted and have graciously given 
their
permission for the no-cost electronic distribution of this article.

If you redistribute this file, please make no changes to the notices,
address, nor to the text of the article.

The NCSE can be contacted at:

NCSE
P.O. Box 9477
Berkeley, CA., 94709-0477

510-526-1674
800-290-6006

E-Mail: NCSE@CRL.COM

Larry A Meyering
February, 1995


Creation/Evolution XI (Volume 4, Number 1)
Winter 1983
Special Issue:The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

*Robert Moore, a writer on religious subjects, has testified at 
hearings on
church-state issues and is an experienced mountain climber (with no 
intention
of joining any ark expedition).

Copyright @ 1983 by Robert A. Moore


                     The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

                               Robert A. Moore*


Suppose you  picked  up  the  newspaper  tomorrow  morning  and were
startled to see headlines announcing the discovery of a  large  ship
high  on  the  snowy slopes of Mt.   Ararat in eastern Turkey As you
hurriedly scanned the article,   you  learned  that  a team from the
Institute for Creation Research had unearthed the vessel and their
measurements and studies had determined that it perfectly matched
the description of Noah's Ark given in the book of Genesis. Would 
this be
proof at last--the "smoking  gun"  as  it  were--that  the  earliest
chapters  of  the  Bible were true and that the story they told of a
six-day creation and a universal flood was a sober, scientific 
account?

Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is no. Even this sensational find 
is not
enough to validate a  literal  reading  of Genesis.   Our continuing
skepticism is in the tradition of philosopher David Hume,  who wrote
that "the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena that  I
should  rather  believe  the most extraordinary events to arise from
their concurrence than admit of  so  signal  a violation of the laws
of nature." As we shall see,  the story of the great flood  and  the
voyage of the ark, as expounded by modern creationists, contains
so  many  incredible  "violations  of  the  laws  of nature" that it
cannot  possibly  be  accepted  by  any  thinking  person.   Despite
ingenious efforts to lend a degree  of  plausibility  to  the  tale,
nothing can be salvaged without the direct and constant intervention
of the deity.


                               Building the Ark


The requirements of the story.

To make this point clear, let's start at the beginning of the 
biblical
narrative and follow the story step by step. From the moment the 
impending
storm is announced (Genesis 6:7,  13, 17) and Jehovah sets forth the
design and dimensions of the ark (Genesis 6:14-16), problems start 
appearing.

The ark is to be made out of gopher wood according to a plan that 
calls for
the ark to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and 
thirty cubits
tall (450x75x45 feet, according to most creationists. See Segraves, 
p.11). It
is to contain three floors, a large door in the side, and a one 
cubit square
window at the top. The floors are to be divided into rooms, and all 
the walls,
inside and out, are to be pitched with pitch. Since the purpose of 
the ark is
to hold animals and plants, particularly two of "every living thing 
of all
flesh . . . to keep them alive with thee" (Genesis 6:19), it will 
have to be
constructed accordingly.

Most creationists simply breeze through this description of the 
size and
requirements of the ark without a second glance ("It is hard to 
believe that
intelligent people see a problem here"--LaHaye and Morris, _The Ark 
on
Ararat_, p.248), often with a passing comment about the 
architectural skill
of ancient peoples as manifested in the Seven Wonders of the World. 
But Noah's
boat-building accomplishments have not been fully appreciated by 
his fans.


Ancient shipbuilding.

In the first place, the analogy with the Seven Wonders does not 
hold. Only
one, the Great Pyramid of Cheops, comes within two thousand years 
of Noah's
day, and it is really the only one whose construction could 
conceivably
approach the level of sophistication of the ark. But the Great 
Pyramid did
not spring _de novo_ from the desert sands; rather, it was the 
culmination of
over a century of architectural evolution, beginning when the 
"experimenting
genius," Imhotep, inspired by the ziggurats of Babylon, built the 
Step Pyramid
around 2680 _BC_, passing through some intermediate step pyramids 
to the Bent
Pyramid of Snofru, then the first true pyramid, and finally the 
masterpiece at
Cheop (Stewart, pp.35-39).

On the other hand, in an era when hollowed-out logs and reed rafts 
were the
extent of marine transport, a vessel so massive appeared that the 
likes of it
would not be seen again until the mid-nineteenth century AD. Before 
he could
even contemplate such a project, Noah would have needed a thorough 
education
in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for 
thousands of
years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural 
analysis. There
was no shipbuilding tradition behind him, no experienced 
craftspeople to offer
advice. Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a 
Brobdingnagian
structure? How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, 
and
slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential 
equations for
bending moment, torque, and shear stress?

Ancient shipbuilding did achieve a considerable level of 
technological
sophistication, so much so that marine archaeologists are divided 
over its
history (Basch, p.52). But this was for vessels that were dinghies 
compared
to the ark, and this skill emerged slowly over many centuries: 
nearly a
millennium passed while Egyptian boat lengths increase from 150 to 
200 feet
(Casson, p.17). Despite this, the craft remained a prescientific 
art, acquired
through long years of apprenticeship and experience, and disasters 
at sea due
to faulty design were so persistent that the impetus was strong for 
a more
scientific approach (Rawson and Tupper, p.2). Obviously, the 
astronomical
leap in size, safety, and skill required by Noah is far too vast 
for any
naturalistic explanation.

Not only was the ark without pedigree, it was without descendants 
also
Creationists Kofahl and Segraves tell us that civilization quickly 
redeveloped
after the flood because the survivors carried over the prediluvian 
culture:
Noah lived 350 years afterwards, Shem 502 (_The Creation 
Explanation_, p.227).
During this time, people were fanning out and "replenishing the 
earth,"
carrying with them reminiscences of the deluge that would someday 
excite
American missionaries from Sumatra to Spitzbergen. Yet Noah's primary
contribution to humanity, his incredible knowledge of naval 
engineering,
vanished without a trace, and the seafarers returned to their 
hollow logs
and reed rafts. Like a passing mirage, the ark was here one day and 
gone the
next, leaving not a ripple in the long saga of ship-building.


The needs of the animals.

As if the rough  construction  of  the ship weren't headache enough,
the internal organization had to be honed to perfection.  With space
at a premium every cubit had to be utilized to the  maximum;   there
was  no  room  for  oversized  cages and wasted space.   The various
requirements of the myriads of animals  had to be taken into account
in the design of their quarters,  especially considering the  length
of  the  voyage.    The  problems  are legion:  feeding and watering
troughs need to be the correct height for easy access but not on the
floor where they will get filthy;  the cages for horned animals must
have bars  spaced  properly  to  prevent  their  horns  from getting
stuck,  while rhinos require round "bomas" for the same  reason;   a
heavy   leather  body  sling  is  "indispensable"  for  transporting
giraffes;   primates  require  tamper-proof  locks  on  their doors;
perches  must be the correct diameter for each particular bird's foot
(Hirst; Vincent).  Even the flooring is important, for, if it is too
hard,  hooves may be injured, if too soft, they may grow too quickly
and permanently damage ankles (Klos);  rats  will  suffer  decubitus
(ulcers)  with  improper floors (Orlans),  and ungulates must have a
cleated surface or they  will  slip  and  fall (Fowler).   These and
countless other technical problems all had to be resolved before the
first termite crawled aboard,  but there were no wildlife management
experts available  for  consultation.    Even  today  the  transport
requirements of many species are not fully known,  and it  would  be
physically  impossible  to design a single carrier to meet them all.
Apparently,  when God first told Noah to build an ark, he supplied a
complete set of blueprints and engineering details, constituting the
most intricate and precise revelation ever vouchsafed to humankind.


Problems for the builders.

So Noah grabbed his tools and went to work.   LaHaye and Morris tell
us that Noah and his three sons could have built the entire thing by
themselves in a mere  eighty-one  years (p.248).   This includes not
merely framing up a hull but: building docks,  scaffolds, workshops;
fitting together the incredible maze of cages and crates;  gathering
provisions  for  the  coming  voyage;   harvesting  the  timber  and
producing all the various types of lumber from bird cage bars to the
huge keelson beams--not to mention wrestling the very heavy,  clumsy
planks for the ship into their exact location  and  fastening  them.
What's worse,  by the time the job was finished,  the earlier phases
would  be  rotting  away--a  difficulty  often  faced by builders of
wooden ships, whose work took only four or five years (Thrower, 
p.32).

Faced with such criticism, the creationists quickly convert the 
humble,
righteous  farmer into a wealthy capitalist who simply hired all the
help he needed  (Segraves,   p.86-87).    It  is  estimated that the
construction of the  Great  Pyramid  required  as  many  as  100,000
slaves;   Noah  could have probably gotten by with less (there were,
after all,  "giants in the earth in those days" according to Genesis
6:4),  but what he lacked in numbers he sorely needed in experienced
and highly skilled craftsmen.   How did he learn when to fell a tree
and how to dry it properly  to  prevent rot and splitting,  when the
larger beams might take several years to cure (cf.  Dumas and Gille,
p.322)?   Did the local reed-raft builder have  equipment  to  steam
heat  a  plank  so  it could be forced into the proper position?   A
shipyard in nineteenth-century Maine  would have been overwhelmed by
the size and complexity of this  job,   yet  Noah  still  supposedly
found  enough  time  to hold revivals and preach doomsday throughout
the land (Segraves, pp.87-90).

God told the patriarch to coat  the  ark,  both inside and out,  all
229,500 square feet of it,  with pitch,  and,  in fact,  this was  a
common  practice  in  ancient  times.   But when Noah hurried to the
corner hardware store,  the shelf was bare, for pitch is a naturally
occurring hydrocarbon similar to petroleum (Rosenfeld,  p.126),  and
we know that oil,  tar,  and  coal deposits were formed when organic
matter was buried and subjected to extreme pressure during the flood
(Whitcomb and Morris, pp.277-278, 434-436), so none of it existed in
the prediluvian world.   Morris (1976,  p.182) tries to say that the
word for "pitch" merely means "covering," but not only do all  other
Bible   dictionaries   and  commentaries  translate  it  "pitch"  or
"bitumen," but creationist Nathan M. Meyer reveals that all the wood
recovered by arkaeologists on Mt.   Ararat is "saturated with pitch"
(p.85).   Thus it seems  that  God  accommodated Noah by creating an
antediluvian tar pit just for the occasion,   and  we  have  another
miracle. 

Finally,   our  farmer-turned-architect  had to confront the gravest
difficulty of all:  in the words of A. M. Robb,  there was an "upper
limit,  in the region of 300 feet, on the length of the wooden ship;
beyond  such  a  length   the   deformation  due  to  the  differing
distributions  of  weight  and  buoyancy  became  excessive,    with
consequent  difficulty  in maintaining the hull watertight" (p.355).
Pollard and Robertson concur,  emphasizing  that  "a wooden ship had
great stresses as a structure.  The absolute limit of its length was
300 feet,  and it was liable to 'hogging' and 'sagging'" (pp.13-14).
This is the major reason why the naval industry turned to  iron  and
steel  in  the 1850s.   The largest wooden ships ever built were the
six-masted schooners,  nine of which  were launched between 1900 and
1909.   These ships were so long that they  required  diagonal  iron
strapping for support; they "snaked," or visibly undulated,  as they
passed through  the waves,  they leaked so badly that they had to be
pumped constantly,  and they were  only  used on short coastal hauls
because they were unsafe in deep water.    John  J.  Rockwell,   the
designer  of  the  first of this class,  confessed that "six masters
were not practical.    They  were  too  long  for wood construction"
(Laing, pp.393, 403-409).  Yet the ark was over 100 feet longer than
the longest six-master,  the 329 foot U.S.S.   _Wyoming_, and it had
to endure  the  most  severe  conditions  ever   encountered   while
transporting  the  most  critically  important  cargo  ever  hauled.
Clearly,   God  had  to imbue this amateurishly assembled gopherwood
with some very special properties to fit it for the voyage.

So it should be clear by  now why "intelligent people" somehow see a
"problem" in the building of the ark.


                       Accommodating All Those Animals


The requirements of the story.

With the huge freighter near completion,  the time was drawing  near
when  its colorful cargo would clamber aboard.   We now turn to this
subject to see if we can learn who and how many made the fateful 
trip.

Genesis 6:19-20 declares that two of  each kind of animal were to be
collected and brought on board.   This is repeated in Genesis 7:8-9,
and it is explicitly stated that this applied to clean  and  unclean
beasts as well as to birds.   But Genesis 7:2-3 specifies that clean
beasts  and  birds  were  to  be  taken  by _sevens_.   Whatever the
numbers, it is clear that no animals could be left out.  Genesis 7:4
states that  "every  living  substance"  that  God  made  was  to be
destroyed  from  off  the face of the earth" by the impending flood.
Genesis 7:23 repeats the point and  adds that only those things with
Noah in the ark could survive.


Limiting the cargo to "kinds."

Creationists realize that the ark had a limited amount of  room  and
they  are  aware  of  the  large  number  of  species  in the animal
kingdom.   Therefore,  they have  employed various tactics to reduce
the population needed on board.   Probably the most important tactic
is to restrict the command to "kinds" rather  than  species  and  to
argue that the former are much fewer in number than the latter.

A  kind  (or  "baramin"  in  creationist jargon) is the unit of life
originally made by God.   Within  each kind is an enormous potential
for variation,  resulting, during the past six thousand years or so,
in a large number of similar animals that scientists  classify  into
species.    Meyer  contends  that  "He created into the reproductive
apparatus  of  genes  and  chromosomes  the  possibility  of endless
hereditary combinations producing the possibility of endless variety
within each 'kind'" (p.37).  By juggling the number of kinds, LaHaye
and Morris reduce the total population  aboard  the  ark  to  50,000
(p.247), Whitcomb  and Morris reduce it to 35,000 (p.69),  while Dr.
Arthur Jones  squeezes  it  down  to  a  bare  bones  total of 1,544
(quoted in Balsiger and Sellier, p.130).


Genetic problems.

Is this  a  valid  argument?    Without  going  into  the details of
genetics,  it can be stated that  every  inherited  trait,   however
small,   is coded for by one or more genes,  and each gene locus may
have a substantial number of variants (alleles),  which accounts for
the great variety  observed  in  a  given population.   Any specific
individual,  however,  has at most only two alleles  per  locus--one
from each parent.  As James C. King writes:

     There  is good evidence for concluding that every message coded
     in the  DNA  exists  in  any  sizeable  population  in numerous
     versions,  forming a spectrum grading  from  grossly  defective
     alleles--such as the one for albinism--at one end,  through the
     slightly  deviant,   to  the normal at the other end.   And the
     normal is probably not a  single  version  of the message but a
     collection of slightly different alleles.  (p.  55)

Hence, for a trait such as human pigmentation, "we can visualize not
merely a few dozen interacting loci but an array of perhaps a  dozen
or so alleles at each locus" (p.60).

From  this we can see that the original canine baramin in Eden would
have needed a fantastic  set  of  giant chromosomes with alleles for
every trait that would someday  be  manifest  in  coyotes,   wolves,
foxes, jackals, dingos, fennecs, and the myriad of minute variations
in hair color (twenty-four genes at nine loci),  height, face shape,
and  so  forth that are seen in the domestic dog (cf.   Hutt).   So,
too,  for the feline  kind,   within which creationists Byron Nelson
(p.157) and Alfred  Rehwinkel  (p.70)  both  place  lions,   tigers,
leopards,   and  ocelots  as  well  as  housecats.    Similar  giant
chromosomes would be required for the bovine kind,  equine kind, and
so on.

In  the centuries before the deluge,  these strange progenitors must
have rapidly diversified into their potential species, as the fossil
record shows.   The equine kind  developed not only zebras,  horses,
onagers,  asses,  and quaggas but Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merychippus,
and   other   now-extinct   species   that   paleontologists    have
misinterpreted   as   evidence   for   evolution.    (Remember  that
creationists hold that the flood  is  responsible  for the burial of
most,  if not all,  fossil species.   Therefore they had to  already
exist prior to the deluge.)

Then one day,  many centuries later,  the Lord told Noah to take two
canines,  two felines,  two equines,  two pinnipedians--one male and
one female each--and put them aboard the ark.   The trick is,  which
does  our  ancient  zoologist  choose?   A male kit fox and a female
Great Dane?   A female lion and a male alley cat?  An Eohippus and a
Clydesdale?   Which  two  individuals  would  possess the tremendous
genetic complement that their ancestors in Eden had,  to enable  the
many species  to  reappear  after  the flood?   How could Noah tell?
Creationist  Dennis  Wagner  tells   us   that  the  original  kinds
degenerated through inbreeding so that their offspring would "_never
again_ reach the hereditary variability of the  parent"  (quoted  in
Awbrey;  my emphasis).   Yet the unique couple aboard the ark needed
the full genetic potential of the original kind,  if not more, for a
vast new  array  of  climatic and geographic niches was opened up by
the flood.

Speaking of a hypothetical group of six or eight animals stranded on
an island,  King  says,   "Such  a  small  number could not possibly
reflect the actual allelic frequencies found in the  large  mainland
population" (p.107).  What, then, of the single pair on the ark?

These  criticisms  apply to the eight humans aboard the boat as well
(Genesis 6:18  and  7:7).    Creationists  still  cling  to obsolete
stereotypes  concerning  the  "three  distinct  families   of   man"
descended  from  Noah's  three sons (Custance,  p.204) and even talk
candidly of the Afro-Asian  "Hamites"  being  "possessed of a racial
character concerned mainly with  mundane  matters"  and  subject  to
displacement by  "the  intellectual  and philosophical acumen of the
Japhethites and the religious  zeal  of  the Semites" (Henry Morris,
1977, p.130).

In reality the ethnic complexity found throughout the  world  cannot
be  derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that
time.   The human genetic pool  was reduced to five individuals--Mr.
and Mrs.   Noah and their daughters-in-law  (the  three  sons  don't
count  because  they only carry combinations of the genes present in
Mr.   and Mrs.   Noah,  unless  creationists are willing to admit to
beneficial gene mutations).  And even if, by some freak coincidence,
the five people never had a variant in common,  there would still be
far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity.   Nearly a
third of human genes  are-polymorphic  (Bodner  and  Cavalli-Sforzi,
p.589), and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with
thirty  varieties  (p.589),  would require substantially more people
than Genesis makes available.

If creationists allowed beneficial  mutations  to produce the thirty
different antigens of the A and B series in the HLA region, it would
still not solve their problem.  Individuals are only heterozygous at
a fairly low percentage of  loci  (5  to  20  percent),   while  the
population  could  be  polymorphic  at  nearly half the loci.   It's
questionable  how  viable  an  individual   would  be  with  a  high
percentage of heterozygosity (Dobzhansky, Ayala, et al., p.72).

Creationist Lane Lester recognizes the force of these facts,  but he
believes that supergenes,  several genes acting in  concert,   would
solve the problem (p.251).  This, however, only confuses the concept
of supergenes,  which control several characters in an organism, not
one,   and  thus cannot produce the observed variety in a population
from two  parents  (cf.    Parkin,   p.141).    How  this horizontal
evolution would be realized is even more  mystifying.    Since  each
generation would   receive   a  huge  set  of  variants,   including
maladaptive recessives,  a  wholly  random  mix of oddball creatures
should result,  and the rapid,  efficient adaptations  necessary  in
the  hostile  post-flood climate would prove impossible.   How could
the arctic fox branch  of  the  canine  baramin be assured that only
those alleles permitting tolerance to extreme cold  would  dominate?
Why  shouldn't freshwater fish hatch offspring manifesting the genes
of their  saltwater  relatives?     Furthermore,   strangely  shaped
chromosomes and odd-numbered sets of them (necessary to contain  the
excess  genes)  usually  disrupt  meiotic  cell division and produce
sterile offspring (White, pp.172, 261).

On the other  hand,   it  seems  puzzling  that such diversification
should occur at all,  for the originally created kinds  were  "good"
and  their  "devolution"  would "reduce the ability of the animal to
survive in nature" (Whitcomb, 1972, p.80); since the baramins, after
all,   prospered  and  replenished   in   the  bleak  desolation  of
post-diluvian  Armenia,   they  should  feel  comfortable   in   any
environment today.    The  impetus for speciation is lacking in this
model, and there is no reason why, say, a snow leopard should evolve
when the superior,  better-fit  "feline-min" migrated into an alpine
environment.   We can only conclude with creationist Walter Lammerts
that "intelligent design" was activating and controlling this entire
process (p.261).


Taxonomic problems.

The taxonomy of kinds is another  bewildering  subject.    The  only
clear  thrust  of  creationist  writing  seems  to be ridiculing the
concept of species,  a  term  usually rendered with quotation marks.
We respond with White that,  "if we were to give up  the  notion  of
species  altogether,   most  discussions  in such fields as ecology,
ethology,  population genetics,   and  cytogenetics  (to name only a
few) would simply become impossible" (p.5).

Aside from this,  the creationist baramin can vary anywhere from the
level of genus to order (Siegler,  1978)--or even to  phylum  (Ward,
p.49)--although there seems to be a vague consensus approximating it
with  the  biological  family.    The most often-cited instance of a
kind,  for example, is the family Canidae, which has fourteen genera
and thirty-five species (Siegler, 1974).   But Sciuridae (squirrels)
has 281 species, and the _genus Rattus_ (old world rats) has several
hundred.   Would  creationists  recognize  the  eighteen families of
bats,   with their eight-hundred-plus species,  as eighteen distinct
kinds,  or would they make  the  order  Chiroptera into a single bat
kind?   Would they  distinguish  the  nearly  thirty  families  (two
thousand  species)  of  catfish?    At  the  other  extreme are many
families with but a single species, and even higher categories, such
as  the  orders   Tubulidentata   (aardvarks)  and  Struthioniformes
(ostriches) or   even   the   phylum   Placozoa,    with   but   one
representative.   Why did the creator endow rats, bats, catfish, and
mosquitos (twenty-five hundred species  in  family  Culicidae)  with
such  adaptive potential but withhold this potential from aardvarks,
ostriches,  and placozoans,   especially  when  we  learn that "each
baramin was intended to move toward maximum variation"  (Ancil,   p.
124)?   What becomes of  the  science  of  taxonomy under this basis
or when the "major categories" (phyla?)  are  sea  monsters,   other
marine animals,  birds,  beasts of the earth,  cattle,  and crawling
animals (Henry Morris, 1974, p.216)?

The  theory  of  kinds  is incoherent and confusing.   Since it runs
counter to all the known facts of genetics and taxonomy,  the burden
of proof is upon  the  creationists  to  verify  it.   Where are the
fossil baramins?   What findings show that such ideal creatures ever
existed?  If complete sets of kind alleles could survive twenty-four
hundred or more years of radiation before the flood,  it  should  be
possible to find specimens today with inexplicably large chromosomal
complements;  perhaps in undiversified families.   Unfortunately for
"baramin  geneticists,"  studies  _have_  been done on such families
(cf.   Loughman,  Frye,  and Herald),  and nothing extraordinary has
been discovered.   Still no experiments are forthcoming from the ICR
to test its hypothesis.   It is, in fact, "armchair science" without
a shred of evidence,  and we  are justified in rejecting it entirely
and assuming that "two of every sort" means two of every species.


                          Leaving Some Things Behind

Nonmarine animals.

Another foil used to lighten the ark is the assertion that many,  in
fact most,  species could  have  survived  outside the ark and,  _eo
ipso_,  did.   Creationists somehow do not mind that this gambit  is
contradicted by Scripture (Genesis 7:4, 23).  So, starting with fish
and  marine  invertebrates,  the list is expanded to include aquatic
mammals,  amphibians, most other invertebrates, sea birds, and "land
animals that could not have  survived otherwise" (LaHaye and Morris,
p.  246),  culminating in John D. Morris's  spectacle  of  dinosaurs
"somehow surviving outside" (1978, p.201; cf.   Whitcomb and Morris,
pp.68-69).   From this it is but a short step to the ancient Eastern
legend that the giant Og of Bashan survived by wading after the ark!
But can the great ship be so easily emptied?

We  can  dismiss the waterlogged Stegosaurus splashing about for 371
days as an idea as absurd as Og of Bashan's big swim; amphibians and
other animals that need some terra  firma  can be passed by as well.
Let's go directly to those creatures that spend all of  their  lives
in the water.

Although  creationists  seem  to think that once you're wet it's all
the  same,   there  are  actually  many  aquatic  regimes  and  many
specialized inhabitants in each.  Some fish live only in cold, clear
mountain  lakes;   others  in  brackish  swamps.    Some  depend  on
splashing,  rocky,  oxygen-rich  creeks,   while  others,  such as a
freshwater dolphin,  a manatee,  and a thirteen-foot catfish,   live
only in the sluggish Amazon.  In all these instances plus many more,
the  environment  provided  by  the deluge waters would have no more
suited these creatures than it would have the desert tortoise or the
polar bear.

The salinity of the oceans would have been substantially affected by
the flood; Whitcomb and Morris lamely address this concern by noting
that some saltwater fish  can  survive  in freshwater and vice versa
and that "some individuals of each kind would  be  able  to  survive
the  gradual  mixing  of the waters and gradual change in salinities
during and after the flood" (p.387).  We are asked to believe that a
storm so vast that the tops  of  the mountains were covered in forty
days  was  so  "gradual"  that  fish  could  adapt  to  these  minor
fluctuations! 

In reality,  although some species can inhabit both fresh and saline
waters,  most freshwater fish dropped in saltwater shrivel and  die,
while  saltwater  fish   dropped   in   freshwater  bloat  and  die.
Creationist E. Norbert Smith theorizes  that  the  denser  saltwater
would  not  have  mixed  with  the  flood's freshwater and thus both
varieties  of  fish  could  have  made  it  through.    But  his own
experiment,  in which a goldfish thoroughly mingled the two types of
water in a fishbowl in fifteen days,  shows how long the  separation
would  last  during the violent shiftings of the earth called for in
the creationist flood model. 


Marine animals.

Arguing  over  salinity  is,   however,   a  moot  point,   for  the
environmental hazards of the flood had to be so great that the  salt
content  would  be  a fish's least concern.   We must remember that,
according to creationists, the deluge, in one year's time, deposited
nearly all of the sedimentary rocks present in the world today.   To
get some idea of  how  muddy  this  would  be,   we should note that
creationist flood theorists maintain that the original ocean  basins
were  greatly  enlarged  to  their  present  depths  to  receive the
retreating flood waters (Whitcomb,  1973,  pp.   35, 38); therefore,
the quantity of water in the  oceans is basically equivalent to that
of the flood.   This volume is 1,350 x l0^6 cubic kilometers.    The
volume   of  Phanerozoic  sedimentary  rock  ("flood  deposits")  is
654x10^6 cubic kilometers (Blatt, Middleton, and Murray, p.34).  The
ratio of water to rock is  thus 2.06:1.   Try mixing two parts water
to one part sand;  double or even triple the equivalent to  that  of
the flood.   Try mixing two parts water to one part sand;  double or
even  triple  the  amount  of  the  water,   and then stick your pet
goldfish into the muck and see how long it lives!

Then,  too,   most  of  the  world's  volcanic  activity,  sea-floor
spreading,  mountain-building,  and continent-splitting was supposed
to have occurred at this  time  as  well,   filling  the  seas  with
additional huge volumes of rock,  ash, and noxious gases.   Undersea
volcanoes   usually  decimate  all  life  in  the  surrounding  area
(Buljan),  and their extent  had  to  be global during this terrible
year.   The earth's prediluvian surface would thus have been scoured
clean,   and  forests,   multi-ton  boulders,   and  the  debris  of
civilization hurtled about like missiles.   Finally, this tremendous
explosion of energy would have transformed the seas into  a  boiling
cauldron in which no life could possibly survive.

Accurate  calculations are nearly impossible,  given the creationist
penchant for  vagueness;   but  by  multiplying  the  amount of heat
generated during a typical volcanic eruption (cf.   Macdonald, p.60;
Bullard,  p.288) by the total volume of  such  material  (Macdonald,
pp.350-351)--most  of  which would have poured out in the few months
under consideration--we arrive  at  a mind-boggling 3.65 _octillion_
calories.   This is enough to raise the temperature of the oceans by
more than 2700oC!   Obviously,  nearly any concessions,  any margins
of error, can be granted to the creationists within their geological
framework and the flood water  would  remain  a  churning,   boiling
inferno, easily accomplishing God's intention of destroying the 
world.

Yet  amidst  all  of this,  creationist icthyologists aver that life
went on as usual,   with  a  few  minor adjustments to the "gradual"
changes.  The salmon swam to their (long-vanished) riparian breeding
grounds that fall as they always had;  sea anemones clung  to  their
rocky  perches,   which  were on the beach one month and the abyssal
plain the next;   blue  whales  continued  to  strain for krill even
though their baleen plates were choked with mud; corals,  which grow
in clear,  shallow water,   somehow  grew  anyway;   hapless  bottom
dwellers,   their  lives carefully adjusted to certain conditions of
pressure and temperature,  suddenly saw  the former increase by more
than 5,000 pounds per square inch and the latter  fluctuate  in  who
knows what directions. 

Backhaus  tells  us that "aquatic species would pay for any attempts
at acclimatization with their  lives  or,   at  any rate,  would not
survive for very long"  (p.194).    Most  are  highly  sensitive  to
changes  in salinity,  temperature,  light,  oxygen,  and even trace
elements (cf.   Bond; Hill).  The conclusion is unavoidable: barring
a special miracle from God,   nothing but the hardiest microorganism
could have survived the flood outside the ark. 

Of course,   the  omnipotent  deity  could  have  performed  several
million  individual  miracles  and  preserved representatives of the
invertebrates,  fishes,  amphibians,  and even dinosaurs outside the
ark;  but,  if so,  why not extend the coverage to the few remaining
terrestrial  vertebrates  and  dispense  with  the  boat altogether?
Again,  by some freak combination of luck,  we may imagine one  male
and   one   female   octopus  surviving  the  disaster  and  somehow
encountering each other between Japan  and California to renew their
species,  but the only way Noah,  as designated curator of the world
zoo,  could have guaranteed their persistence was by  bringing  them
aboard.    We  must conclude,  therefore,  that every species of the
animal kingdom had at least two members within the ark.


Adult animals.

So now we  are  back  to  fitting  all  the  animals on board.   Yet
creationists still have  another  method  of  saving  space.    They
postulate  that  many full-grown adult animal forms were left behind
and that only young  and  thus  smaller specimens were taken or--the
ultimate economy--that eggs were sufficient for the preservation  of
the dinosaurs (John Morris, 1980, p.66).   Most zoologists, however,
would  agree  with  Neill when he writes that "the mortality rate is
usually very high among seedling plants and young animals;  but once
the critical juvenile  stage  is  passed,   the  organism has a good
chance of reaching old age" (p.388).  In birds, for example, as many
as 80 percent die before reaching maturity (Dathe)-- facing everyday
hazards.   Furthermore,  the young of many  species  cannot  survive
without parental care and feeding (imagine two tiny unweaned kittens
shivering in their stalls!),  and,  even if they can,  the lack of a
normal   social  environment  often  results  in  severe  behavioral
disturbances.   The luckless animals aboard the ark were confronting
the gravest challenge to their endurance ever known, and they needed
to be the strongest,   healthiest,   and most virile representatives
their species had ever produced; juveniles would not do.  As for the
dinosaur eggs,  how did Noah know whether one would yield a  female,
the other a male--or even that both were fertile?  And since no eggs
require  a  year's  gestation,   he  soon  would have had a hoard of
fragile hatchlings on his hands. 



Plants and seeds.

Noah's responsibilities did not end with animals, for without plants
all life would perish.   Whitcomb  and  Morris grant that many seeds
were aboard the ark in the  food  stores  (p.70)  but  quote  fellow
creationist  Walter  Lammerts to the effect that "many thousands" of
plants survived either upon their  own  "arks" of floating debris or
simply by experiencing a rather thorough watering and then  sprouted
again as soon as the sun came out.   George Howe,  too, referring to
an  experiment  where three of five species showed germination after
twenty weeks of soaking in  sea  water,  concluded that the survival
rate  through  dormancy  would  have  been  high  (December   1968).
However, two of these three sprouted only when their seed coats were
scarified  (cut).    This presents a special problem.   The abrasive
force of the deluge would have easily scarified the seed coats,  but
this would have been too soon.   The seeds would have sprouted under
water and died.   But after  the  flood waters receded and the seeds
were  exposed  to  dry  land,   what  would  guarantee  their  being
scarified then?  Howe's experiments failed to properly duplicate the
conditions required by the flood model and hence his work offers  no
support for seed survival during the deluge.

In reality, seed dormancy is a complex affair and involves metabolic
and  environmental prerequisites for entrance into and recovery from
the state as well as several forms of quiescence.  The vast majority
of seeds  which  become  dormant  do  so  in  order  to  endure cold
temperatures or prolonged drought, and in the warm flood waters most
would germinate immediately and then drown for lack of  oxygen  (cf.
Villiers). 

The waters weren't the only thing that would bury them, however, for
huge  deposits  of  silt and lava would have been laid down as well,
entombing entire  forests  and  paving  the  way  for  coal  and oil
formation.   Today the surface of the ground consists of 80  percent
Phanerozoic  rock  and only 20 percent Precambrian ("pre-diluvian"),
the latter found mostly in large shields and entirely absent in many
areas (Kummel,  p.87).    These  shields  themselves would have been
eroded to the bedrock by the flooding ("the  vegetation  would  have
been uprooted .   . .   leaving no protection at all for the exposed
soils"-- Whitcomb and Morris,  p.261),  and in the rest of the world
the  few  seeds  that may have survived would have faced the task of
pushing up a sprout through thousands of feet of mud and rock.

Floating is also unsatisfactory as a  means of riding out the storm.
Less than 1 percent  of  sermatophytes  produce  disseminules  which
drift  for as long as one month,  much less a year (Gunn and Dennis,
p.4).   And although many  debris  rafts  could have been torn loose
during the early days of the storm, such vessels tend to break up in
rough water (Zimmerman,  p.57),  so they would not have lasted  very
long.    If somehow a few of them did,  how would they know where to
unload their precious cargo afterward? 

Suppose,  for example,  that  a  hefty  chunk  was torn loose from a
densely grown forest and managed to swing through  a  sparse  desert
area,   where such rafts presumably wouldn't form,  to pick up seeds
from a few rare cacti.   After a year at sea, what is the likelihood
that these seeds would be dropped  in an area where the temperature,
rainfall,  soil,  and light would be suitable for their growth?   As
the retreating waters evaporated, the topsoil would become saturated
with salts much like the beds of dry lakes in arid regions,  and all
but the hardiest halophilic plants would find the ground  too  toxic
for  any  growth.   Seawater contains thirty-five grams of salts per
liter,  and most plants cannot tolerate one-tenth this concentration
(Levitt,  p.371);  the residue  left  in  the  soil would clearly be
excessive.  Finally, assuming that some seeds did reach a survivable
spot, how long would their flowers have to wait before the birds and
insects arrived from Ararat to cross-polinate them?   Could the many
species indigenous to the New World hold on while the  transatlantic
trip was made? 

Isaac Asimov observes that the ancient Hebrews did not regard plants
as  alive  in  the same sense animals are (p.49);  therefore they no
doubt  had  no  problem  picturing  olive  trees  enduring  a year's
drowning   and   sprouting    immediately    afterward.      Today's
fundamentalists should have learned some botany since then, but they
still  carry  on  about  the  "hardiness"  of  olives  (Whitcomb and
Morris,  p.105),  and Nathan Meyer  knows of a bristlecone pine that
was five hundred years old when the big  rains  came  and  is  still
living (p.42)! 

If  we  are  to  take  the  deluge  seriously,  we must be much more
skeptical about such stories.   The  creationists need to soak seeds
in very deep,  muddy water  for  a  year  and  then  plant  them  in
unconsolidated,  briny silt in an unfavorable climate without insect
or   avian   pollinators   to   see   what   happens.    Have  their
mathematicians,   so  skilled  at  calculating  improbabilities  for
protein formation,  ever determined the  odds of a seed enduring the
flood and then landing in the right soil  and  climate  rather  than
being  swept  out  to sea by the retreating waters or coming down in
Antarctica? 

It seems that Noah needed to  have  not merely "many" seeds but many
samples of all the seeds and spores of the 420,000-plus  species  of
plants  in  order to guarantee their survival--or else we must tally
up a few million more miracles of divine preservation.


                              Sizing Up the Load

Getting an accurate count.

We can finally begin to  make  some calculations.   Robert D. Barnes
lists the number of living species for each phylum, ranging from the
sole member of Placozoa to the 923,000 in Arthropoda (pp.12, 85-88).
Using his figures, we arrive at a total of 1,177,920 species.

In addition, there are many animals that are as yet unknown.   Wendt
estimates that only 2 percent of all the parasitic worms are  known,
which  would  easily  add  another million species (p.   83).   This
includes as many as  500,000  nematodes,   although only 15,000 have
been described (Levine,  p.1).   Ten thousand new species of insects
are discovered every year,  yet still only a small fraction of those
in existence have been found (Atkins, p.45). 

All of those creatures were known at one time,  for Adam  gave  them
all names (Genesis 2:19-20),  and, since they exist today, they must
have  been  on  the ark.   But we shall be extremely generous to the
creationists and add only 500,000 undiscovered species to our figure
of 1,177,920--thus giving a  mere  1,677,920 species with which Noah
had to contend. 

To this number,  we must  add  the  myriad  of  extinct  prehistoric
animals,  which creationists assure us were alive at the time of the
flood,   making tracks in the Paluxy River,  and which were known to
Job afterward (John Morris, 1980, p.65).  This would vastly increase
the numbers,  since "only a tiny  percentage of the animal and plant
species that have ever  existed  are  alive  today"  (Kear,   p.10).
However,   since  creationists do not believe in transitional forms,
we can again give them the benefit of the doubt and add to our total
only the 200,000 different fossils  that have been described.   This
brings the number to 1,877,920 species or animal pairs that were  to
be boarded onto the ark. 

Of  course,  we can't forget that Genesis 7:2-3 (particularly in the
Revised Standard Version) makes  it  clear that only unclean animals
come in single pairs,  male and female;  the clean animals and birds
come in seven pairs,  male and female.   That means fourteen of each
clean animal and each bird.   But since figures for  the  number  of
clean animals are hard to find, we will have to let creationists off
the hook and ignore them.  Birds are another story.  There are 8,590
species of birds.   Since they have already been calculated into our
figure  of  1,877,920 species or 3,755,840 individual animals on the
ark,  we need only six more pairs of each species of bird to make it
come out to seven pairs.   That brings our count up to a grand total
of 3,858,920 animals aboard  the  ark--two  of each species,  except
birds which number fourteen each. 



Problems with the biblical limits.

This figure may seem excessive at first glance, but in reality it is
so small as to be unrealistic.  Many animals need more than a single
pair to reproduce.   Bees  and  other hymenopterans live in colonies
and "apart from the community [they]  cannot  properly  function  or
survive"  (Lindauer,   p.l28).    Many  types  of  flies  engage  in
reproductive  swarming.    Some  birds will not mate unless they are
part of a flock (Conway,   p.205;   Kleiman,  p.255),  and many fish
spawn only as part of a school (Bond,  p.434).   In fact,   "animals
which  unite  into  colonies  for purposes of reproduction are by no
means rare phenomena" (Wendt, p.118).

The whole process of mating, egg-laying, gestation, and the survival
of the fragile young is a  risky business that can easily be aborted
by many factors,  including predators,  disease,   exposure  to  the
elements,  and so on.   In many species of spiders, given the chance
the female will kill and devour the male _before_ they mate;  on the
ark,   the hapless husband would have to be particularly fleetfooted
or his wife would unwittingly exterminate her species!   Infanticide
is another  significant  concern  and  occurs  frequently even among
primates.   Dayflies, so named because their mature stage lasts only
a few hours,  form a tiny cloud of dancing males trying  to  attract
females,  with a successful mating rate of at most 1 percent (Wendt,
p.135).     Even   the   prodigious   rabbits  fare  poorly  outside
many-chambered   warrens,    the   work   of   numerous  individuals
(Andrewartha, p.134). 

Locating one's mate can also be tricky.   The Sumatran rhino depends
on communication points in its range,  and, if it can't visit these,
it loses contact with others and reproduction doesn't occur  (Lang).
The tick,  _Ixodes ricinus_, mates only on a sheep which must browse
through  a  field  and  by  chance  pick up both a male and a female
tick--and even then these  poor  crawlers  can't find one another if
they are too far apart on the  sheep's  body  (Andrewartha,   p.55).
Imagine the microscopic parasites of a bull elephant, limited to two
per  species  by  Sacred Writ,  searching for each other on the vast
cosmos of their host's body! 

Competitive social  behavior  between  males  is  often necessary to
achieve successful androgen levels (Kleiman,  p.247);   an  isolated
male is effectively impotent.   Individual incompatibility between a
pair  of  animals  is another commonplace,  often thwarting the most
determined zoo keepers' efforts at breeding.

All told,  with but a single  male and female apiece,  or even seven
pairs of birds and clean animals,  every species on earth  would  be
well below the margin of endangerment, and the chances of successful
survival,  especially in the devastation of the post-diluvian world,
would  be  so  small that they can be considered nil.   Conservation
biologists  estimate  a  minimum  size  of  fifty  for  a  species's
survival.   Hence our grand total could be multiplied many times and
still represent only the most tenuous hold of life on earth. 

Was there room enough on the ark?   It contained 450x75x45=1,518,750
cubic feet of space if it  was  exactly rectangular with no curve on
the keel or elsewhere.   Part of this was occupied by  the  quarters
for  Noah  and his family.   Room had to be provided for the orderly
compartmentalization of plants and  seeds.   An immense storage area
for food,  fresh water, and waste was needed.   Also, the ark had to
have corridors throughout,  large enough  for  the  passage  of  the
bulkiest animals to their stalls when boarding and unboarding and at
least large enough for the crew to pass into the most remote corners
of the vessel.  There would finally be a considerable volume lost in
wood alone;  the decks,  larger cages,  supporting beams,  and so on
would  occupy  a  considerable space.   The six-masted schooners had
keelsons 7 feet high and 8 feet  wide running the full length of the
hull and often used 20 x 20 inch beams (Snow);  the switch  to  iron
construction  increased cargo capacity by upwards of 20 percent (cf.
Hutchins, p.443). 

If we conservatively allow all  of  these requirements to consume 30
percent of the space, this leaves 1,063,125 cubic feet to be divided
among the nearly 4 million animals,  resulting in a mere 0.275 cubic
foot per individual!  No arrangement of cages, however ingenious, no
high-density packing of minute invertebrates, could squeeze everyone
into this amount of room.   For comparison,  a sable antelope or red
hartebeest needs a crate of 57 cubic feet for the brief journey from
capture to quarantine; a zebra, 77 cubic feet; medium-sized giraffe,
99;  eland,  110; hippopotamus or small elephant,  214 (adapted from
Hirst, p.121).   These seven species alone, male and female, require
more than 5,600 times the allotment per specimen  for  a  trip  that
rarely exceeds three days.   For the 371 days of the flood, the area
would need to be greatly enlarged--for crowding and lack of exercise
would be extremely detrimental,  if not fatal, to most (cf.   Young,
p.137; Voss,  p.157).   Many birds must have high roofs with room to
fly,   and  even  a  pond snail needs a gallon of water for adequate
living (Orlans, p.85). 

Probably the greatest  space  requirements  are  involved in keeping
aquatic organisms.   Many fish swim continually, even when sleeping,
and the general rule is 100 gallons of water  per  pound  of  animal
weight (Atz, p.180).  Gruber and Keyes state that "the primary cause
of mortality in captive pelagic sharks is that their living space is
not  large enough" (p.376).   Marineland of the Pacific has an 80x22
foot circular whale  stadium  of  640,000  gallons,  containing four
small whales and some dolphins;  the many large whales would  occupy
aquaria "the size of a football stadium" (Hill, p.151). 

All of this would have constituted a tremendous weight.  Filby would
put a mere hundred tons of animals aboard,  with a few thousand tons
of supplies (cited by Montgomery,  p.58).   However,  a mature sheep
(the  creationists' average-sized animal) weighs 120 pounds,  and at
this rate the vertebrates alone  would exceed 4,500 tons.   When the
huge volume of food and drinking water, the hundreds of thousands of
gallons in the aquaria,  and the  giant  dinosaurs  and  prehistoric
mammals are included,  it is clear that the ark would have sunk like
a brick the moment it was launched.

At  this  stage,   further  discussion  of  the overcrowding becomes
rather pointless.    We  leave  the  conundrum  in  the  laps of the
creationists, recalling the words of theologian Johannes Weiss, "The
apologists .   . .   can get the better  of  any  historical  result
whatever"  (quoted in Schweitzer,  p.234).   Perhaps God performed a
miraculous miniturization on the animals;  as the flood legend takes
on more and more  of  an  Alice-in-Wonderland air,  anything becomes
possible. 

Before moving on,  we must briefly  take  note  of  an  argument  so
popular that nearly every ark theorist uses it: that the interior of
the  ark  could  have  held  literally  hundreds  of  standard-sized
railroad stock cars and thus was quite roomy.  But while the figures
for rail car size and capacity are cited with fair accuracy, ignored
is  the  federal  law  which requires a train on a long haul to stop
every twenty-eight hours,  to unload  the  stock,  to feed and water
them,  and to give them a five-hour rest period (Ensminger, p.1062).
This may be just a minor inconvenience to American ranchers,  but it
would have been  quite  impossible  for  Noah.    Thus  the  analogy
collapses.  The fact that every creationist has triumphantly trotted
out  his  train  statistics,   yet  overlooked  this  decisive flaw,
demonstrates once again the sloppiness of creationists' research.


                             Gathering the Cargo

Animal migration.

Having drawn up a passenger list,   the next order of business is to
gather them all at dockside.    At  this  point,   the  creationists
themselves are unable to propound any sort of scenario in which Noah
and  his  sons  could  perform  such  a feat,  so they resort to the
convenient dumping  ground  of  the  inexplicable:   miracles.   God
himself intervened by  implanting  in  the  chosen  pair  from  each
species  the  instinct  of  migration,   and  by this mechanism they
gathered from the  four  corners  of  the  world  and headed for the
Plains of Shinar (Witcomb,  p. 30).   LaHaye and Morris (p.251) even
spice things up  with  an  added  ability  to  instinctively  "sense
imminent danger," but in any event a cheetah here,  a penguin there,
here an ant, there an ant, all dropped what they were doing and made
a  beeline for the ark.   That this is not too farfetched we can see
today, say creationists, for many animals still migrate, and this is
the most "scientific" explanation available  for their ability to do
so. 

A closer look reveals that a miracle is indeed  called  for  in  the
gathering  of the animals,  but it is a much larger and more complex
one than merely imparting "premonition" and migration.  In the first
place,  a glance at Jarman's  Atlas of _Animal Migration_ shows that
of all the birds,  fish,  and terrestrial animals  whose  paths  are
shown,   only  one,  the common crane of southern Russia,  currently
migrates to  the  Mesopotamian  Valley.    Therefore,   God not only
programmed the animals to go to Noah's place before the flood,   but
afterward  he  deprogrammed  most  of them and rerouted all the rest
except the common crane--a  reverse  miracle.   Incidentally,  it is
noteworthy that many aquatic creatures  migrate,   a  faculty  whose
origins   the   creationists   find  incomprehensible  unless  these
creatures were also sent to the ark. 


Climatic zones.

However accurate their suddenly acquired instinct,  for many animals
it could not have been  enough to overcome the geographical barriers
between them and the ark.   The endemic  fauna  of  the  New  World,
Australia,   and other remote regions,  as well as animals unable to
survive the Near Eastern  environment,   would  find the journey too
difficult no matter how desperately they yearned to go.

Flood theorists are unperturbed by such obstacles, however, for they
simply gerrymander the map to  give  us  an  antediluvian  world  of
undivided  continents  and  a  uniform,   semitropical,   springlike
climate,   and--_presto_!--all the animals become evenly distributed
and hence within a  short  stroll  of  the ark (Whitcomb and Morris,
p.64).   But this resolves one question only to raise  another:   in
such  a  world,   where did the animals which are found today in the
arctic,  desert,  alpine,  and other specialized postdiluvian niches
live?   The polar bear, caribou, walrus, yak, snow leopard, and many
more would suffocate in the warm tropics; many desert dwellers could
not have endured the excessive humidities they would have 
encountered.

Creationists would no  doubt  respond  that  these creatures evolved
within their " kinds" after the flood,  but we  have  already  found
that concept so vague as to be meaningless.  Besides, since in their
chronology  the  ice age immediately followed the deluge and started
freezing woolly mammoths, the rapidity of intra-kind evolution would
be far greater than  any  Darwinist  ever dreamed possible and there
could be no logical justification for  continuing  to  rage  against
interkind transformation.  On the other hand, there may have been a 
small desert here, a tiny tundra there, to house these specimens for
the  few  centuries  from  the  creation  to  the time their regular
habitats appeared, but that puts us back on square one wondering how
they struggled through the heat and humidity to the ark.

Other creatures had it even rougher.   Hundreds of species live only
in caves and are so  sensitive  that  many cannot survive in caverns
just slightly different from their own and many  may  be  killed  by
exposure  to light (Vandel,  pp.37,  399).   For these cavernicoles,
even a very short journey  from  their homes would prove impossible.
Could Noah have fetched them himself  to  save  them  from  a  fatal
march?     Could   he   have   distinguished   the  293  species  of
pseudoscorpions and picked out a male and female of each? 

Aquatic animals would also find the trip challenging. Did all the
representatives of the oceans,   lakes,   and streams overcome their
sensitivities to normally lethal changes in environmental conditions
and swim up the ancient Euphrates or the "mighty  Hiddekel"  to  the
docks  nearest  the  ark?    How did the many sessile species,  from
sponges and corals to anemones and barnacles,  detach themselves and
waddle through however brief a  trip  it  may have been?   A problem
analogous to that of terrestrial arctic and  desert  dwellers  would
be  the  exotic  inhabitants  of  the abyssal and hadal zones of the
ocean depths.   In this instance,  too, creationists have postulated
only shallow seas before the  deluge,  precluding the very existence
of deep-sea dwellers.   In reply,  we again insist either that  such
accelerated   evolution   occurred  that  creationists  have  argued
themselves out of a job  or  else  that there was a trench somewhere
in the "shallow seas" specifically for these organisms.


Parasites and diseases.

Some important complications arise  with  that  extensive  group  of
organisms known as parasites.   Hundreds of thousands of species are
known,   and  a  very large proportion of them are host specific and
must spend all  or  part  of  their  lives  within  the host animal.
Therefore the single pair of animals from each species had to  carry
aboard  the  ark the parasites that were adapted to living within or
upon them.   Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others
are pathogenic and often fatal  to  their  host.   Yet the fact that
such organisms exist today demonstrates  _that_  they  survived  the
flood,   and  the fact that they must inhabit their host shows _how_
they survived. 

The example of  _Homo  sapiens_  will  show  the  seriousness of the
problem.   Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites,   and
many are host specific.  Although the four species of human malarial
parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo
further  development  in humans.   Hence,  a member of Noah's family
must have had  malaria  at  some  point  in  his  life and must have
remained  infected  after  the  flood   until   the   earth   became
sufficiently  repopulated  that  the parasite passed to others.   In
similar manners,  the vectors of many other parasitic infections are
also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms _Taenia saginata_ and
_T.   solium_,   the  intestinal  worm  _Ascaris lumbricoides_,  the
hookworm _Leishmania tropia_, the pinworm _Enterobius vermicularis_,
three agents of filariasis,  two species  of  _Schistosoma_,   three
species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones).  Also, of course, the
five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their
human abode. 

These  eight  unfortunate  souls were afflicted with enough diseases
and  discomforts  to  support  a  hospital--all  as  their  part  in
"preserving life" through the great  flood.   And nearly every other
animal on board--from Shem's lice to the right whales--had parasites
of their own to cope with.  What remarkable creatures they must have
been;  in order  to  ensure  their  survival  they  had  to  be  the
strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same
time  they  had  to carry a full set of debilitating parasites so as
to guarantee _their_ survival.

How was Noah assured that  the proper complement of viable tapeworms
was present in each rodent and each lizard waiting to  come  aboard?
How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny
stalls?    If a prospective passenger was lacking an essential flea,
what could be done?  Was there opportunity to correct any errors?


Verifying sex.

If just one  of  the  teeming  hoard  of  animals  turned  out to be
sterile,  that species would become  extinct.    Could  Noah  verify
everyone's  fertility?   For that matter,  could he even verify that
the couple on the gangplank were male and female,  when a great many
animals,  including 30 percent of  the  birds and even some mammals,
are sexually monomorphic and cannot be distinguished without  modern
veterinary  techniques  or  even  hormonal analysis?   Most fish are
indeterminant as juveniles and will  only become male or female when
mature (Bond,  pp.415-416), while some female worms will change into
males when starved (Hapgood,  p.78).   No wonder Segraves proposes a
miracle here (p.16). 

Creationists insist on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis;
so when those animals which reproduce by asexual  budding,   or  the
over  one  thousand thelytokous (all-female) species from insects to
lizards,  converged toward the  ark,   another special miracle would
have been called for to fulfill the explicit command  to  take  both
male and female aboard.   By the time Noah encountered the sea star,
_Asterina  gibbosa_,   which  begins  life  as a male and eventually
becomes female,  he must have  been  ready  to throw in the towel in
frustration. 


Difficulties of Travel.

The journey of the animals presents other remarkable facets.    They
traveled over hill, over dale, through the dense jungles, and across
the  mighty Edenic rivers without a single accident.   No limbs were
broken,  no drownings occurred.   Amazingly, not one perished at the
paws of a predator;   from  the  tastiest  earthworm to the freshest
frog,  all marched past the hungry inhabitants of  the  forest  with
impunity.   Orr stresses that "migration is hazardous.   For species
that  engage  in  long  migrations  it  may be a great strain on the
bodies of the participants.   There  may be extended periods without
food as  well  as  long  hours  of  travel....    Attrition  through
predation may be higher during migration" (p.   239).  He also notes
that  getting lost can be a problem,  especially for those traveling
singly as opposed to flocks  and  herds (pp.175,  240).   But if the
divine instinct often fails today's travelers,  what chance did such
unlikely way-farers as eyeless cave fish,  giant  sloths,   and  sea
urchins have of locating a specific acre in Asia?  St.   Christopher
was  clearly  in his finest hour,  performing literally thousands of
miracles every day. 


The botanical garden.

Perhaps with a vivid  imagination  we  can  picture this divine Pied
Piper saga in action;  but no such excuse can  save  Noah  from  his
responsibility  for  gathering  the seeds of the nearly half million
plants that survived the  flood.    No premonition,  however urgent,
could cause a pine cone to commence rolling toward the ark;  someone
would have to go get it.   Our biblical botanists would have  to  be
able  to identify fertile seeds and spores,  find them at the proper
season,  and make sure that  the  storage  area aboard ship would be
suitable.   In the damp depths of the ark,  most seeds would  either
rot or sprout and then die for lack of nutrients and light.  How did
Noah  prepare  and  maintain  the  special  low-humidity  containers
necessary  to  ensure  their dormancy?   How did he control insects,
rodents,  and fungi?    Seed  storage  is  a complex technology and,
without proper techniques,  "no seed can maintain its viability  for
long" (Thomson, p. 100).

In  addition,   God told Noah to gather food for the various animals
(Genesis 6:21),   many  of  whom,   as  we  shall  see,  have highly
specialized diets.   Hence,  even if the animals could reach the ark
unaided, an overwhelming burden would be placed upon our heroes with
regard to the plant kingdom. 



Boarding the ark.

At last this remarkable menagerie gathered before the gaping door of
the great ship.   Still the  protective aura hovered over them,  for
natural enemies stood side by side  without  conflict:   the  mighty
carnivores  ignored  countless opportunities to fill their stomachs;
the  panicky  impulses  of  animals  in  strange  surroundings  were
subdued; even the centipedes and beetles escaped extinction from the
chance misstep of the  elephant.   This surreal tranquility extended
to animals that were not among the elect--for the sounds and  smells
of  the  teeming  throng  undoubtedly  piqued  the  interest  of the
denizens of the surrounding jungle,  yet none of them took advantage
of having a meal spread out before them on a silver platter.

The peaceful scene was about to come to an abrupt end, however.  All
at once the command went  forth  to  board the ark,  and pandemonium
erupted.   The Bible emphasizes  that  all  the  animals  and  human
passengers  entered  the  ark  on  the _same_ day (Genesis 7:11-15).
Simple division of our grand total shows that 44.66 creatures had to
dash up the gangplank and through  the door every second in order to
fill the ark within twenty-four hours!   Even if we grant  that  the
parasites could hitch a ride with their hosts and many insects could
go  through  at  once,   and  if  we  simply  count  the vertebrates
(including the seven pairs of birds), this still averages out to two
per second.   This was not  merely  a  mad scramble for the door but
involved weaving through the intricate maze of corridors  until  the
correct  cage--that one specific stall exactly designed to meet that
animal's needs--was located,   entered,   and secured.   It includes
Noah's unenviable  task  of  getting  clams  and  piranhas,   barely
visible mites, and killer whales, into their quarters.   How did our
overworked  crewmen  wrestle all the huge aquatic creatures from the
river to their aquaria in  half  a second,  especially when improper
handling can severely injure such animals?   How did the  "migratory
instinct"  guide  the  panicy  porcupine  to  the right stall in the
twinkling of an eye? 

Looking back over this  entire  wonderful journey,  from the flicker
of illumination that separated two grazing gazelles from their  herd
to the frantic stampede to their stalls,  one can only conclude that
Jehovah  should  have  had access to a _Star Trek_ script and simply
beamed the animals aboard,  saving  everyone a whole heap of trouble
and conserving a substantial supply of his own mirific energy.

                              Surviving the Flood

Those that died.

No sooner  had  the  last  snail  slithered  aboard  than  the  Lord
accommodated Noah once again by supernaturally shutting the enormous
door  of the ark (Genesis 7:16).   From this moment on,  the die was
cast,  and everyone outside the ark was doomed.   Sinful man and all
his works were to be washed away. 

It is worthwhile to pause here  and  wonder what became of this lost
world,  especially when we learn that it may have  had  as  many  as
twenty-five  _billion_  inhabitants and a fairly high cultural level
(Henry Morris,  1977,  p.80).   Yet aside from some supposedly human
footprints in early strata and two insignificant artifacts (Balsiger
and Sellier,  pp.44-45),  not  a  trace  of this civilization or its
renowned giants has ever been found.   All of  the  hominid  fossils
that  have  been  found--from Olduvai Gorge to the caves of France--
represent  degenerate  post-diluvian  tribes  (Kofahl  and Segraves,
pp.130-131).   Henry  Morris  (1974,   p.119)  suggests  that  these
billions  of  people  fled  to the mountains and thus escaped burial
while their cities were entombed  so  deeply  that they can never be
found.  What remarkable tenacity these prediluvians had, clinging to
the mountain tops even though they were submerged for five months as
the waters surged "to and fro" !   And their  cities  wouldn't  have
been  buried  any deeper than the ocean floor dwellers whose fossils
are exposed abundantly.   With Nelson,   we are forced once again to
the _deus ex machina_: "_It was God's deliberate purpose to leave no
vestige of prediluvian man remaining_" (p.161, his emphasis).

The flood not only destroyed wicked humanity.   All of the  innocent
creatures  on earth suffered and died in this God-ordained cataclysm
(Genesis 7:21-23).  Why?  Whitcomb and Morris reveal that "sub-human
creatures" which have been used  as  instruments of sin are punished
(p.465).   But surely every animal on earth, many of which had never
even seen a human,  didn't deserve to be summarily  drowned.    What
cruel hand of fate selected the two of each species to board the ark
leaving all the others behind without hope?  These issues are beyond
the  scope  of this article,  but we merely mention them to indicate
some of the many additional  quandaries  a literal acceptance of the
flood story entails. 


The size and effects of the flood.

We have alluded to the immensity of the deluge already, but to really
appreciate it we should savor some of the remarks of the experts:

    The Flood was accompanied by violent movements  of  the  earth's
    crust   and  by  volcanic  activity  of  momentous  proportions.
    Tremendous tidal waves and  rushing  currents scoured and deeply
    eroded the continental surface.   Entire forests were ripped  up
    and  transported large distances to be dumped where the currents
    slowed.  (Kofahl and Segraves, p.226) 

    Even after the first forty days,  when the greatest of the rains
    and upheavals diminished,   the  Scriptures  say that the waters
    "prevailed" upon the earth for one hundred and ten days  longer.
    This  statement  .    . .   would certainly imply that extensive
    hydraulic and sedimentary  activity  continued  for a long time,
    with  many  earlier  flood  deposits   perhaps   re-eroded   and
    reworked....   The only way in which land could now appear again
    would be for a tremendous orogeny to take place.  Mountains must
    arise  and  new basins must form to receive the great overburden
    of  water  imposed  upon  the  earth.    (Whitcomb  and  Morris,
    pp.266-267) 

    Yielding of the crust at  even one point,  with resultant escape
    of magmas and water or steam, would then lead to earth movements
    causing further fractures until,  as the Scriptures  portray  so
    graphically,   "the same day were all the fountains of the great
    deep broken up"  (Genesis  7:11).    Truly  this  was a gigantic
    catastrophe,  beside which the explosion of the largest hydrogen
    bomb, or of hundreds of such bombs, becomes insignificant! 
    (Whitcomb and Morris, pp.242-243)

    The worldwide ocean of the  Genesis  flood  was  swept  by  wind
    storms  that  would  make  modern  tornadoes seem like a zephyr.
    (Schmich, p.121) 

    There are perhaps five  hundred  active  volcanoes in the world,
    and possibly three times  that  many  extinct  volcanoes.    But
    nothing  ever  seen  by  man in the present era can compare with
    whatever the phenomena were which  caused the formation of these
    tremendous structures.  (Whitcomb, 1973, p.85) 

For once we  can  agree  that  creationist  rhetoric  has  not  been
exaggerated.     A  cataclysm  that  could  accomplish  the  largest
percentage of the  geological  activity  in  earth's  history in one
year--events that uniformitarians assign to billions of years--would
be so overwhelming that we cannot begin to imagine what it would  be
like.    Yet  into  the  jaws of destruction sailed a rickety wooden
boat--oversized,  leaky and unsound,   carrying a cargo whose safety
and protection was all important!   It is utterly inconceivable that
it could have survived even a few days  of  this  maelstrom  without
being blasted to splinters--unless it was protected by the unceasing
intervention of the deity. 



The survival of the ark.

Curiously,   when  the  talk   turns   to   the  fate  of  the  ark,
diluviologists suddenly paint a much rosier picture.   Whitcomb, for
example,  has read that tsunamis (so-called tidal waves) in the open
sea are of such low amplitude as to be hardly noticeable  and  would
"thus have had very little effect on Noah's Ark" (1973, p.73).   But
why mention these and omit wind-driven waves,  which have been known
to  exceed  one  hundred  feet in an ordinary hurricane?   The winds
that would make tornadoes  "seem  like  a  zephyr," blowing over the
unlimited,  unobstructed fetch of  the  entire  globe,   would  have
generated  waves  many  times  higher;  arkeologist Meyer suggests a
height of several _miles_ (p.57)!   And what sorts of waves would be
produced by the breakup of  the  "fountains  of the great deep," the
splitting of the continents,  and the worldwide orogeny?   The shock
waves from present-day submarine  earthquakes  have  been  known  to
damage or destroy vessels far from land (Thrower, pp.90-91).

Furthermore,  there were at least two occasions when the ark was not
in  the  open  sea.   As she sat on the Plains of Shinar,  her first
encounter with the deluge would  most likely have been a mountainous
tidal wave or flash flood or both,  smashing her to pieces  just  as
easily  as it  uprooted  "entire  forests."  At the other end of the
trip,  the vessel was  slammed  into  the  side  of Mt.   Ararat and
battered a few more days by the violently receding waters. 

There were other hazards as well.   Volcanic ash and molten boulders
filled the air,  while at least in the early  stages  of  the  storm
vegetation  rafts  and  the  debris of civilization shot through the
water like torpedoes.   For most of  the time,  the ark was the only
object projecting above the sea's surface,  and,  as such,  it  must
have  been  subject to a continuous barrage of lightning,  producing
fires, splitting beams, and electrocuting soaked animals. 

Then we have the puzzling currents of the flood, which flowed hither
and yon,  burying some places one week and uncovering them the next.
For example,  creationists tell  us  that  the Llano Uplift of Texas
remained a haven for men and dinosaurs while eight thousand feet  of
sediment was being deposited nearby (John Morris, 1980, pp.182-185).
Hence  the ark should have also encountered swift-moving,  riverlike
currents  and  whirlpools,   with  frequent  collisions  against the
outcrops that broke the surface.  Noah neglected putting any kind of
steering mechanism on the ship,  leaving it completely at the  mercy
of the savage storm (Segraves, p.11).

In what must be a first,  creationists Balsiger and Sellier actually
conducted an experiment (pp.117-118).  They had a scale model of the
ark tested in a hydraulics lab and concluded from this that it could
have withstood waves of over two hundred feet before capsizing.  But
even  higher  seas  must have been commonplace in that fateful gale,
quickly sending the boat to the bottom.  It's a moot issue, however,
since  the  entire  test  is  vitiated  by  overlooking  the  ship's
excessive size.    which  would  have  rendered  it  unsound  in any
weather. 

Arkeologists cannot have their cake and eat it;  they can't  have  a
cataclysm  of  the  magnitude of the biblical flood and still expect
the ark to  survive.    Each  year  approximately two thousand ships
succumb to the forces of the sea,  in conditions that are  like  the
horse latitudes compared to the deluge.   These include structurally
sound  steel  freighters  larger  than  the ark,  some of which have
vanished so  fast  in  a  "mere"  hurricane  that  people  have even
suggested a paranormal force behind their destruction (cf.   Kusche,
pp.246-247).   Who can forget the 229,000 ton  supertanker,   _Amoco
Cadiz_, which ran aground off Brittany in March 1978 and was quickly
broken in two by swells that were calm compared to those lashing Mt.
Ararat?    Yet the ark was adrift,  without rudder or sail,  for 150
days (Genesis 7:24) in a storm that would make "hundreds of hydrogen
bombs" seem insignificant! 


The fate of the cargo.

But mere survival is  hardly  the  proper  criterion of the voyage's
success.   The animals,  many of them so sensitive  that  they  have
never  yet been kept in zoos,  had to make it through in good enough
condition to reproduce and to spread over the earth.  Hirst tells us
that "wild animals should be  subjected  to a minimum of jolting and
rolling during transport....   Rapid acceleration,  sharp cornering,
and sudden deceleration are to be avoided  at  all  times"  (p.124).
Broken   legs   and   necks,    bruises,   and  cuts  are  important
considerations in even short  hauls  by  truck,   not to mention the
panic most of the overcrowded creatures would experience.  Even fish
in tanks are severely affected by  sloshing  and  jolting  (Van  den
Sande).    If  indeed  the ship avoided being reduced to toothpicks,
anything on board larger than  a grasshopper would have been pounded
into a bloody,  shapeless mass  long  before  the  last  tidal  wave
crashed against the creaking hull.


                              Caring for the Cargo

Assuming  that  the  chaos  outside  could  somehow  be  drastically
reduced, what special problems did the cargo pose?  According to the
time  periods  given  in  Genesis  7:9-11 and 8:13-14,  based on the
Hebrew Lunar Year of 354 days,   the inhabitants of the ark remained
there 371 days.   How did Noah and his family  take  care  of  their
charges during this long stay? 


Animal hibernation.

Our  Bible-believing  biologists have devised a clever mechanism for
easing Noah's task: hibernation.  LaHaye and Morris tell us that the
ability to hibernate is an "almost universal tendency" among animals
and that,  faced with "adverse conditions" and "extreme stress" they
would slip into this state  and  hence be easily manageable (p.252).
Henry Morris agrees,  attributing this behavior to "divinely ordered
genetic mutations," and asserts that this is  the  best  explanation
available for these abilities today (1977, p.98). 

This  "solution" is apparently an ad hoc idea into which none of its
advocates even bothered to  delve.    If  they had,  they would have
found that hibernation is far from "universal." In fact,  only three
orders of  placental  mammals--the  Insectivora,   Chiroptera,   and
Rodentia--plus   some   reptiles   and   amphibians   display   true
hibernation.    These  are  all  small  creatures;   larger animals,
including bears,  are too big  for true hibernation (Mount,  p.142).
Most fish,  birds,  and invertebrates do not become dormant  in  any
sense,  and other forms of torpor, such as reptilian estivation, are
physiologically  dissimilar  to  winter sleep and could not occur in
the same environment. 

Furthermore,  animals respond  to  "extreme  stress"  with panic and
flight--not hibernation, which is a response to lack of food or cold
temperatures.   Crowded into the ark like sardines with every  other
species  all about,  tossed and slammed against their cages with the
ear-splitting roar of the upheaval outside,  quiet inactivity is the
last thing one would expect to happen.   Many animals are so nervous
that they are difficult to  keep  in  an ordinary zoo;  if even true
hibernators like bats are aroused by touching,  what chance is there
that any specimen would quietly curl up for a year-long nap? 

Hibernation is not a simple siesta.   Rather,   "during  the  period
prior  to hibernation,  an animal must make a considerable number of
gradual physiological  and  metabolic  adjustments" (Mayer,  p.962).
These include an increase of fat deposition, gradual readjustment of
body temperature, heart rate, and metabolism, preparation of the den
and storage of food,  and so on.   Frogs and salamanders  frequently
overwinter  in  large aggregates;  other amphibians sleep only under
forest litter or in a few inches of icy water;  lungfishes construct
a mud cocoon.   Timing is also vital, for, if exposed to cold at the
wrong time of year, a hibernator will increase its activity in order
to keep warm. 

What  opportunities  did  the   migrating  hoards  have  to  prepare
themselves and their cages for  the  long  rest?    Were  the  ark's
spartan  stalls provided with cozy dens and burrows?   Newly arrived
from near and far,  the animals were stampeded, still exhausted from
their march, into strange, frightening cells and, only a week later,
were violently jolted onto their wild ride (Genesis 7:4, 10).

Finally,  hibernation is a risky affair,  rather than the refreshing
nap portrayed by creationists.  The animal loses about 40 percent of
its body weight during the  winter;   prorated  into the 371 days on
board the ark,  each would have been reduced to little more  than  a
skeleton  by  the  time  the  door  opened.    Even  bones and teeth
deteriorate,  and the  young  frequently  starve (Yalden and Morris,
pp.84-85).  In snakes, the mortality rate may be as high as 30 to 50
percent (Shaw and Campbell,  p.84).   On  page  964,   W.  V.  Mayer
concludes: 

     The  hibernator  apparently  is  balanced on a very narrow line
          between the maintenance of life  at a level that makes 
recovery
          from hibernation possible and a reduction of  metabolism  
to  a
          level that will lead to death.   Evidence obtained from 
tissues
          indicates  that  the  process  of  hibernation  is a 
precarious
          method of survival at best  and  one from which many 
animals do
          not awaken.   As a mechanism of species survival,   
hibernation
          seems effective;  for the survival of the individual,  
however,
          it is an uncertain and dangerous process. 

Yet  on  the  ark,   there  were _only_ individuals,  hibernating in
extremely adverse conditions for more  than double the time that any
animal normally is dormant.   We must conclude that the  animals  on
the  ark  did  not  experience  any  type  of  dormancy  in  any way
resembling  these  phenomena  in  nature;   the  "divine  mutations"
produced a state closer to suspended animation,  a sort of celestial
cryonics (Segraves,  pp.83-84)--and we  have another very impressive
miracle. 


Feeding the animals.

This supernatural quiescence has a curious twist,  however,  for the
Bible plainly informs us that  Noah  was  to take food on the voyage
for the animals (Genesis 6:21).   Hibernators do awaken from time to
time to eat,  and apparently these supersleepers did so also.   Why?
If the Lord was going to perform such a substantial modification  of
natural physiology as this impossible hibernation involved,  why not
make  the  miracle  complete and dispense with the storage space for
the food and the inconvenience to the crew of the feedings? 

This is especially  pertinent  when  the  magnitude  of  the task is
examined.  For the total number of creatures on the ark, if each one
received but one feeding during the voyage,  and if all eight of the
crew worked sixteen hours per day at the chore,  each  animal  would
wind  up  with  just  44.3  seconds  of  attention during the entire
year-long period!   Some would  have  their  meal  on the first day,
while others waited until  they  were  nearly  starved.    The  poor
attendants  would  have  to  carry out their chores in the violently
pitching vessel and in  inky  darkness  (since lanterns could easily
drop and start a fire).   They would have to find the  correct  food
and  somehow  locate the right cage in the mind-numbing maze.   When
they found it,  they would have to arouse an animal that could sleep
through the raging chaos;  the food could not be left in the troughs
for it would spoil  or  spill.    Then  it's  back down the slippery
corridor to the  storage  bins  for  the  next  meal--on  a  perfect
schedule, without duplicated efforts or mistakes--all in less than a
minute! 

Unfortunately,   many  animals  are  not  physiologically capable of
surviving on an occasional meal,  however  large,  and a meal once a
year--or once a week--would mean death.  Some birds eat continuously
during daylight and suffer when taken to regions with  short  winter
days (National Research Council,  1977,  p.28), and some fish brouse
constantly  and  are  unable  to  utilize  infrequently  given foods
(Wickins and Helm,  p.117).   Rodents, cud chewers, and insectivores
are others in the "continuous feeder" class (Gersh, p.60).   Thus it
appears that the "hibernation  model," cleverly concocted to relieve
Noah of an unmanageable  work  load,   is  vitiated  by  the  simple
scriptural requirement of providing food for the voyage.


Special dietary needs.

There  are  many  other  problems associated with the feeding.   The
first  concerns  the  carnivores:   where  did  Noah  get  the  huge
quantities of fresh meat required by these animals?  The creationist
response is that God (miraculously)  altered them so that they could
thrive on a vegetarian diet during the voyage.   Although some  aver
that  the  eating  of  meat  never occurred anywhere until after the
flood,  Whitcomb  and  Morris  discuss  at  length  the  change from
herbivorous to carnivorous physiology,  which they date to the  Fall
of   Adam   (pp.461-464).     Thus  these  animals  were  originally
vegetarian,  then became  meat-eaters  after  the Fall,  vegetarians
again for the  year  of  the  flood,   finally  returning  to  their
carnivorous ways afterwards.  Three times the Lord magically changed
the physiology and anatomy of a substantial proportion of the animal
kingdom.   And if this is true of carnivorous mammals,  it must also
be  so  for  insect-eating  birds,   amphibians,  reptiles,  for the
multitudes that live on fresh fish and other aquatic creatures,  and
for arthropods which  eat  other  invertebrates.   Were the slender,
sticky tongues of tamanduas,  pangolins,  and other  anteaters,   so
difficult  to feed in zoos,  altered to eat hay?   Were vampire bats
and mosquitos able to substitute tomato juice for fresh blood?   Did
the whales  adapt  to  kelp  instead  of  krill?    And  what of our
ever-troublesome parasites?   Were tapeworms and leeches content  to
spend  a  year sucking on an old log?   God was remodeling digestive
systems right and left! 

Even  if  everyone  ate  only  plants,   there  were  still enormous
obstacles.   Many animals have highly specialized diets:  koalas eat
only certain types of Eucalyptus leaves; the giant panda eats bamboo
shoots;  three-toed sloths so prefer Cecropia leaves that  they  are
almost impossible to keep in captivity.   Primates need fresh fruit;
many  birds  develop  cramps and spasms if they don't get sufficient
calcium;  desert rodents are poisoned by excessive protein;  and the
list goes on (cf.   Wallach and Flieg; Fiennes).   How did Noah know
what foods to get, how much and where to get them?

How were the stores  kept  from  rotting  during the lengthy voyage?
Even hay rapidly becomes moldy and unusable.

Young insists that feeding troughs be cleaned daily and uneaten food
removed to prevent decay (p.137).   Giraffes  and  moose  must  have
their  troughs  high  or  they can't reach them,  while animals with
large antlers can't get their mouths  into a basket placed against a
wall.   Carnivores deprived of  bones  to  chew  develop  peridontal
disease (Bush and Gray); rodents,  too,  need to gnaw or their teeth
will  overgrow  (Orlans,  p.247).   The tearing beak of eagles,  the
seed-cracking beak of parrots,  the  bill strainer of flamingos also
overgrow if unused (National Research Council,  1977,  p.27).   Many
animals, from fish to snakes, penguins to bats, will only eat living
food because they must see it move to sieze  it  (Fiennes;   Gersh).
Even  praying mantises eat only live food and will eat each other if
nothing else is available.  Did Noah know this? 


Storage of food and water.

Where did Noah find  room  for  all  these provisions?   Even if the
animals ate only a few times during the voyage, these must have been
hearty meals and a lot of feed  was  required.    Elephants  consume
three  hundred  pounds of hay per day,  hippos eighty to one hundred
pounds.   A large walrus eats  forty  pounds  of fish daily,  a lion
sixteen pounds of meat;  what would  be  the  equivalent  in  grain?
Whales  consume  several  _tons_  of  krill  per  day  when  feeding
(Lockley,  pp.87-88), and many insectivores and birds eat their body
weight every twenty-four hours.  Neubuser says that in the Frankfurt
Zoo  each  year  "sixty  tons of horse,  cattle,  and whale meat are
required to satisfy the  demands  of  the carnivores.   The boxes of
cereals and oil seed, each containing about a hundred-weight, if put
end to end,  would stretch for a distance of over half a mile.   The
annual consumption of fruit,  vegetables,  roots,  and green  clover
would  fill fifty freight trains;  hay and straw,  thirty-five goods
wagons" (p.165).

Lest  these  burdens  start  to  overwhelm  us,   we  find Rehwinkel
discussing a theory  that  Noah  possessed  a  "mysterious  oil"  of
supernutrative  powers--one drop of which would sustain life (p.75).
In the creationist Land of Oz, why not?

Although water was the most abundant substance around, it was muddy,
salty, and full of volcanic pollutants.  Even the water falling from
the skies would have  been  useless,   since the tremendous level of
volcanism would have turned it to poisonous  acid  rain.    For  his
animals, Noah needed large quantities of fresh, clean water, kept in
troughs  and inspected frequently.   Where did this come from?   How
was it stored and distributed?   Conditions being what they were, it
must have  splashed  out  of  the  troughs  shortly  after they were
filled, mixed with food and waste to form a stinking, slippery swamp
all over each deck,  while the reserves  were  rapidly  choked  with
algae to form an undrinkable swill.


Sanitation and water disposal.

The  mention  of  waste  brings  attention  to  that  problem.   All
authorities on animal care insist  on the cleanliness of the stalls,
urging the daily removal of waste  and  soiled  bedding.    Neubuser
remarks  that  "the removal of zoo waste presents almost insuperable
difficulties"  (p.170);   on  the  ark  these  must  have multiplied
manyfold.   Creationists  Balsiger  and  Sellier  suggest  that  the
bottom deck was used to store slurry,  which accumulated to 800 tons
during the voyage.   However,  a single adult elephant could produce
40  tons during this time (Coe),  and there were many creatures even
larger.  Our average animal, the sheep, produces 0.34 tons per year;
poultry,  0.047 (Sainsbury and Sainsbury,  p.110).   Multiplying the
number of vertebrates by 0.34,   the  seven pairs of birds by 0.047,
yields 25,508 tons of waste--six times heavier than the ark  itself!
Of  course,   hibernation would greatly reduce this quantity,  while
the invertebrates and  dinosaurs  would  add  to  it.   Whatever the
total, it would have been an awesome amount on the overcrowded boat,
a breeder of infinite numbers of pathogens, and a source of noxious,
choking fumes. 

A  comparison  with  Lamoureux's  Guide  to  _Ship  Sanitation_   is
instructive.   Complex plumbing systems of pipes and pumps, air-gaps
and back-flow valves,  filters and chemical treatments are necessary
to  provide  potable water and dispose of sewage.   Waste is treated
and dumped overboard,  not discharged  to  the  bilge as on the ark.
Such  technology  was  clearly  beyond  Noah's   ability   and   the
maintenance  capabilities  of  his  tiny crew;  yet,  if ever it was
needed on a voyage, this was it.


Specialized needs of animals.

"The animals in  a  modern  zoo  require  a  thousand and one small,
seemingly insignificant attentions and we must constantly strive  to
discover  their needs.   " Thus writes Dr.   Heinz Hediger of Zurich
Zoo,  introducing us to  a  host  of additional headaches with which
Noah would have to deal. 

Many animals would not survive long in barren stalls but would  need
to  have  elements of their natural environment present.   Squirrels
and sloths need trees to  climb;   the latter are almost helpless on
the ground.  Armadillos, viscachas, and others require soil in which
they can scrape and burrow;  capybaras and tapirs must have pools of
water for bathing; and otters require running water.   The extremely
delicate  platypus  would  have  to  be  maintained  with  a  device
consisting of a water tank,  a nest, and tunnels with rubber gaskets
to squeeze water out of the  platypus's  fur  to  prevent  the  nest
getting  wet  and  the  animal  developing pneumonia.   Ungulates in
transport should be made to  stand up _hourly_ to revive circulation
in their limbs.  Elephants and hippos develop dermatitus unless they
can bathe frequently (cf.  Crandall; Hirst; Neubuser). 

Wading birds develop leg  weakness  and  should  be  transported  in
special stockings; peacocks and long-tailed pheasants may need their
tails  splinted  and wrapped in bandages.   Woodpeckers' cages would
need a special coating,  and  many  other animals,  from termites to
rodents,  would gnaw through a normal stall.   Excessive moisture is
"extremely deleterious" to most  reptiles  (Kaufield).    While  low
humidities   would  prove  fatal  to  many  amphibians.    Burrowing
invertebrates,  such as worms, crabs, and clams, will perish without
proper substrate. 

Perhaps the greatest difficulties arise with marine organisms.  Most
of them are extremely  sensitive  to  slight changes in temperature,
salinity,  pH value,  and other factors,  and their aquaria  require
constant monitoring.   Many need large,  round tanks to prevent them
from  knocking  against  the  sides,   and  some  tanks  must have a
polyurethane foam to  guard  against  injury from rubbing.   Complex
filtering systems--unavailable on the ark--are necessary  to  remove
waste;   most  fish  require  a  high degree of cleanliness.   Hadal
dwellers must be kept in special high-pressure tanks (cf.  Backhaus;
Hawkins).   Of course,  a system  of active aeration is necessary or
the fish will suffocate--yet a fragile jellyfish can be  damaged  by
an  oxygen  bubbler.    Some  sharks will sustain tissue damage from
lying still as little as five  minutes and may have to be stimulated
by an attendant when in a captive  environment  (Gruber  and  Keyes,
p.383).    Even  humble  planarian  worms are likely to die if their
water becomes "even  slightly  contaminated"  (Orlans,  p.49).   The
National Research Council concludes:  "Despite  the  best  care  and
equipment,   some  marine  species  will  not  tolerate  capture and
transport" (1981, p.53). 


Ventilation.

Ventilation would have been another major concern.   The Bible tells
us that Noah placed a  window  one  cubit  square  at the top of the
vessel  (Genesis  6:16).    Creationists,   basing   themselves   on
"eyewitnesses'' who have seen the ark in modern times,  enlarge this
to a row of windows along a catwalk on top of the ship and postulate
a "wind-deflecting system" to get the air below decks (Schmich).  In
any  ease,   the  window(s)  had  shutters,  for Noah opened them to
release the raven  and  dove.    Considering  the mountains of water
constantly washing over the ship,  they were probably closed most of
the time to prevent swamping.

Open or shut, the arkeologists' enthusiasm is premature.   Sainsbury
and Sainsbury give a number of equations and tables for  calculating
the  ventilation  of barns (p.166ff),  and it is clear that when the
openings are at the same  elevation  on the building,  especially if
near the top,  air circulation will be very poor.    This  would  be
particularly   acute  in  the  densely  packed,   three-tiered  ark:
virtually no fresh air  could  reach  the  lower decks.   The result
would  be  a  rising  concentration  of  dust  and   microorganisms,
condensation on bedding and floors,  and resultant chilling, loss of
appetite, and susceptibility to respiratory disease.

The lack of ventilation would produce particularly dire consequences
with  respect to the tons of waste accumulating in the no-man's-land
of the bottom deck.   Besides  being a nursery for every conceivable
pathogen, it would also unleash large quantities of such toxic gases
as ammonia,  hydrogen sulfide,  and methane.   Hydrogen sulfide, for
example,   leads  to  appetite   loss   and   hyperexcitability   at
concentrations  as low as twenty parts per million--yet agitation of
stored slurry,  incessant on the ark,  can elevate levels to 800 ppm
(Sainsbury and Sains  bury,   p.207).    These  gases  also pose the
potential for an explosion.    Methane  which  composes  roughly  55
percent   of   typical   landfill   gas,   is  highly  explosive  at
concentrations of 5 to  15  percent oxygen (Emcon Associates,  p.35;
Noble, pp.157-158).  At this ratio, even a few hundred tons of waste
would rapidly convert the ship into a floating bomb,  needing only a
flash of lightning,  a glowing volcanic cinder,  or the  inadvertent
lighting of a lantern to blast the vessel and its priceless cargo to
the bottom of the sea. 


Light and temperature levels.

In  the  depths of the ship,  far from its tiny,  shuttered windows,
with thick cumulo-nimbus and dense layers of volcanic ash above, the
darkness must have reminded  many  of  the cavernicoles of the black
tunnels they had recently vacated.   Lanterns, as we have mentioned,
posed too much of a fire hazard to be used--this  was  a  danger  in
even  ordinary  sailing  conditions  (Thrower,  p.85).   Yet animals
deprived of light,  particularly  the  young ones which creationists
wish to  put  aboard,   often  have  poor  vision  and  even  suffer
deterioration of optic nerves and retinae (King, pp.30-31).  Aquatic
creatures,   too,   are  sensitive  to even slight variations in the
quality of light (Backhaus, P.197). 

Fish are also highly sensitive to temperature, and separate tanks at
carefully regulated  levels  are  necessary  for  successful aquaria
(Atz).   How did Noah accomplish this?   As  his  boat  sat  in  the
sweltering Shinar tropics waiting for the rain, the heat inside must
have become suffocating to many.   Polar animals could not have made
it  through.    Chinchillas,  snow leopards,  and many others-- even
frogs--are also apt to perish in hot conditions.   Reptiles not only
require an optimum temperature  level,   dangerous if exceeded,  but
must have it reduced cyclically to  simulate  diurnal  and  seasonal
rhythms (Peaker).  As the flood progressed, the temperature may have
remained  high  due to volcanism;  alternatively,  it may have begun
declining with the lack of sunlight (remember,  the Ice Age followed
immediately afterward).   Either  way,   as  the  ark sat perched at
fourteen thousand feet on Mt.   Ararat and the seas slowly subsided,
air pressure and temperature declined until the luckless  lowlanders
found  themselves  in thin alpine air and the first snows of the new
dispensation as they waited to  disembark.   If you endured the oven
at the beginning, you froze at the end!


Problems for the crew.

It is useless to continue discussing the animals.  We must pass over
the problem of  exercise  for  the  beasts  and  birds  and not even
contemplate the broken limbs,  bruises, lacerations, and concussions
from the nightmarish ride.   The diseases,  too,   were  far  beyond
Noah's  veterinary competence.   And what about reproduction?   Some
creationists deny that it took place;  others say it did.   Segraves
suggests a kind of divine birth control (p.85).   In either case, we
can feel confident that flies,   mosquitos,  and all sorts of vermin
multiplied astronomically even if no higher species did. 

Yet even with the miracle of hibernation,  the task facing Noah  and
his  crew  was  absolutely insuperable,  barring yet another titanic
intervention by Jehovah.  A random sampling of over one hundred zoos
from the 1980 _International  Zoo  Yearbook_  showed a ratio of 25.4
animals per zoo staffer--experienced workers supervised  by  highly
trained experts in conditions infinitely superior to the ark's.   At
this  ratio,  the great boat would have needed a staff of 151,926 to
care for every creature aboard!  Noah had eight. 

Still other chores awaited  our  harried helmsman.   Although he was
fortunate not to have had to navigate  or  to  manage  engines  that
might break down,  some maintenance would still have been necessary.
Boat  rot  is  present  in  every  wooden  vessel and is enhanced by
moisture  and  poor  ventilation.    Duffett  recommends  a thorough
inspection from stem to stern,  with flashlight,  awl,  and  hammer,
every  two  months  (p.149).    There  would  have been trouble with
teredos, tiny, wormlike mollusks that eat their way through wood and
riddle planks and timbers  with  small  holes,  which makes them the
"greatest hazard to wooden hulls" (Noel, p.85).   Then, too, in this
awesome storm,  there would undoubtedly have been major breakage and
splintering of stalls, beams, floors, and myriads of other accidents
which normally entail substantial  time  in  drydock--all  of  which
would  have  had  to be located in the dark and somehow patched well
enough to last until the  ship  made Ararat.   We have already noted
how leaky were large,  overburdened wooden ships,   and,   in  these
mountainous  seas,   continuous pumping would have been essential to
keep the ark afloat.   Smaller,  better- built vessels can take on a
foot or more of water  an  hour;  therefore,  "crews could become so
completely exhausted by pumping as to be barely capable  of  working
the  ship"  (Thrower,  pp.89-90).   A much larger,  more experienced
crew would be  necessary  for  maintenance  alone,  not counting the
impossible zoological chores.

Balsiger and Sellier talk about the life of leisure aboard the  ark,
even  mentioning the "woman's touch" in the family quarters (p.134).
Segraves  speaks  of  an   entire   deck  devoted  to  "recreational
facilities" (p.16).   Such is not the picture that emerges from  our
study. 

Seafaring  life  was never easy in olden times:  food was monotonous
and  rationed  and  often  spoiled;   water  was  scarce;   sanitary
conditions were  incredibly  bad;   fire  and  storms posed constant
threats; and diseases,  such as cholera,  yellow fever, and malaria,
often decimated entire crews (Pohjanpalo,   pp.100-101).    On  long
voyages,   scurvy  was a constant terror,  and extra men were always
taken because many died or became too ill to work.   The "romance of
the  sea"  was  so  unattractive  that,   despite  poverty  and high
unemployment,  no nation ever had enough sailors to crew  her  ships
(Phillips-Birt, pp.213-216).  Thrower concludes:

     The  conditions  of life for the ordinary sailor must have been
     little short of grim throughout the history of sail....   Think
     what these ships were like ...  wet and stinking, bad food, sea
     scurvy and fluxes rampant, and incessant toil.  Then there were
     the bugs, the rats, and the cockroaches. (p.99)

What was grim for these poor souls must have been pure hell on board
the ark.   It is a  wonder  that  anyone  limped off the sacred ship
except the flies. 


                                 Disembarking

Landing on Ararat.

Finally one day,  a typically gargantuan wave sent the ark  crashing
into  the  cliffs on Mt.   Ararat,  and the long voyage was through.
But Noah's luck was still running  badly,  for he had literally gone
from the frying pan into the fire,  landing on  an  active  volcano.
LaHaye  and  Morris  tell us that Mt.   Ararat more than doubled its
height during the flood,   and  they  know  of  lava from these very
eruptions that is hot yet today (p.8)!   Imagine what life was  like
during  the  214  days  between the ark's grounding and the animals'
release  (Genesis  8:4).    Constant  rumblings,   earthquakes,  and
landslides threatened destruction;  fumaroles vented hot  steam  and
sulfurous gases on all sides;  occasional showers of ash and perhaps
even  lava added to the misery;  and thunderstorms,  with lightning,
hail, rain, and snow, made many nostalgic for the open sea.

Before he set the animals free,   Noah devised a scheme to determine
if the land was dry.   He went to the ravens' cage, and later to the
doves',  and, without a second thought, aroused them from a dormancy
that all the chaos of the deluge had been unable to  disturb.    Out
the window they went:  the raven never returned;  the dove came back
twice, then she too disappeared.   Noah concluded that the earth was
safe once again (Genesis 8:6-12). 

After the dove failed to return, Noah decided that it was just about
time to disembark.   Instead of simply opening the door, he "removed
the  covering"  of  the  ark  (Genesis 8:13).   Balsiger and Sellier
indicate that his means that Noah tore holes in the top deck,  which
modern visitors to the wreck  claim  to have seen.   Noah did indeed
have his eccentricities!   For fifty-six more days they remained  on
the ark while the earth dried,  waiting for God to sound the liberty
call--time  enough  to  allow rain,  snow,  and mudslides to cascade
through the holes  in  the  roof  and  torture the miserable animals
inside. 


Release of the animals.

Hirst advises,  "The release site should be level,  free  of  holes,
large stones,  and low shrubs,  and should have adequate visibility"
(p.125).  A more different location for the ark's survivors would be
hard to imagine.  Tired and weak, battered and bruised, nearly blind
from  a  year's  darkness,  they began their exodus by clambering up
through the roof and  leaping  forty-five  feet  to the rocks below.
From here it was a perilous trek  across  hoof-splitting  fields  of
jagged  lava,   through  rushing,   boulder-strewn  streams  and icy
snowbanks,  and  onto  the  mud  flats  far  below.   Landslides and
volcanic hot spots were ever-present dangers.  Modern-day Ararat has
often bested experienced mountaineers; what were the chances for the
miserable wretches from the ark?   They should have panicked in  the
radically unfamiliar terrain and stampeded over the nearest cliff.

While the descent was difficult enough for most animals, for some it
was simply impossible.   Tree-dwelling sloths, eyeless cavernicoles,
tropical  snails,   the  legless caecilians of Seychelles--these and
countless others should have seen  the  sun  set on their species on
the harrowing heights  of  Ararat.    And  the  myriads  of  aquatic
creatures, from starfish to sharks, had to be crated and hauled down
the  mountain  by the eight aching crew members and deposited in the
nearest river in  the  hopes  that,   before  they died,  they could
somehow swim to waters suitable for each.   How  they  managed  this
with   hundred-ton   whales   is  just  one  more  mystery  for  the
creationists to ponder.   It is  evident once more that supernatural
assistance was required in this phase of the journey.


Survival and redistribution.

The animals had just  endured  the longest,  most severe hibernation
ever known and would have expected to awaken to a  springlike  world
with  abundant food.   Instead they were treated to a landscape like
that of Mt.  St.  Helens--only worse.

As we have  seen,   plant  seeds  lay  beneath  thousands of feet of
sediment and  lava  and  the  surface  was  barren  except  for  one
miraculous  olive  tree,   which  was  no  doubt chewed to the stump
immediately.   Creationists maintain  that  the  ground was littered
with carrion.   This,  too, is doubtful; but, even if true, it would
be the occasion for another remarkable  marvel:   herbivores  turned
carnivores   turned   herbivores   were   changed   once  more  into
meat-eaters,  only this time they  were specifically given a craving
only for rotten, water-logged carcasses rather than the tasty living
animals stumbling all about.  Then, somewhat later, after sufficient
"replenishing" had taken place,  they were altered  one  final  time
into their present forms!   In actual fact, it seems that there must
have  been  a  period  when all the animals were programmed like the
serpent in Eden to subsist on "dust." 

For Noah,  one more task remained.   After disembarking, he built an
altar to the Lord and offered  burnt offerings "of every clean beast
and  of  every  clean  fowl"  (Genesis  8:20).    Biblical  scholars
generally state that the reason why Noah took a dozen more  of  each
clean  animal  was  so  that  he  could  have extras to sacrifice--a
sacrifice that must have amounted  to the destruction of hundreds of
thousands of the precious animals which had endured all  the  perils
of  the storm.   So the animal population was drastically reduced in
this manner,  and the Lord savored  the smell and said that he would
never send a flood again (Genesis 8:21).

But for the luckless animals that remained after the sacrifice,   no
doubt terrorized by the smell of their cooked comrades,  many months
of  toil  and  tears  still  awaited  as they began repopulating the
earth.  A large number of marsupials, found today only in Australia,
made the long journey to that continent, which, strangely enough, is
the only place where fossils  of their progenitors are found.   Even
stranger is the fact that such fragile creatures as the platypus and
the blind marsupial mole raced across the land bridge  quicker  than
Malaysian  tigers  and other robust placentals.   In a similar vein,
the ceboids (New World primates)  found  their way to South America,
again,  the very region where their fossil  ancestors  had  thrived.
The elephant bird, a nine-foot, thousand-pound giant, decided not to
remain  on the mainland like the ostrich but splashed across the sea
to Madagascar.   In similar fashion,  the dodo headed for Mauritius,
the solitaire to Reunion,  the white dodo to Rodriguez,  the kagu to
New Caledonia, and the kiwi to New Zealand--all flightless birds who
swam to remote islands to make their only homes. 

The fish of  family  ("kind")  Comephoridae  somehow crossed Asia to
live in Lake Baikal, while the family of electric eels opted for the
trans-Atlantic trip to South America.   The gila monster and Mexican
beaded lizard,  the only members of family Helodermatidae, chose not
to stay in convenient Asian deserts but  journeyed  through  Siberia
and across the Bering land bridge,  Alaska,  and Canada to arrive in
the American Southwest,  accomplishing this feat during the same Ice
Age  that  creationists say decimated dinosaurs and buried mammoths!
And all of this  occurred  despite  the reproductive bottleneck of a
single male and female, in which the slightest mishap, even a chance
separation in the unknown  wilderness,   would  have  meant  instant
extinction. 

The  plant  seeds  that  Noah  had stored on board had to somehow be
distributed around the world to  climates and soils where they could
grow.   Two thousand species of cactus had to find their way to  the
New  World  while  avoiding the arid lands of Asia and Africa.   The
giant sequoia and redwood trees  had  to  reach the Pacific coast of
North America and produce, from the handful of seeds in the ark, the
magnificent forests that date to  within  a  few  centuries  of  the
flood.   Who carried the double coconut to the Seychelles,  its only
home,   or  planted  the  endemic  flora  atop the towering peaks of
Venezuela's "Lost  World"?    How  did  the  post-diluvian botanists
determine which seeds would sprout only  on  the  tundra  and  which
required  brakish  marshes?    The  Bible  has our patriarch and his
family return to the simple pastoral life they once knew, leaving no
one to handle the  impossible  chores  of re-establishing the global
ecosystem. 

But why go on?   The geographical distribution of animals and plants
is a powerful piece of evidence for evolution  and  is  satisfactory
explained  only  by  that  theory.    In  a  simple  creation model,
biogeography becomes merely quixotic;   when the straitjacket of the
flood is added, with a rapid distribution from a single point in the
Middle East,  during an Ice Age, resulting in a few centuries in the
complex ecological patterns seen everywhere on the earth today,  the
whole thing  becomes  completely  impossible  and  incomprehensible.
So,   the  most tremendous series of miracles of all brings down the
curtain on this amazing adventure.

                                  Conclusion

The nature of the story.

When one reads the story of the  great flood in the book of Genesis,
one is struck by the matter-of-fact style of the narrative.    While
it  definitely  has  the larger-than-life flavor typical of legends,
the reader would not  suspect  that  he  or  she is dealing with the
bizarre impossibilities we have detailed above.    After  all,   the
ancient  Hebrews  lived  on  a small,  disc-shaped world with a dome
overhead and waters above and below.   There were only a few hundred
known  animals,   and  subjects  such  as  ecology,   genetics,  and
stratigraphy were not even imagined.  The deluge was a mighty act of
God,  to be sure,  but nothing that the ancient Hebrews  would  have
found too extraordinary. 

When, however, this same story is brought into the twentieth century
and  insisted  upon  as  a  literal account of historical events,  a
considerable change is observed.   No longer a simple folk tale,  it
has become a surrealistic saga of fantastic improbabilities.  Events
which seem relatively  straightforward  at  first glance--building a
boat,   gathering  animals,   releasing  them  afterwards--become  a
caricature of real life.   The animals themselves are so unlike  any
others that they may as well have come from another planet;  genetic
Frankensteins  with completely unnatural social,  reproductive,  and
dietary behavior,   they  survived  incredible  hazards yet remained
amazingly hardy and fecund.

In fact,  these sixty-eight verses of Scripture,   when  interpreted
literally,  are crammed with more miracles than any comparable piece
of literature anywhere on earth--miracles that are often pointlessly
complicated and unedifying.   Building one large ship of wood rather
than  many  small ones,  landing it on a volcano instead of a plain,
preserving all five varieties  of  venereal disease while permitting
thousands of species to become extinct--these examples plus more add
up to a thoroughly senseless level of supernaturalism.  If there was
ever a situation in which Hume's distinction between the credibility
of miracles and the credibility of miracle-tellers applies,  this is
it. 

How can we account for this transformation?  Put simply, the tale of
the ark grows  taller  in  inverse  proportion  to  the  advance  of
science.   Two centuries ago, when biology and geology were in their
infancy,   the  theory  of a worldwide flood as a major event in the
earth's physical history seemed  perfectly  plausible and,  in fact,
was advocated by various scientists.   But as geology progressed and
as  evolution  gradually  achieved   a   position   of   fundamental
importance,   the  concepts of biblical literalists were shown to be
untenable and were falsified.   At the same time, the disciplines of
biblical criticism,  comparative religion, and archaeology uncovered
the true origins of  these  stories  and  myths and showed that they
were a natural part of the religious development of the Near East.


The nature of creation-science.

Most  people,   including  most   Christians,   have  been  able  to
accommodate themselves quite satisfactorily to these changes.    But
there are others who cannot and who,  with a flush of bravado,  have
clung tighter to their beliefs the more impossible they have become.

We  would  ask  the  creationists  if  they  would  consider simpler
alternatives to their present ark theory.  Since one ship is far too
small,  how about several?   Since eight people are far too few, why
not crew the ark with eighty?   For that matter,  what is wrong with
having a flood of many  years,  long enough to accomplish everything
diluviologists demand,  during which righteous Noah and  his  family
were  whisked to safety aboard a fiery chariot,  Elijah-style,  with
the animals and plants simply being re-created afterwards?  These or
any number of  additional  hypotheses  would  simplify the story and
would require substantially fewer miracles.   Even  re-creating  all
life  would  expend  far  less  divine  energy  than the complicated
manipulations needed to preserve it. 

But merely to  pose  such  questions  is  to  answer  them,  for the
creationists already "know" what occurred and seek only  to  confirm
it.   As Henry Morris concludes,  "But the main reason for insisting
on  the  universal  flood  as  a  fact of history and as the primary
vehicle for geological  interpretation  is  that  God's word plainly
teaches it!   No geologic difficulties,  real or imagined,   can  be
allowed  to  take precedence over the clear statements and necessary
inference of Scripture" 1970, p.33). 

It is within this framework  that  creation "science" sets about its
task,   with  the  predictable  result  being  nothing   more   than
old-fashioned  apologetics--just  enough  rhetoric  to  assuage  the
doubts  of  those  who  are  ready  to believe anyway.   Most of the
difficulties,   from   ancient   shipbuilding   skills  through  the
destructiveness of the storm to the landing on  an  active  volcano,
are  swept  aside with one or two irrelevant comments.   What little
research is done,  such as on the hardiness of seeds or the capacity
of freight trains, is vitiated by considerations so simple they seem
hard to overlook.  Ad hoc hypotheses, such as the theory of kinds or
the hibernation model, are cooked up to suit the occasion, reminding
one of historian W. E. H. Lecky's remark about "the tendency .   . .
to invent,  without  a  shadow  of  foundation,   the most elaborate
theories of explanation rather than recognize the smallest force  in
an objection" (I:345).   By the time we read of fish adapting to the
"gradual"  change  in salinities or of dinosaurs "somehow surviving"
outside,  we begin to wonder if the creationists can take themselves
seriously. 

When even these nonsensical suggestions fail, the apologists have no
qualms about resorting  to  the interpretive wastebasket:  miracles.
Had there been any scenario for the gathering of the animals and for
their care aboard the ark which had any semblance  of  plausibility,
we  can  be  sure  that  it would be highly touted as "proof" of the
scientific accuracy of Genesis.    As  it  is,   a virtue is made of
necessity and we are told that  the  supernatural  is  an  essential
element  demonstrating  the  divine  character  of  the  catastrophe
(Whitcomb, 1973, pp.17-42). 

But  since  miracles  are  by  definition  violations of the laws of
nature and hence beyond experimental scrutiny,  any theory that must
employ them loses its status  as  science.   As Mueller has recently
written,  "Science .   . .   became a unique attempt to explain  the
observed  world  in  its  own  terms--that  is,  without introducing
supernatural forces.   In all history, science has never been forced
to resort to a  supernatural  or  miraculous hypothesis to explain a
phenomenon" (p.17).   Yet for creationism,  the  deluge,   with  its
miraculous  rescue  of the animals,  is not a minor incidental but a
key feature.   Without it  there  is  no creationist explanation for
sedimentation,  orogeny, large-scale erosion, fossils, coal and oil,
glaciation--or even the phenomena of migration and hibernation.  The
universal flood is a part of all "scientific" creation models and of
most draft creationism legislation being pushed across  the  nation.
Yet  by  its  proponents'  own  canons,   it  is  not scientific and
consequently has no more  business  in  the science classroom than a
ghost story. 


The failure of the effort.

It has by now become abundantly clear that  the  case  for  the  ark
utterly  and completely fails.   Despite the clever ingenuity of its
proponents,  nothing,  from  the  trickiest  problems to the tiniest
details,   can  be  salvaged  without  an  unending  resort  to  the
supernatural.   This includes so many pointless prodigies,  so  many
inane  interventions for no reason other than to save a literalistic
Bible,  that religion itself  is  cheapened  in the process,  not to
mention the total abandonment of any semblance of science.  No doubt
in days to come some erstwhile arkeologists will concoct "solutions"
to some of the difficulties we have raised,  but  no  intellectually
honest  person  can  any  longer pretend that the legend of Noah can
possibly represent a historical occurrence.

It is also quite obvious  that  the  creationists are not engaged in
any meaningful search for the truth concerning origins.    They  are
committed in advance to a particular creed, and the facts exist only
to  be  explained  away.    Apparently  they  are not even sincerely
curious about prehistory,  since they maintain that Genesis contains
all the information on this subject that we need to know.   As Henry
Morris writes,  "If we are to know anything about the creation--when
it was,  what methods were used,  what order of events occurred,  or
anything else--we  must  depend  _completely_  on divine revelation"
(1977, p.14).

In fact,  the  real  _raison  d'etre_  for  the  entire  creationist
movement  has  nothing  to do with science at all;  it is evangelism
pure  and  simple.    Kofahl  candidly  confesses  that  "supposedly
scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the Bible can
cause some people  to  doubt  the  Bible  and  thus hinder them from
coming in humble faith to Jesus Christ for salvation" (p.  141).  In
the specific instance of Noah's ark,  its "confirmed discovery .   .
.  would open the door for witnessing to many people who may  before
have been indifferent" (John Morris, 1973, p.109) and "our attention
should then be focused on .   . .  our present day Ark of Salvation,
Jesus    Christ"    (Ikenberry,     p.69).      Before   our   eyes,
creationism--complete   with    seminars,    debates,    institutes,
"technical"  journals,   and  major  campaigns  to  sabotage  public
education and scientific autonomy--dissolves into nothing more  than
a scheme to proselytize conversion to fundamentalism.

Our study of the epic of Noah has two results:  we have shown beyond
any  reasonable  question  that  such  a voyage never took place and
could not possibly have  ever  occurred.    And we have demonstrated
that those  who  accept  this  tale  are  using  not  knowledge  but
faith--faith of that irrational variety expressed in the old quip as
"believing something that you know isn't true." 


                                 Bibliography

Ancil, Ralph E. September 1980. "A Proposal, for a New Creationist 
Discipline."
     _Creation Research Society Quarterly_. 17:2:123-l27.

Andrewartha, H. G. 1971. _Introduction to the Study of Animal 
Populations_.
     Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Asimov, Isaac. 1981. _In the Beginning . . ._ New York: Crown 
Publishers.

Atkins, Michael D. 1978. _Insects in Perspective_. New York: 
Macmillan.

Atz, James W. 1965. "Principles and Practices of Water Management 
for Marine
     Aquaria." _International Zoo Yearbook_. 5: 173-181.

Awbrey, Frank. T. 1981. "Defining 'Kinds'--Do Creationists Apply a 
Double
     Standard?" _Creation/Evolution_ V.2:3:1-6.

Backhaus, Dieter. 1968. "The Show Aquarium." In Rosl Kirchshofer 
(ed.),
     _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, pp. 191-197.

Balsiger, Dave, and Sellier, Charles E., Jr. 1976. _In Search of 
Noah's Ark_.
     Los Angeles: Sun Classic Books.

Barnes, Robert D. 1980. _Invertebrate Zoology_. Fourth edition. 
Philadelphia:
     Saunders College.

Basch, Lucien. 1972. "Ancient Wrecks and the Archaeology of Ships."
     _International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater
     Exploration_. 1:1-58.

Blatt, Harvey, Middleton, Gerard, and Murray, Raymond. 1980. 
_Origin of
     Sedimentary Rocks_. Second edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall.

Bodmer, Walter F., and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1976. _Genetics, 
Evolution,
     and Man_. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Bond, Carl E. 1979. _Biology of Fishes_. Philadelphia: W. B. 
Saunders.

Bullard, Fred M. 1976. _Volcanoes of the Earth_. Austin: University 
of Texas
     Press.

Buljan, Miljenko. 1955. "Deep Submarine Volcanisms and the 
Chemistry of
     Ocean." _Bulletin Volcanologique_. 17:41-56

Bush, Mitchell, and Gray, Clinton W. 1975. "Dental Prophylaxis in 
Carnivores."
     _International Zoo Yearbook_. 15:223.

Casson, Lionel. 1971. _Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World_. 
Princeton:
     Princeton Press.

Coe, Malcolm. November 1972. "Defaecation by African Elephants 
_(Loxodonta
     africana africana [Blumenbach]_)." _East African Wildlife 
Journal_.
     10:3:165-174.

Conway, William G. 1980. "An Overview of Captive Propagation." In 
Soule,
     Michael E., and Wilcox, Bruce A. (editors), _Conservalion 
Biology: An
     Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective_. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 
Assoc.
     pp. 199-208.

Crandall, Lee S. 1966. _A Zoo Man's Notebook_. Chicago: University 
of Chicago
     Press.

Custance, Arthur C. 1970. "Fossil Man in the Light of the Record in 
Genesis."
     In Lammerts, Walter E. (editor), _Why Not Creation?_ Nutley, NJ:
     Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 194-229.

Dathe, Heinrich. 1968. "From the Daily Life of a Zoo Director." In 
Kirchsofer,
     Rosl (editor), _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, 
pp. 145-l50.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius, el al. 1977. _Evolution_. San Francisco: W. 
H. Freeman.

Duffett, John. 1973. _Modern Marine Maintenance_. New York: Motor 
Boating and
     Sailing Books .

Dumas, Maurice, and Gille, Paul. 1979. "Ships and Navigation." In 
Dumas,
     Maurice (editor), _A History of Technology and Invention_, 
vol. III:
     _The Expansion of Mechanization, 1725-1860_. (Translated by 
Eileen B.
     Hennessy.) New York: Crown.

Emcon Associates. 1980. _Methane Generation and Recovery from 
Landfills_.
     Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers.

Ensminger, M. E. 1978. _The Stockman's Handbook_. Fifth edition. 
Dannville,
     IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers.

Fiennes, Richard. 1966. "Feeding Animals in Captivity". 
_International Zoo
     Yearbook_. 6:58-67 .

Fowler, Murray E. 1974. "Veterinary Aspects of Restraint and 
Transport of
     Wild Animals". _International Zoo Yearbook_. 14:28-33.

Franklin, Ian Robert. 1980. "Evolutionary Change in Small 
Populations". In
     Soule, Michael E., and Wilcox, Bruce A. (editors), _Conservation
     Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective_. Sunderland, 
MA:
     Sinauer Associates.

Gersh, Harry. 1971. _The Animals Next Door: A Guide to Zoo and 
Aquariums of
     the Americas_. New York: Fleet Academic Editions.

Gruber, Samuel H., and Keyes, Raymond S. 1981. "Keeping Sharks for 
Research".
     In Hawkins, A. D. (editors), _Aquarium Systems_. London: 
Academic Press,
     pp. 373-402.

Gun, Charles R., and Dennis, John V. 1976. _World Guide to Tropical 
Drift
     Seeds and Fruits_. New York: Quadrangle.

Hapgood, Fred. 1979. _Why Males Exist_. New York: William Morrow & 
Co.

Hawkins, A. D. (editor). 1981. _Aquarium Systems_. London: Academic 
Press.

Hediger, H . 1968. "From Cage to Territory". In Kirchshofer, Rosl 
(editor),
     _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, pp. 9-20.

Hill, Ralph Nading. 1956. _Window in the Sea_. New York: Rinehart & 
Co.

Hirst, S. M. 1975. "Transportation of Wild Animals". In Young, E. 
(editor),
     _The Capture and Care of Wild Animals_. Hollywood, FL: Ralph 
Curtis
     Books, pp. 119-125.

Howe, George F. December 1968. "Seed Germination, Sea Water, and 
Plant
     Survival in the Great Flood". _Creation Research Society 
Quarterly_.
     5:3:105-112.

Hume, David. 1977. _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_. 
Indianapolis:
     Hackett Publishing. (First published 1748.)

Hutchins, John G. B. 1941. _The American Maritime Industries and 
Public
     Policy, 1789-1914_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hutt, Frederick B. 1979. _Genetics for Dog Breeders_. San 
Francisco: W. H.
     Freeman.

Ikenberry, Larry D. 1976. _Noah's Ark: Mystery of Ararat_. Olympic, 
WA:
     Cascade Photographics .

Jarman, Cathy. 1972. _Atlas of Animal Migration_. New York: John 
Day Co.

Jones, Arthur W. 1967. _Introduction to Parasitology_. Reading, MA: 
Addison-
     Wesley Publishing Co.

Kauffeld, C. 1969. "The Effect of Altitude, Ultra-Violet Light, and 
Humidity
     on Captive Reptiles." _International Zoo Yearbook_. 9:8-9.

Kear, Janet. 1977. "The Problems of Breeding Endangered Species in 
Captivity."
     _International Zoo Yearbook_. 17:5-14.

King, James C. 1971. _The Biology of Race_. New York: Harcort Brace 
Jovanovich.

Kirchshofer, Rosl (editor). 1968. _The World of Zoos_. New York: 
Viking Press.

Kleiman, Devra G. 1980. "The Sociobiology of Captive Propagation." 
In Soule,
     Michael E., and Wilcox, Bruce A. (editors), _Conservation 
Biology: An
     Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective_. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 
Associates,
     pp. 243-261.

Klos, Heinz-Georg. 1968. "The Vet in the Zoo." In Kirchshofer, Rosl 
(editor),
     _The World of Zoos_.  New York: Viking Press, pp. 183-191.

Kofahl, Robert E. 1977. _Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter_. San Diego: 
Beta Books.

Kofahl, Robert E., and Segraves, Kelly L. 1975. _The Creation 
Explanation_.
     Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers.

Kummel, Bernhard. 1970. _History of the Earth: An Introduction to 
Historical
     Geology_. Second edition. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Kusche, Lawrence David. 1975. _The Bermuda Triangle Mystery--Solved_.
     New York: Harper and Row.

Lamoureux, Vincent B. 1967. _Guide to Ship Sanitation_. Geneva: 
World Health
     Organization.

LaHaye, Tim F., and Morris, John D. 1976. _The Ark on Ararat_. 
Nashville:
     Thomas Nelson.

Laing, Alexander. 1971. _American Ships_. New York: American 
Heritage Press.

Lammerts, Walter E. 1970. "Discoveries since 1859 Which Invalidate 
the
     Evolution Theory." In Lammerts (editor), _Why Not Creation?_ 
Nutley,
     NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 248-267.

Lang, E. M. 1977. "What Are Endangered Species?" _International Zoo 
Yearbook_.
     17:2-5.

Lecky, W. E. H. 1898. _History of European Morals from Augustus to
     Charlemagne_. Two volumes. New York: D. Appleton & Co.

Lester, Lane P. 1976. "Mimicry." In Morris, Henry M., and Gish, 
Duane T.
     (editors), _The Battle for Creation_. San Diego: Creation-Life
     Publishers, pp. 247-252.

Levine, Norman D. 1980. _Nematode Parasites of Domestic Animals and 
of Man_.
     Second edition. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co.

Levitt, Jacob. 1980. _Responses of Plants to Environmental 
Stresses_, vol.II:
     _Water, Radiation, Salt, and Other Stresses_. Second edition. 
New York:
     Academic Press.

Lindauer, M. 1980. "Hymenoptera." _Encyclopedia Britannica, 
Macropoedia_.
     9:126-133.

Loughman, William D., Frye, Frederic L., and Herald, Earl S. 1970. 
"The
     Chromosomes of a male manatee _Trichechus Inunguis_." 
_International Zoo
     Yearbook_. 10:151-152.

Lockley, Ronald M. 1979. _Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises_. Newton 
Abbot,
     England: David & Charles.

Macdonald, Gordon A. 1972. _Volcanoes_. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall.

Mayer, W. V. 1980. "Dormancy." _Encyclopedia Britannica, 
Macropoedia_.
     5:958-966.

Meyer, Nathan M. 1977. _Noah's Ark--Pitched and Parked_. Winona 
Lake, IN:
     BMH Books.

Montgomery, John Warwick. 1974. _The Quest for Noah's Ark_. Second 
edition.
     Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship.

Morris, Henry M. 1970. _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science_. 
Nutley, NJ:
     Craig,

------  1974. _Scientific Creationism_. General edition. San Diego:
     Creation-Life Publishers

------. 1976. _The Genesis Record_. San Diego: Creation-Life 
Publishers.

------. 1977. _The Beginning of the World_. Denver: Accent Books.

Morris, John D. 1973. _Adventure on Ararat_. San Diego: Creation-Life
     Publishers.

-----. 1978. "The Paluxy River Tracks." In Gish, Duane T., and 
Rohrer,
     Donald H. (editors), _Up With Creation_. San Diego: 
Creation-Life
     Publishers, pp. 247-252.

------. 1980. _Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs . . . and the 
People Who
     Knew Them_. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Mount, Lawrence E. 1979. _Adaptation to Thermal Environment: Man 
and His
     Productive Animals_. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Mueller, Marvin M. Spring 1982. "The Shroud of Turin: A Critical 
Appraisal."
     _Skeptical Inquirer_. 6:3:15-34.

National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal 
Resources, Committee
     on Birds. 1977. _Laboratory Animal Management: Wild Birds_. 
Washington,
     DC: National Academy of Sciences.

National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal 
Resources, Committee
     on Marine Invertebrates. 1981. _Marine Invertebrates_. 
Washington, DC:
     National Academy of Sciences.

Neill, Wildred T. 1969. _The Geography of Life_. New York: Columbia 
University
     Press.

Nelson, Byron C. 1968. _The Deluge Story in Stone_. Minneapolis: 
Bethany
     Fellowship.

Neubuser, Helmut. 1968. "The Work of the Zoo Inspector." In 
Kirchshofer, Rosl
     (editor), _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, pp. 
164-171.

Noble, George. 1976. _Sanitary Landfill Design Handbook_. Westport, 
CT:
     Technomic Publishing Co.

Noel, John V., Jr. 1977. _Knight's Modern Seamanship_. Sixteenth 
edition. New
     York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Orlans, F. Barbara. 1977. _Animal Care from Protozoa to Small 
Mammals_. Menlo
     Park: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Orr, Robert T. 1970. _Animals in Migration_. London: Macmillan.

Parkin, David T. 1979. _An Introduction to Evolutionary Genetics_. 
Baltimore:
     University Park Press.

Peaker, M. 1969. "Some Aspects of the Thermal Requirements of 
Reptiles in
     Captivity." _International Zoo Yearbook_. 9:3-8.

Phillips-Birt. Douglas. 1971. _A History of Seamanship_. Garden 
City, NY:
     Doubleday.

Pohjanpalo, Jarma. 1970. _The Sea and Man_. (Translated by Diana 
Tullberg.)
     New York: Stein and Day.

Pollard, Sidney, and Robertson, Paul. 1979. _The British Shipbuilding
     Industry, 1870-1914_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rawson, K. J., and Tupper, E. C. 1968. _Basic Ship Theory_. New York:
     American Elsevier.

Rehwinkel, Alfred M. 1951. _The Flood in the Light of the Bible, 
Geology,
     and Archaeology_. St. Louis: Concordia.

Robb, A. M. 1958. "Ship-Building." In singer, Charles, Holmyard, E. 
J., Hall,
     A. R., and Williams, Trevor I. (editors), _A History of 
Technology_,
     vol. V: _The Late Nineteenth Century, c1850 to c1900_. Oxford: 
Oxford
     University Press, pp. 350-390.

Rosenfeld, Andree. 1965. _The Inorganic Raw Materials of 
Antiquity_. New York:
     Frederick A. Praeger.

Sainsbury, David W. B., and Sainsbury, Peter. 1979. _Livestock 
Health and
     Housing_. London: Bailliere Tindall.

Sande, A. P. van den. 1974. "The Long-Distance Transport of Fishes 
and Aquatic
     Inverbrate." _International Zoo Yearbook_. 14:43-47.

Schmich, J. E. September 1974. "The Flood and the Ark." _Creation 
Research
     Society Quarterly_. 11:2:120-122.

Schweitzer, Albert. 1961. _The Quest of the Historical Jesus_. New 
York:
     Macmillan.

Segraves, Kelly L. 1975. _The Great Dinosaur Mistake_. San Diego: 
Bela Books.

Shaw, Charles E., and Campbell, Sheldon. 1974. _Snakes of the 
American West_.
     New York: Aldred E. Knopf.

Siegler, Hilbert R. September 1974. "The Magnificence of Kinds as 
Demonstrated
     by Canids." _Creation Research Society Quarterly_. 11:2:94-97.

------. June 1978. "A Creationists Taxonomy." _Creation Research 
Society
     Quarterly_. 15:1:36-38.

Smith, E. Norbert. March 1979. "Marine Life and the Flood." 
_Creation Research
     Society Quarterly_. 15:4:179-183.

Snow, Ralph L. 1976. "The Twilight of Commercial Wooden 
Shipbuilding, 1896-
     1920." In National Trust for Historical Preservation, _Wooden
     Shipbuiding and Small Craft Preservation_. Washington, DC:
     Preservation Press, pp. 76-91.

Soule, Michael E., and Wilcox, Bruce A. (editors). 1980. 
_Conservation
     Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective_. Sunderland, 
MA:
     Sinauer Associats

Stewart, Desmond. 1971. _The Pyramids and Sphinx_. New York: 
Newsweek Book
     Division.

Thomson, J. R. 1979. _An Introduction to Seed Technology_. New 
York: John
     Wiley & Sons.

Thrower, W. R. 1972. _Life at Sea in the Age of Sail_. London: 
Phillimore.

Vandel, A. 1965. _Biospeleology_. (Translated by B. E. Freeman.) 
Oxford:
     Pergamon Press.

Villiers, Trevor A. 1975. _Dormancy and the Survival of Plants_. 
London:
     Edward Arnold.

Vincent, J. 1975. "Accommodation Facilities and Procedures.'' In 
Young, E.
     (editor), _The Capture and Care of Wild Animals_. Hollywood, 
FL: Ralph
     Curtis Books, pp.l26-l33.

Voss, Gunter. 1968. "Difficult Mammals in the Zoo." In Kirchshofer, 
Rosl
     (editor), _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, pp. 
151-163.

Wallach, J. D., and Flieg, G. 1970. "Cramps and Fits in Carnivorous 
Birds."
     _International Zoo Yearbook_. 10:3-4.

Ward, Rita Rhodes. 1965. _In the Beginning_. Grand Rapids, MI; Baker
     Book House.

Wendt, Herbert. 1965. _The Sex Life of Animals_. (Translated by 
Richard and
     Clara Winston) New York: Simon & Schuster.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr. 1972. _The Early Earth_. Grand Rapids, MI: 
Baker
     Book House.

------. 1973. _The World That Perished_. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker 
Book House.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr., and Morris, Henry M. 1961. _The Genesis 
Flood_.
     Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

White, Michael J. D. 1978. _Modes of Speciation_. San Francisco: W. 
H. Freeman.

Wickins, J. F., and Helm, M. M. 1981. "Sea Water Treatment." In 
Hawkins,
     A.D. (editor), _Aquarium Systems_. London: Academic Press, pp. 
63-128.

Yalden, D. W., and Morris, P. A. 1975. _The Lives of Bats_. New York:
     Quadrangle.

Young E. 1975. "The General Care and Nutrition of Wild Mammals in 
Captivity."
     In Young (editor), _The Capture and Care of Wild Animals_. Ho
Hollywood,
     FL: Ralph Curtis Books, pp. 134-147.

Zimmerman, Elwood C. 1948. _Insects of Hawaii_, vol. 1. Honolulu:
     University of Hawaii Press.


EOF

Well?
