Evan vs Noah
‘Lessons’ from the film Evan Almighty
by Daniel Anderson
Published: 17 July 2007 (GMT+10)
Evan Almighty features Steve Carell as Evan Baxter, a newscaster who becomes
a congressman intent on saving the world. Little does he expect ‘God’
to answer his prayer with the command to build an ark. This film (rated PG) has
received positive reviews from large segments of the Christian community, but others
have not been so enthusiastic. Some consider that the whole idea of portraying the
holy and unapproachable Creator God as a human actor (Morgan Freeman) is tantamount
to blasphemy. Others feel soiled at the liberal sprinkling of profanities, references
to reproductive organs and toilet humor. The film opened in the US on 22 June 2007
and is scheduled for release in the UK on 3 August and Australia on 6 September.
Drawing from the biblical account of Noah’s Ark, Evan Almighty mixes
religion, ethics, environmentalism, and comedy. Comedy, of course, is the universal
salve of modern cinema that can redeem any storyline—in the minds of today’s
viewers. The humour in this film involves allusions to a realtor named ‘Eve
Adams’, God teasingly referring to Evan’s fear as ‘the beginning
of wisdom’, and companies named ‘Alpha & Omega’ and ‘1-800-Go-4-Wood’
delivering the supplies to build the ark.
But filmgoers who chuckled at the film’s humorous depictions of Evan’s
flood, a cinematic fantasy, need to be aware of the differences between it and the
biblical account of Noah’s Flood, a global reality.
Local vs Global
A critical difference between Noah’s Flood and Evan’s flood is that
Evan’s flood is a local event rather than the catastrophic global Flood of
Noah as written in the Bible. While many progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists
interpret the biblical Flood as a local event, such an interpretation raises some
of the same questions that the film may raise with audiences. In the case of a local
flood:
- Why wouldn’t God simply tell Noah (or Evan) to move out of the region to escape
the flood?
- Why would animals from around the world need to be brought on board the Ark for
protection from a local flood?
- Why would birds need to be rescued from a local flood when they could have simply
flown away?
But a straightforward interpretation of the biblical account makes it clear that
the event was global, and that explains the geological evidence (see Was the flood global?)
The source of the water
Another difference between Evan’s flood and Noah’s Flood is the source
of the floodwaters. The movie uses the breaching of a nearby dam as the source for
the powerful local flood, whereas the biblical account reveals that it rained forty
days and forty nights upon the earth and that the ‘fountains of the great
deep’ burst forth. This bursting forth produced ground level flooding from
the vast amounts of water stored below the surface of the earth, as well as devastating
earthquakes and volcanoes—see Drowned from below.
The biblical account also establishes that the real Flood was a year-long event.
It rained forty days and forty nights, the ‘fountains of the great deep’
erupted and the floodwaters rose for five months. It took more than six months for
floodwaters to recede. Most of the fossilized strata comprising the geologic column
formed at this time, providing a record of the order of rapid burial during the
real Flood.
Which animals were taken aboard?
Evan takes every species of land vertebrate onto his ark, but Noah did
not need to take that many
Like the real Flood of Noah’s day, Evan’s fictional flood has God bringing
various land-dwelling birds, mammals, and reptiles to the Ark for loading. Bible
skeptics often misrepresent the Genesis account by claiming that even insects, amphibians,
marine creatures were taken aboard, as well as the invertebrates. However, the Bible
clearly states that Noah was commanded to take only the air-breathing, land-dwelling
vertebrates. These comprise less than 2% of species living today (and even less
of the species preserved in the fossil record).
In his book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, creation biologist/geologist
John Woodmorappe estimated that Noah boarded about only 16,000 animals (8,000 genera)
at the very most. And applying known low-tech farming methods, 16,000 animals
would have required less than half of the Ark’s space.
One further difference is that Evan takes every species of land vertebrate
onto his ark, but Noah did not need to take that many. Instead of different species,
Noah took different ‘kinds’, which are generally equated with a genus
in modern animal taxonomy (even family level in some cases).
For example, Noah would not have needed to take two dogs and two wolves. Instead,
he just needed to take two of the ‘canine kind’, because dogs, wolves,
coyotes, dingoes, and jackals can all interbreed and thus form part of the same
biblical kind. By the same line of reasoning only two bears would have been needed
to account for all individual bear species alive today (with
the possible exception of the panda), and only two animals of the ‘equine
kind’ to account for the present day horses, donkeys, and zebras. For more
information about the biblical kind see Variation and
natural selection versus evolution and Darwin’s
Finches: evidence supporting rapid post-flood adaptation.
Construction of the Ark
Surprisingly, Evan’s fairy-tale ark seems to have been modeled on creationist
interpretations of the real Noah’s Ark. Also, Evan and his family were able
to construct their ark in a matter of weeks, whereas the biblical account suggests
at least 70 years for construction. Unlike the caricatures sometimes portrayed in
books, television shows and magazines, Evan’s ark was presented in the movie
as a massive barge. Although large, it was still much smaller than the real thing,
but it did give something of an impression of the appearance of the real Ark.
In 1994, eight Korean naval architects concluded that the Ark possessed ideal dimensions
for optimal stability and could have safely navigated 30 m (100 foot) waves, even
if the wood was only 30 cm (one foot) thick—see
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway. Skeptics usually aren’t
aware that the Ark contained about 43,000 cubic metres (1.5 million cubic feet)
of space capable of holding approximately 125,000 sheep. Considering that the maximum
number of animals needed was eight times less than this, and that the vast majority
of the land dwelling vertebrates are smaller than sheep, there would have been plenty
of space.
Judgment and salvation
In the movie, ‘God’ tells Evan’s wife, Joan (portrayed by Lauren
Graham) how people like to focus on the wrath and judgment of God when it comes
to the story of Noah’s Ark. But the real message of the biblical account,
according to the ‘God’ of the movie, is about people ‘believing
in each other’ and ‘standing by one another’.
While this may sound politically correct and give patrons a warm sense of comfort,
it is not the message of the biblical account of the Flood. Genesis 6 makes it abundantly clear that the devastating
global Flood was sent to punish mankind for their willful rebellion against the
Creator. The world was filled with terrible wickedness and violence, and mankind
had demonstrated no hint of repentance. Therefore, the Lord God executed perfect
justice in pouring out his wrath on a sinful world.
This may seem horribly unfair, but remember that the Lord gave mankind 120 years
to repent of their evil. In 2 Peter 2:5, Noah is called a ‘preacher of righteousness’.
This suggests that he warned the people of the impending Flood. The fact that only
eight people boarded the Ark means that no-one repented and humbled themselves before
God. In the movie Evan also gave the people a chance to repent and be saved and,
contrasting with the biblical account, at the last minute everyone was allowed on
Evan’s ark whether they had repented or not.
However, Christians understand that we too deserve God’s righteous judgment.
Romans 3:23 says ‘For all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God.’ The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of hell and judgment more
than any other person mentioned in the Bible. The Scriptures plainly state that
God is righteous and holy. He does not tolerate sin and will not allow sin in His
presence. That is why He sent his one-and-only Son to die for the sin of the world,
to satisfy both God’s justice and mercy (John 3:16).
The movie gives the impression that we can earn God’s favor through our ‘good
works’ but that is not correct. It’s true that we have all been created
to live a life of love and service to God. However, these acts cannot redeem us
from our sin. Isaiah 64:6 states, ‘All of us have become like one
who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.’ Ephesians 2:8–9 says ‘For it is by grace you
have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift
of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.’
The Scriptures make it clear that salvation is a free gift that was earned by the
perfect life, redeeming death, and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is
only after we are saved that we are able to perform good works, and we
do these out of love and gratitude for the salvation Jesus Christ earned for us
on the cross.
Environmental message
Predictably, the movie presents a strong environmental message. We are told to care
for this planet, which God has blessed us with, and to do all that is necessary
to minimize environmental destruction. This is consistent with biblical Christianity.
As Christians, we have been called to be good stewards of God’s Creation.
In fact, the first man Adam was created to have dominion over the earth, and commanded
by God to ‘tend the garden’ (Genesis 2:15). However, we must not make an idol of the
environment. Although we should care for our planet and its valuable resources,
we are ultimately accountable to the Creator and not to ‘Nature’, which
is not an end in itself, but a product of God’s masterful engineering and
divine artistry. See also Earth Day: Is Christianity to
blame for environment problems?
Conclusion
It is good to know a bit about the movie so you can talk about it intelligently
with family and friends. Although the movie is funny, entertaining and fast moving,
it is typical of those comedies/films which mock and trivialize eternal issues.
The average person will likely enjoy this movie, so it could give you opportunity
to discuss eternal issues with them—issues such as the evidence supporting
the reality of the biblical Flood, the reasons for God sending the Flood, and what
that means for us today. From that aspect, the film could be a useful catalyst for
stimulating conversations with skeptics about Creation and the Flood, which serve
as the foundation of Scriptural authority and lead naturally to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.
Addendum (30 July 2007)
Canadian creation supporter David Buckna has created a web-based quiz based on this
film for use in conversation-starting and witnessing, at this external link:
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07070165.htm
|