Many people have have been fascinated by newspaper reports about the discovery of Noah's Ark. A large amount of coverage was given to reports that the Ark had been discovered. A television programme (Quest for the Ark in the Encounter series) was produced on it. The programme included footage going back to 1986. There is a natural excitement about such news with some questions ensuing. Is this a new sighting? Is it reliable? and so on. After the unexpected discovery of the Ice Man who was remarkably preserved in the ice of the Alps, it would seem quite feasible that the Ark could have been preserved in a similar way. One reporter said, `For the first time there is some hard evidence that the ark really existed.'But what are the facts?
In a remarkable publicity coup, David Fasold was able to recycle his claims which were reviewed in Origins some time ago (1991, 4(10), 14). The reviewer of his book was sceptical then and there is no reason to change that position. Fasold is not an evangelical and is strongly antagonistic towards those he disparagingly calls fundamentalists. Indeed, one wonders why he is so keen on the Noah's Ark project since he rejects Scripture. He strongly opposes the work of John Morris, John Glen and others based on the traditional Ararat site. They may be wrong but one feels that Fasold's objections are based primarily on his subjective belief that his on site is superior.
The vessel is found in Turkey near the Iranian border on a mountain in the Ararat range and close to the traditional Islamic site. The mountain is known in Turkey as Moses Mountain. This is not necessarily the wrong location and would not conflict with Scripture.
One of the problems is that we are limited to Mr Fasold's own publicity machine for interpreting the data. It has not yet been published in professional literature where the evidence might be thoroughly evaluated. This article is, therefore, based on the newspaper reports and TV film, together with Fasold's own publications.
As Fasold interprets the data, it would appear to have similar dimensions to the ark. However, Fasold describes a structure more closely related to an Egyptian boat fitted with a keel, than to the box-like structure of the Bible. His claims relate to a vessel Noah would have been able to steer.
Mr Fasold also disputes the biblical description of the materials used in the construction of the vessel. In fact, his reconstruction is based on dubious evidence which has only a limited relationship to the Scriptural account. He claims that experts are saying that it can be carbon-dated to around 2500-4500 BC. If they were experts, they would expect to fine-tune the date rather more precisely than that.
Early on in the project, he recruited the help of a Christian from the Los Alamos Laboratories, Dr John Baumgardner. He was quoted and interviewed in the film version in support of the project in 1986. One is left with the impression that he still supports the project. However, it is interesting to note that Baumgardner is not involved in later stages of the project and I understand that he rejects the claims of Fasold now, believing the formation to be a natural one. One advantage of the film report over the newspapers is that it did show the uncertainty felt by others in the team in 1990.
Other than the shape of the rock surface, the claims are based on the apparent location of iron structures below the surface. These were first identified by a molecular frequency generator. Mr Fasold claims that this is an electronic instrument for detecting metals. The film footage suggests that it is no more than a pair of dowsing rods and so of little scientific value. However, he did arrange to smuggle in some radar equipment operated by a Tom Fenner. (The outcome was that the Turkish authorities banned his entry for a year because of the crime). After some initial frustrations which seemed to contradict the dowsing technique, Fenner did refine the results which seemed to support Fasold.
They went on to remove a core of rock. The outcome was very disappointing for the team. The core was not consistent with the equipment readings. Though Fasold retained his confidence in the presence of the Ark by believing it might have been fossilized, other experts (including Fenner) felt that they were faced with a natural rock formation.
It is interesting to compare the newspaper reports with the TV film. The former were rather sensational and, apparently, supportive. The TV film was more critical and left the intelligent viewer with more questions than answers.
Australian brethren in the Creation Science Foundation have thoroughly researched the reports and a geologist, Andrew Snelling, has identified a number of false claims. Snelling points out that among these are the claims that the radar shows a man-made boat structure, that a regular metallic pattern has been demonstrated, that petrified laminated wood has been identified, that metal rods were found and that the ship's ribs are shown. If Snelling is correct, there is not much left of the claims! Certainly this is my view having seen the press reports.
The Turkish government have now declared the site an official archaeological site. This is not to be taken, as some reports imply, that the government believes that the Ark is there. Rather, it is to safeguard the site so that a proper excavation may be attempted. This was expected to take place in 1995.
It may seem strange that members of a Society committed to the truth of the biblical account of creation, Noah and the Flood should be so sceptical about these reports. We have learnt long ago to try and test out any claim, from any quarter, before accepting or rejecting it. There is nothing to be gained by supporting a mistaken identity, whether it is a genuine misjudgment or a fraud. Our God is a God of truth and we are anxious to seek after the truth.
