Reviews and bookish conversation with author Samantha Wilcoxson.
If I am lost, you will find me in medieval England.
You can also find me - and my books - on my blog.
I thought this book would be an interesting follow-up to the Nye-Ham debate and might expand upon some of the Creationist evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis. That may be what the author's goal was, but I found the results lackluster.
I'm going to put aside the several references to Wikipedia for a moment . . . OK, no I'm not. You should never - ever - use Wikipedia as a source. My 4th grader knows that. My 6th grader would be marked down for doing that in a paper. Why, oh why, is this published this way. Wikipedia is never an original source, so I have to assume that this was just thrown together with too much haste to bother looking more carefully for where the information came from.
The writing was also disjointed and unprofessional. I felt like I was reading someone's blog rather than a professionally written, edited, and published nonfiction book. The author is all over the place talking about everything from ancient myths that sound similar to the story of Noah to future plans of Ark related theme parks.
The most interesting part of this book is the chapter that retells stories of people who have claimed to have found, seen, or heard of others finding the ark. However, the author does not make any attempt to analyze which stories are more creditable or likely to be true. He just throws them all together and forms no conclusion.
The questions that non-Christians ask about Noah's ark are treated the same way. The author gives a few possible answers, including the standard "we just trust God took care of it," and moves on. There is not much new in this book that isn't covered better in the notes in my study Bible or in essays at Answers in Genesis.
This book truly had some potential, but I don't believe it has spent enough time being expanded and edited.