http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark#Historicity[h=2]Historicity[/h] [h=3]Ark's geometrics[/h]In Europe, the
Renaissance saw much speculation on the nature of the ark that might have seemed familiar to early theologians such as Origen and Augustine. At the same time, however, a new class of scholarship arose, one which, while never questioning the literal truth of the Ark story, began to speculate on the practical workings of Noah's vessel from within a purely naturalistic framework. In the 15th century, Alfonso Tostada gave a detailed account of the logistics of the ark, down to arrangements for the disposal of dung and the circulation of fresh air. The 16th-century
geometrician Johannes Buteo calculated the ship's internal dimensions, allowing room for Noah's grinding mills and smokeless ovens, a model widely adopted by other commentators.[SUP]
[15][/SUP]
Various editions of the
Encyclopædia Britannica reflect the collapse of belief in the historicity of the ark in the face of advancing scientific knowledge. Its 1771 edition offered the following as scientific evidence for the ark's size and capacity: "...Buteo and
Kircher have proved geometrically, that, taking the common
cubit as a foot and a half, the ark was abundantly sufficient for all the animals supposed to be lodged in it...the number of species of animals will be found much less than is generally imagined, not amounting to a hundred species of
quadrupeds". By the eighth edition (1853–1860), the encyclopedia said of the Noah story, "The insuperable difficulties connected with the belief that all other existing species of animals were provided for in the ark are obviated by adopting the suggestion of
Bishop Stillingfleet, approved by
Matthew Poole...and others, that the Deluge did not extend beyond the region of the Earth then inhabited". By the ninth edition, in 1875, no attempt was made to reconcile the Noah story with scientific fact, and it was presented without comment. In the 1960 edition, the article on the ark stated that "Before the days of '
higher criticism' and the rise of the
modern scientific views as to the origin of the species, there was much discussion among the learned, and many ingenious and curious theories were advanced, as to the number of animals on the ark".[SUP]
[24][/SUP]
[h=3]Species distribution[/h] By the 17th century, it was becoming necessary to reconcile the exploration of the
New World and increased awareness of the
global distribution of species with the older belief that all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of
Mount Ararat. The obvious answer was that man had spread over the continents following the destruction of the
Tower of Babel and taken animals with him, yet some of the results seemed peculiar. In 1646, Sir
Thomas Browne wondered why the natives of
North America had taken
rattlesnakes with them, but not
horses: "How America abounded with Beasts of prey and noxious Animals, yet contained not in that necessary Creature, a Horse, is very strange".[SUP]
[15][/SUP]
Browne, who was among the first to question the notion of
spontaneous generation, was a medical doctor and amateur scientist making this observation in passing. However, biblical scholars of the time, such as
Justus Lipsius (1547–1606) and
Athanasius Kircher (c.1601–80), were also beginning to subject the Ark story to rigorous scrutiny as they attempted to harmonize the biblical account with the growing body of
natural historical knowledge. The resulting hypotheses were an important impetus to the study of the geographical distribution of plants and animals, and indirectly spurred the emergence of
biogeography in the 18th century. Natural historians began to draw connections between climates and the animals and plants adapted to them. One influential theory held that the biblical Ararat was striped with varying climatic zones, and as climate changed, the associated animals moved as well, eventually spreading to repopulate the globe.
There was also the problem of an
ever-expanding number of known species: for Kircher and earlier natural historians, there was little problem finding room for all known animal species in the ark. Less than a century later, discoveries of new species made it increasingly difficult to justify a literal interpretation for the Ark story.[SUP]
[25][/SUP] By the middle of the 18th century only a few natural historians accepted a literal interpretation of the narrative.[SUP]
[26][/SUP]
