I think those folks are all fools, one side for actually believing the Ark myth and the other for wasting time protesting. As for the state helping finance it, it looks like they'll get a good return on their investment.
As for trying to refute the Ark story with science, I have learned that there is no point in trying to do so, or trying to refute science with religion.
Those who believe the Ark story was meant to be taken as a literal event in history that encompassed the entire planet are those who have zero interest in, or (alternatively) ability to learn, the fundamentals of the life sciences.
The OT is written in different, original Hebrew language genres — poetry, prophecy, and history to name three. The best Hebrew scholars (ie, James Barr, Oxford) have determined that Genesis is written in the historical genre; in other words, real history, real people, real occurrences.
So you, in your wisdom have decided that this history is not literal. By what standard? What else do you believe is not literal?
The virgin birth? Christ as God incarnate? The resurrection? The ascension? Why bother?
The fundamentals of life science? The fundamentals? — that is actually pretty funny.
