Volume 1, Issue 4
August 28, 2011

 A question that may have been bugging you




In these newsletters, I have referred to some powerful evidence but have yet to address the scientific objections to a worldwide Flood. This week, we learn that some scientists estimate as many as 8.7 million species. They have identified and catalogued 1.3M. If NAMI has discovered the Ark, we will soon know just how large. From initial reports, it is close to the dimensions given in the Bible. That calculates to a little over 1 cubic foot for room and year supply of feed for each preserved pair of known species. It may be a mark of exceptional open-mindness for those of you acquainted with the standard scientific objections to be reading this newsletter.


Those who have read The Archaeological Evidence know that I address the scientific objections to the Flood more specifically than you expected. I explain what is believed in the relevant fields of science and how that knowledge was established. I had to determine just what scientists mean by species, aside from giving finds a new Latin name. They do not mean what you might assume: the ability to produce fertile offspring. (Each after its own kind.) The problem is that evolutionists have a vested interest in expanding the number of species. (See article below for why Neanderthals are reckoned as a separate human species.) That's why scientists so disagree on the number of species. Importantly, all but several thousand species are plants, invertebrate (insects, worms, microbes, etc), live in the sea, or very small. The land-dwelling bugs all nesting in the rafters, the Ark was not particularly crowded.*


Those who conceive and pass along the common scientific objections to the Flood are more likely scientific popularizers (or theologians relying on the same) than accomplished scientists, who are more likely to acknowledge how limited and uncertain our present knowledge. Technology has greatly changed the way we live, causing us to overestimate what moderns truly know and to look down on the ancients and native peoples who lacked this technology. But I know from years of experience: being overly impressed with technology is what holds back technological progress! We progress by discovering that what we thought we know is not in fact the case and by building on the knowledge of the past. No one makes progress without building on the experience of the past.


In my book, I trace the history of many fields of science and natural history. You will discover that technological progress tracks closely with biblical faith. But believers can also be too impressed with technology. What made me skeptical of the many claims for Noah's Ark before NAMI's announcement was how much some of these claims depended on interpreting data from scientific instruments. From long experience, I know how deceiving that can be. Our courts recognize that even expert knowledge is less reliable than eye witness testimony. As I explain (below right) in "The race to discover Noah's Ark," the experience of the locals was key to NAMI's discovery. 


The character and track record of witnesses are also important. Do they brush aside questions or straightforwardly answer? Do the witnesses act important, or humble? Do questions generate excuses or answers?  Are the answers disappointing, or delightfully surprising? Do the witnesses refuse, or are they happy to be cross-examined in an open forum? The right answers to these questions generate increasing trust. For our experience with NAMI, read the column at right.


Regards to all,


Philip Williams

*' What else was preserved in this frozen container? Something that explains the explorer's masks, & passing the smell test as the remains of Noah's Ark.
New recipients

If this is your first Christian Leaders & Scholars Newsletter, please take a look at our first 3 newsletters.
In this issue
An International team
What about Neanderthals?
The race to discover Noah's Ark

Give trailer time to download

An international team

Charlotte team member attends Hong Kong premier 


This week, one of our team from Charlotte is in Hong Kong helping prepare to bring this event to the US. This trip is not so much to preview the documentary. We have already learned that NAMI does not disappoint. More importantly, we want to get acquainted with members of their team who we have yet to meet in person.


Having experience in business and international relations, I am amazed at how rapidly deep trust is developing among those involved with this discovery. Trust first developed between those from Hong Kong and Turkish locals, then between these and the rest of us in Europe, the US, and elsewhere. Even within different countries, the groups are diverse. 


As the world judges, however wonderful the evidence, merely because this discovery is so remarkable, those involved took considerable risks to follow what their hearts believed to be the truth. It is, of course, the same difficulty the world has with biblical faith. But in China and Turkey as in the US, Australia, and Europe, this diverse team is tied together by following a common thread of truth.


What about Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man?
How did the latter become our ancestors, the former a separate species?

Neanderthal skull

Last week, I explained that what scientists previously identified as diluvian (remains from the Flood) came to be classified as deposits from a long Ice Age. The reason the deposits had been classified as diluvian is that they were unstratified, as if deposited by a single Flood. It was prior to the advent of radiocarbon dating. So how did they determine which deposits were older and which latest?


Charles Lyell (mentor to Charles Darwin) suggested that the age of deposits depended on the type of animals found among the remains. He suggested there was first an age when hippo's roamed Europe, to be followed by an age of reindeer, then woolly mammoths. Édouard Lartet (1801-1871) refined these eras. These currently go by the name of human artifacts found in the same deposits (Aurignacian, Archallean, Mousterian, Gravettian, etc,), but are essentially the same eras that Lyell and Lartet pulled from their zoological hats.


Darwin's Descent of Man (1871) soon created another way of judging age: signs of evolutionary development. Some of those buried in the diluvian remains, as one found in Germany's Neanderthal Valley, had barreled chests and short bowed legs. According to Rudolph Virchow, founder of the science of pathology, here was a victim of rickets. But Darwin's bulldog Thomas Huxley declared it the most ape-looking man he had ever seen and similar to the present inhabitants of Australia. The most advanced of these cavemen had to be responsible for the beautiful drawings on the walls at Cro-Magnon. Surely, the latter had to be the ancestors of Europeans.


Recently, DNA test show Neanderthals intermarrying with Cro-Magnon. What that means, of course, is that these are the same species! Anthropologists have long known that Neanderthal skeletons are fully within the range of living humans. In ancient times as today, living in caves is associated with poverty. That and the lack of sunlight are also associated with rickets. May we awake from our evolutionary slumber. 


Read more Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man

Purchase the book 
Click to purchase
The Archaeological Evidence of Noah's Flood
is available from many online booksellers. We notice that the fastest and most reliable way of obtaining the book is from our website which can be accessed by clicking the book icon at right.

S & H:    4.00  (US addresses)  
       2.70   (NC residents only)
The race to discover Noah's Ark
How knowledge preserved by local natives prevailed over technology

The Discovers

A distinguished biblical archaeologist, one of the first Americans to view NAMI's evidence, studied the structure of finished and unfinished timbers lying beneath massive amounts of volcanic rock and ice. He compared what he was seeing to ships that archaeologists have found beneath the Egyptian Pyramids that may date from the same era. But what most impressed him that evening was learning of NAMI's methodology: their having been led to the discovery by investigating and recording native traditions.


That has not been the method of recent American Ark searchers who prefer to be guided by the latest technology: satellite photographs and ground searching radar. Technology greatly assists with archaeology, but so does local knowledge. I learned that NAMI had been forced to choose between trusting the locals versus Americans with the latest technology. They chose to believe the locals and were rewarded by this discovery.


But there was a time when Americans likewise esteemed the value of local traditions. The American scholar Edward Robinson (1794-1863), often regarded as the founder of biblical archaeology, used what he learned from local natives to identify the ancient cities of the Bible. The majority of his identifications have withstood the test of time. In Robinson's day, Americans were known in Europe for their leveling tendencies: treating the low and high born with the same respect. Many Americans abroad were from missionary families and more inclined than colonial Europeans to value what they learned from natives.


Read more about the knowledge of natives versus the latest technology

Quick Links

Post public questions and comments to our Facebook Discussion group. 

Find us on Facebook
Join Our Mailing List!


If I somehow got your email on my mailing list to which you did not want to be subscribed or if you received this at more than one of your email addresses, please accept my apology and unsubscribe by using the SafeUnsubscribe utility below.

About Us
Christian Leaders & Scholars is the newsletter and publication site of Philip Ernest Williams, author of The Archaeological Evidence of Noah's Flood (2011). The site is also a ministry not only to Christian leaders and scholars but all who are interested in the more difficult issues pertaining to the Bible and its implications for science and history. (Read more)