You Believe that Genesis 1–11 is Literal History, and You're Going to Replicate the Tower of Babel? I Mean, Really?

I don't always comment on the Creation Museum, but when I do it's because Ken Ham is planning to replicate the Tower of Babel. I mean, literally replicate. He's calling it a "replica." I'm not saying that's the literal product of replication. The English language is saying that. And I'm also not saying that this is a really bad idea. I am saying that it's a really flipping weird one. To quote Ham's Answers in Genesis itself (in the article cited above): "the Tower of Babel...[is] rightfully considered a symbol of man’s rebellion after the global flood." Now, I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that the God of the Bible doesn't look too kindly on symbols of humanity's rebellion against his divine purposes, nor upon the people who create such symbols. What's next? Is Answers in Genesis going to build a high place and sacrifice to Melqart? Put up a life-size Asherah pole? "Come worship Ba'al, just as the ancient Israelites." I mean, ancient Israelites did worship Ba'al. It's in the bible. So, surely that must be replicated at the Creation Museum, right? Right?

I really wish that I could have been in the room when this decision was made. Like, did no one think to point out that replicating what is probably the world's most famous divinely-mandated architectural disaster might not end well? As Relevant Magazine asks: "What's the worst that could happen?" I mean, it's not like Genesis dings the original as lying behind basically all divisions within the human family that continue to dog us to this day, right? That's not a thing, right? And it's not like Ken Ham believes that this is literally, exactly what happened. That's not the case, right? Seriously. What sort of self-respecting fundamentalist reads about the Tower of Babel and says "You know what we need dude? More Towers of Babel." Seriously. This is just weird. Like, "I had to make sure that this wasn't an article on the Onion, or perhaps the Babylon Bee" weird.

But we've only grazed the surface of the weird. It's turtles all the way down, and those turtles are just really bizarre. Like, "H.R. Giger drew a turtle and Jorodowsky put it on film and then someone tried to describe what they just watched on Drunk History" bizarre. Just really strange. Somehow, rebuilding a structure which fundamentalists like Ham believe is responsible for virtually all human animosity is...anti-racist. Seriously. That's what Answers in Genesis is trying to sell. But think about this for a few moments. According to Genesis, humans built the Tower of Babel in order to ensure that the human family would not be divided. The result was exactly what they sought to avoid: God divided the human family into numerous languages. So, in trying to present this as an anti-racist project, it kinda feels like Answers in Genesis is trying to—wait for it—unite the whole of the human family. Did they not read the story to the end? Do they not know how building the Tower of Babel in order to overcome human division ends? Seriously. You can't make this stuff up. (Also: apparently something something evolution "impl[ies] that some people groups are more closely related to apes than others." Ron Howard voiceover: it doesn't).

But don't worry. It's all for God, who I am assured is greatly honoured by theme park replicas of things that he smote a few thousand years ago.