I'm a regular reader of the news site
Space.com, which is usually a great source for news about astronomy, space exploration and the occasional entertainment story about science fiction.
Imagine my surprise today, then, when I found a major "exclusive" feature article about the search for Noah's Ark.
Apparently, the efforts to place religious myth on an equal footing with science don't stop with creationism...there are folks out there who are trying to get the whole book of Genesis into the scientific canon.
First, a brief summary: The article describes a geological anomaly atop Turkey's Mt. Ararat, detected recently by satellite imaging. It then proceeds to uncritically describe the work of an untrained biblical archaeologist who is attempting to prove that the object is the remains of the mythical Noah's Ark.
High on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey, there is a baffling mountainside "anomaly," a feature that one researcher claims may be something of biblical proportions.Images taken by aircraft, intelligence-gathering satellites and commercial remote-sensing spacecraft are fueling an intensive study of the intriguing oddity. But whether the anomaly is some geological quirk of nature, playful shadows, a human-made structure of some sort, or simply nothing at all--that remains to be seen.
Whatever it is, the anomaly of interest rests at 15,300 feet (4,663 meters) on the northwest corner of Mt. Ararat, and is nearly submerged in glacial ice. It would be easy to call it merely a strange rock formation.
But at least one man wonders if it could be the remains of Noah's Ark--a vessel said to have been built to save people and selected animals from the Great Flood, the 40 days and 40 nights of deluge as detailed in the Book of Genesis.
The author (I daren't say "reporter) expresses no skepticism about the premise of the study, or the qualifications of the "researcher" (he's a professor somewhere, but of "paralegal studies"). There's no mention of the fact that there's no scientific evidence that the Great Flood ever happened, and no attempt to distinguish between mythological wish-fulfillment and the scientific method.
Taylor said his goal is straightforward: Combining this imagery to make the Ararat anomaly transparent to the public, as well as to the discerning, dispassionate eyes of scientists, imagery analysts, and other experts."I had no preconceived notions or agendas when I began this in 1993 as to what I was looking for," Taylor said.
Oh, well, that's all right then. He's unbiased -- "unbiased" enough to consider a Bible story plausible.
As for the saga of Noah's Ark, he is quick to note that there are those who say it is fable while some take it as truth.
This is the quote that really got me. Rather than skepticism, this line places fable on the same intellectual level as true science. There's no scholarship, outside the barely academic and certainly unscientific world of biblical archaeology, that suggests the Great Flood ever happened. It's not an alternate theory; it's a religious myth. Hence the idea that there might be 'confirmation' just because some mystery rock has a size ratio of 6:1 (300 cubits by 50, for those of you who skipped Sunday school this week) is one step below numerology and the Face on Mars.
This article, and the uncritical treatment of the subject by its author, reminds me of the "teach the controversy" and "expose students to all points of view" schools on the intelligent design issue: Both positions blur the distinction between objective theory-driven work and efforts motivated by faith-based, unscientific tales.
Just because the man in the article is using a satellite, it doesn't make him a scientist.
What's next -- feature articles quoting "researchers" saying that pulsars are proof of intelligent design?
To place wishful thinking based on a myth on an equal basis with science is irresponsible and destructive. I think the editors of Space.com, and Leonard David (the article's author) ought to be ashamed of themselves.
If after reading the article you think so too, I would encourage you to share your opinion with them. (Note that this is the general letters-to-the-editor form, so be sure to mention the article in the lead of your response.)