The search for Noah's Ark continues to be much
in the news. The evidence for the existence of Noah's Ark is
impressive and growing as research continues, but it is also
a fact that no objective proof has yet been produced. We have
every reason to believe that the remains have been preserved
on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey, and we have every reason to
hope that proof will soon be forthcoming, but as of this writing,
the search goes on.

Significance of the Discovery

The first question that one might ask is "Why
the interest in the search for the Ark? Is it just an adventure,
or is there some importance attached to its potential discovery?"
Make no mistake—there is stirring adventure in the search,
so much so that many attempt involvement just for the thrill
of it (or for the prospect of financial gain). This author's
adventures are well documented in two books on the subject^1,2
and include political intrigue, attacks by wolves, bullet holes
in the tents, paralysis from a lightning strike, and mental
hardship. The many brushes with death are balanced by the excitement
of potential success.

On the other hand, implications of the potential
discovery of the Ark are wide-ranging, and a proper understanding
of these provides ample motivation for facing physical danger
and hardship. In the archaeological realm, it is easy to see
that the discovery of Noah's Ark would be "the greatest
archaeological discovery of all time." If the flood of
Noah indeed wiped out the entire human race and its civilization,
as the Bible teaches, then the Ark constitutes the one remaining
major link to the pre-flood World. No significant artifact could
ever be of greater antiquity or importance.

Those familiar with the work of the Institute
for Creation Research will likewise recognize a tremendous potential
impact on the creation-evolution (including theistic evolution)
controversy. Evolutionists interpret earth history using the
assumption of uniformity, i.e., that processes and process rates
have remained substantially "uniform" throughout the
past, and are similar to processes and rates possible today.
Studying geologic formations and the fossil record in the light
of this assumption necessarily yields notions of a vast age
for the earth, and evolution demands an immense amount of time.
Creationists, on the other hand, point to evidence of a "non-uniform"
or catastrophic nature of earth history, i.e., that things have
been different in the past. It seems obvious that if a 450 foot
ark were to be discovered on top of a high mountain, it could
only have been placed there by a mountain covering flood, a
flood which would have been world-wide in scope. Such a flood
would have had dramatic geologic consequences, and indeed would
have restructured the surface of the globe, depositing perhaps
the majority of fossil bearing strata. All of the geologic data
which are now interpreted by evolutionists as supporting long
ages of slow evolutionary change would have to be reinterpreted
in light of this major catastrophe.

A Review of the Evidence

Throughout the years, evidences for the existence
of the remains of the Ark have surfaced. Usually this evidence
takes the form of eyewitness accounts, individuals or groups
who have reported seeing the Ark, but who have been unable to
provide real objective proof. Evidence has also come from individuals
who report having seen objective proof (such as top secret photographs
in government files) but are not able now to produce it. The
latter category has increased in recent years, and this author
is aware of seven sets of military "data" on which
the Ark has been said to be clearly visible.

It is encouraging to note that in the last three
years, three new living eyewitnesses have come forward and made
known their stories. One, an elderly Armenian, tells how he
had seen the Ark as a boy many years ago. His story is similar
to two other accounts passed on by two elderly Armenians, all
three of whom had previously lived in the Ararat region. The
second living eyewitness tells of being stationed in Turkey
in the U.S. Air Force in the early 1970's. Interested in archaeology,
he asked a Turkish friend if they could go see Noah's Ark. As
it turned out, the Turkish friend had an uncle, an old shepherd
who lived on Mt. Ararat, who took them up to see the Ark. No
pictures were taken. The third eyewitness, was also a U.S. serviceman
in Turkey in the early 1970's. He flew over Mt. Ararat in a
Navy jet with sophisticated cameras and took pictures of the
Ark, which were never released.

These three unrelated accounts agree substantially
with each other and with the previous accounts which are better
known. All tell of a long linear structure, resting on a ledge
in a very rugged section of the mountain, overlooking an impressive
canyon. The color is much darker than the surrounding rock and
soil, and is definitely foreign to the area. It appears to be
protruding out of a debris covered snow or ice pack, or perhaps
a frozen section of porous volcanic ash. One end seems to be
quite broken, and it is possible to see inside the structure
from certain vantage points. It would be very difficult to reach
the Ark on foot since some access ledges seem to be broken off,
although these may have been intact in the past. Although the
accounts do substantially agree, lack of specific details and,
at times, conflicting details have kept researchers uncertain
as to the exact location.

Recent Expeditions

But this uncertainty has not kept many (far too
many in fact) individuals and groups from attempting to obtain
permits to climb Mt. Ararat to search for the Ark. The Turkish
embassy has been flooded with applications from well-meaning
but poorly-prepared, underfinanced, and underqualified groups,
and unfortunately, much damage has been done, probably postponing
the issuance of permits to expeditions capable of success. Others
have ventured to Mt. Ararat and climbed without official permission
or with local permission only. This politically dangerous stance,
coupled with the meager preparation of most, has insured that
nothing of a positive nature would be accomplished.*

It has always been difficult to obtain governmental
approval for an expedition, but in recent years Turkish-American
relations have been at even a lower ebb than usual. Making the
task more difficult was the fact that coalition governments
have ruled Turkey lately and at times it was doubtful who was
really in charge. However, in 1981, a military takeover of the
government brought one ruling body to power and restored order
and stability to a country fast moving toward anarchy. Improved
relations with the West by this pro-American NATO member resulted
in a partial lifting of the ban on Ararat research in the summer
of 1982.

The Cummings-Irwin Group

Eryl Cummings, long time Ark searcher and researcher,
teamed with former astronaut Jim Irwin to launch an unusual
expedition in August 1982. Colonel Irwin, the field leader for
the team, was instrumental in obtaining permits due to his former
status in the space program and his nominal acquaintance with
the Turkish president.

The main thrust of the search centered in an easily
accessible area called the North Canyon. The Ahora Gorge, without
a doubt the most rugged area on the mountain and the site of
most earlier investigations, had been ruled out primarily on
the basis of the account related by the elderly Armenian mentioned
above. The North Canyon area was carefully checked and found
not to contain the Ark. Due to a series of misfortunes (including
a near-tragic injury to Irwin, lack of experienced climbers
and lack of experienced Ararat explorers) no other areas were
searched. A promised aerial search was called off due to a major
storm and the group returned in late August.

Once back, Irwin was contacted by a veteran Turkish
traveler who claimed to have seen the Ark on two occasions,
once in 1980 and again in 1982 before the arrival of Irwin and
his group. Based on his story, Irwin and a few nonclimbers headed
back to Turkey in mid-September hoping for an aerial search
of the mountain, but this was denied. Again Irwin was injured
and little if any was accomplished. But in October, long after
winter snows usually set in, the better climbers of the group
returned, this time without Irwin and with the eyewitness. By
this late date the snows had indeed come and no climbing was
possible. However, the specific object of their quest, which
is in the far reaches of the Ahora Gorge, was studied through
a telescope. It was determined not to be the Ark.

ICR Group

This author had originally been invited to be
a member of the Cummings-Irwin group. In early spring a second
thrust apparently became available and the decision was made
to propose separate, but complementary, groups. This second
group, which was to have been primarily sponsored through ICR,
consisted of two Sumerian archaeologists, one Turkish anthropologist-mountain
climber who had grown up on Ararat, one professional climber,
one professional cinematographer, and this author. All participants
are capable climbers and experts at their designated functions.
Permission had been granted the two archaeologists to document
the various archaeological sites previously discovered near
the mountain and to search the area for other relics of Sumerian
origin, including the mountain for the remains of Noah's Ark.

Unfortunately, Turkish officials became hesitant
about sanctioning the ICR group once the president of Turkey
had approved the Irwin group. Competition was feared and not
knowing of the plans to cooperate and coordinate the two expeditions,
the ICR paperwork was held up by Turkish officials until too
late.

Contacts with the proper Turkish officials during
fall, 1982 have illuminated the problems of the summer and have
resulted in greater understanding and an assurance of complete
governmental support for the summer of 1983. Efforts are under
way to insure that a properly planned, prepared, and staffed
team of scientists and professionals will have every opportunity
for success.

As is always the case with such a venture, the
financial needs are great. Donations to the project can be sent
to ICR designated for the Ararat project. Supporters can be
assured of a well-planned, prepared, and staffed expedition,
capable of accomplishing the job. All funds will be handled
in a thoroughly competent and honest manner, strictly abiding
by Turkish law.

A second great need is that of prayer. Such a
world-shaking event could not take place without much opposition
and much is expected. The Ark will be found only as God answers
the prayers of His people.

REFERENCES

1. Adventure on Ararat, (San Diego, Creation-Life
Publishers, 1973, 116 pp.

2. The Ark on Ararat, (with Tim LaHaye. Nashville, Thomas
Nelson, Co., 1976), 275 pp.