Ken Ham is at it again


I know that I said previously that I would stay away from the topic of religion because it tends to never produce meaningful or productive dialogue. But after I read this, I couldn’t help but post. Ken Ham, the AiG guy who debated Bill Nye awhile back, wants to defund the search for extraterrestrial life. Not that surprising, really. But this idea that he has is symptomatic of the larger problem of fundamentalism. To read the blog post that he wrote, click here.

Ham’s rationale for discontinuing our search for ET rests upon the gospel, which he sees as definitive proof that life beyond earth is impossible. And even if it did exist, he argues, the bible makes it perfectly clear that since any ETs couldn’t possibly be the sons of Adam there’s no way they could be saved anyway. So since they’re all going to hell, let’s call the whole thing off.

Let’s take the things in this blog as they come, shall we? And bear in mind, I’m quoting Ham directly from his own words here.

1. “Of course, secularists are desperate to find life in outer space, as they believe that would provide evidence that life can evolve in different locations and given the supposed right conditions!  The search for extraterrestrial life is really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!”

Well, one could make the argument that if secular scientists are desperate to find life elsewhere in the universe to prove their secular scientific theories, religious fundamentalists like Ham are equally desperate to stop that from happening because it would prove everything they believe wrong. Everything Ham has ever asserted would in one instant become patently false. So obviously creationists see a threat in an organization like NASA. “It’s a waste of time and money” is nice pretense, but the crux of the issue is what discoveries by NASA would mean to people who interpret the bible literally.

Because if Ham stopped to think about it for more than ten seconds, he’d actually want NASA to continue its search. One would think that Ham would love it if NASA searched and searched and never once found ANY trace of life elsewhere in the universe, because it would only support his points about the bible. Come on Ken, give NASA a chance to prove you right! Unless of course you’re afraid they’ll prove you wrong.

2. “You see, according to the secular, evolutionary worldview there must be other habited worlds out there. As the head of NASA, Charles Borden, puts it, “It’s highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone.” Secularists cannot allow earth to be special or unique—that’s a biblical idea (Isaiah 45:18). If life evolved here, it simply must have evolved elsewhere they believe.”

This is pretty typical of someone who does not really grasp the concept of evolution. There is absolutely NOTHING in the theory that states that life has to exist on other planets. It’s entirely possible that life evolved on this planet and nowhere else in the universe. Notice the word that the NASA scientist used: “improbable.” And then notice how Ham takes that to the absolute by using the word “must.” That’s the problem in this debate. Science lives in a world that in constantly changing and updating what we know. Religion lives in a world that is static and absolute. But again, to reiterate, Ham is setting up a pretty egregious gap in logic–that in order to for evolution to be true, it has to have occurred on other planets. That’s a product of Ham’s own personal interpretation of evolution colored by the lens of his faith, NOT a scientifically or logically accurate statement.

3. “Now the Bible doesn’t say whether there is or is not animal or plant life in outer space.  I certainly suspect not […] And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation.”

Well, if the bible doesn’t specifically mention it, then all of this is just Ken Ham pulling it from his ass. He even straight up admits that the bible doesn’t make mention of this situation one way or the other. Ergo everything that follows is just his own unique interpretation. He even says, “I do not believe…” Well where the hell is the literal truth in that? There isn’t any. Ham’s just making the rules up as he goes along here.

I think we can stop there.

This is the danger that fundamentalism represents: close yourself off from the world. No reason to explore anything. Instead of being a place of wonder and possibility, the universe is relegated to mere background status, no more or less than painted scenery on a stage. I almost feel sorry for Ham.



32 thoughts on “Ken Ham is at it again

  1. But, but, you left out the most important part of his message.

    “…I encourage you to order The New Answers Book series from our bookstore. Or for witnessing purposes, we have a booklet that can be ordered in bulk…”

    (since he set the stage for tossing rules out of the window, here is my translation of that:
    “Buy my shit! Praise Jeebus!”

    1. LOL! Exactly. There’s always a financial angle.

      George Carlin used to have a bit he did about that. “God is all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful…and he needs your money! He’s omnipotent, but–wouldn’t ya know it?–just can’t handle money.”

  2. Well said. There will also be other Christians who will pull out other verses and interpret them in a way that still makes’ Jesus death for the sins of ET sins too. Of course if those aliens are intelligent they will either be trying to convince us of some mythology to believe in, or just laugh that we still haven’t grown up yet as a race to leave religion behind!

  3. Every time I hear Ham, I think of ham and beans. Every time I think of ham and beans I think of the gas one gets from beans. Which is interesting because gas from beans and the nonsense from Ham both originate from the same place.

  4. Forgive me for being critical, but after reading the various articles and links, I think you’ve grossly misrepresented what Ken Ham was saying. You quoted him, but then misinterpret his thoughts and motives- just like the Huffington Post and the Cleveland Leader. My perspective is fairly close to his position, and I’ve heard him speak before on these topics, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of where he’s coming from.

    First, you proclaimed that Ken Ham “wants to defund the search for extraterrestrial life.” However that’s not true. He never said that. The Cleveland Leader quoted Ken Ham as saying, “I’m shocked at the countless hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent over the years in the desperate and fruitless search for extraterrestrial life.” The author interpreted this to mean that Ken Ham wants to defund NASA, even though he’s not interested in defunding NASA. The article also said that Ham has declared NASA “pointless,” but there’s no quote to provide context to what he was saying. This is irresponsible journalism, and the author is clearly attempting to make people like you demonize and despise Ken Ham when there’s nothing offensive about him.

    I agree with Ham over the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent over the years on the search for extraterrestrial life. Neither of us believes aliens exist; therefore we believe all that money is being wasted on a fruitless search for extraterrestrial life. That’s it. There’s no call to defund NASA. We just think it’s a waste of time and money. That’s our opinion. Period. Does that justify the demonization of Ham and other creationists like myself? Absolutely not! I’m disappointed that you’ve fallen for the headlines and false reporting, and then promote these falsehoods.

    You went on to claim, like the Huffington Post and Cleveland Leader, that Ham argued that aliens, if they did exist, are going to hell. Once again there’s no truth to the claim. If anything, Ham’s view (like my own) would be similar to what you believe. You probably believe that when someone or something dies, they cease to exist. I would concur with you in the case of aliens and animals. As far as we know, only humans have souls and will continue to exist after we die. There’s no Biblical evidence that aliens (if they exist) or animals have souls. And even if they did, that would be up to God to determine what happens to them after they die.

    I also don’t see what’s so awful about the actual Ham quotes. I think it is true that secularists are desperate to find life in outer space. To them, that would justify their belief in evolution and the non-existence of God. Ham, like myself, is not worried about authentic alien life being found, and we’re not interested in stopping such a discovery (how many times have we been told that we’ve already discovered alien life?). Such a discovery wouldn’t prove everything Ham has ever asserted to be false (Perhaps in the minds of evolutionists, but not to those who know Jesus Christ). NASA is not a threat to creationists. I love NASA and would love to see it used for real science rather than a propaganda arm to support evolution.

    And it’s ironic that you claim that, if Ham stopped to think about it for more than ten seconds, he’d actually want NASA to continue its search. Well, he’s actually gone out and said exactly that! He said, “NASA, get out there and look for aliens, so you can prove that we’re right.”

    So I think you actually are in agreement with Ken Ham more than you’d care to admit. It’s only because of bad reporting that you had to make an unwarranted attack on him and his character.

    You also claim that Ken Ham doesn’t grasp the concept of evolution because he sees secularists as believing that “there must be other inhabited worlds out there.” This is a strange way to attack Ham because there are many evolutionists on record saying as much. Therefore you must believe those evolutionists don’t grasp evolution, and I would have to concur. Secularists are known for questions like, “If aliens don’t exist, then why is the universe so huge?” Carl Sagan’s quote comes to mind: “If we are the only life in the universe, wouldn’t that be an incredible waste of space?” (or something to that effect). Jill Tarter of SETI echoes that sentiment: “Are we alone in this vast universe of energy and matter and chemistry and physics? Well, if we are, it’s an awful waste of space.” This was also popularized in the movie Contact. So you can mock Ken Ham, but it’s evolutionists who’ve drilled that sentiment into our vocabulary.

    1. Well, first and foremost, I never claimed that Ham wanted to defund NASA. I specifically said that Ham wanted to defund the search for extraterrestrial life right there at the beginning of the piece. I then go on to mention NASA, mostly in its capacity as the body that searches for said life, specifically in light of their recent promise to find life beyond our solar system within the next 20 years. NASA would also be the body that wastes the hundreds of million dollars that Ham mentions. But nowhere did I assert that Ham wanted to entirely defund NASA.

      Your arguments about secular scientists and the quotes you pulled from them only reinforces one of my points. There’s something that secular quote and the quotes from Tarter and Sagan all have in common. It’s one tiny two letter word that completely changes the spirit of the quote. All three quotes use the word “if.” And that just goes back to my second point of the article.

      There’s room in if. There’s possibility in if. If precedes a conditional statement. There’s nothing absolute about it. There is room in all three of those quotes for a universe filled only with human life.

      Now do you think Ham looks at it that way? Do you think there’s even the tiniest most infinitesimal modicum of room in Ham’s worldview for a universe without God? Where the events of the bible did not happen? Where humans aren’t the literal center of the universe?

      And, as a final question, consider Ham’s following words: “because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation.”

      In the Christian belief, where exactly do those who cannot or will not be saved go, ultimately? What happens to them when they die? Or perhaps more importantly, what happens to them on judgment day? Ham goes so far as to say that if alien life exists, it was all affected by Adam’s sin–the entire universe was, according to him. Yet they cannot be saved? So they can be affected by sin, but cannot be saved from it?

      I also find this statement a little baffling, and again indicative of someone who doesn’t understand evolution: “Secularists cannot allow earth to be special or unique.”

      If anything, if evolution were true, it would all but guarantee that human life is unique. Given all of the variation within the universe, it’s highly unlikely that there is currently another planet in the universe that had all of the EXACT same ingredients as earth and followed the EXACT same evolutionary pathway, right down to all of the geological events that happened to our planet.

    2. Ok, I’ll concede that you didn’t specifically claim that Ham wanted to defund NASA. But you did claim that Ham wanted to defund the search for ET’s, and that’s absolutely false. Ham never advocated defunding anything. He’s been critical of NASA, but that’s perfectly reasonable. After reading Ham’s actual quotes, I’m not sure how one could accuse him of defunding anything unless they were manipulated by irresponsible journalism. It’s perfectly acceptable to be critical of Ken Ham, but at least be honest about his claims. The Huffington Post and Cleveland Leader ran hit-pieces. You didn’t have to run with it.

      Granted, the secularists I quoted are using the word “if”, while Ken Ham accused them of “must”. But Ham was speaking about their worldview, not science. Secular science may allow room for an “if”, but secular philosophy doesn’t. So this has nothing to do with Ham and creationists failing to grasp the concept of evolution. I think it speaks more to secularists not understanding their own philosophy and worldview. And if secularists really meant to leave open the possibility of a universe without aliens, then why are they so emotional about the possibility of aliens not existing?

      You ask if there’s room for a worldview without God, and I would have to say that there’s not… at least not in reality. Perhaps in theory, if we’re contemplating, then one could make the argument for a universe without God. But that’s kind of like saying, is it possible that your parents don’t exist? Well, perhaps in theory, but not in reality. I’ve met my parents and I know them personally, and I even look like I’m related, so it’s pointless to consider other possibilities just to argue about it. I have a personal relationship with Jesus, so it would be strange to consider a universe without God.

      You ask, what happens to those who cannot or will not be saved? I explained that already. Ham is correct. The Bible tells us that sin came through Adam and Eve; therefore, all their descendants are sinners. The rest of creation is affected by their sin. I don’t believe in aliens because there’s no Biblical reason why they should exist. But if we contemplate a universe in which aliens exist, then, if they don’t have souls, they will cease to exist when they die. Isn’t that what you believe? That’s also what we believe happens to animals. We don’t believe they have souls. But, for the sake of argument, what if they did have souls? Well, ultimately it’s up to God to decide what to do with them. If you understand what the Bible tells us about salvation, we are saved because of our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who paid the price for our sin. So even though aliens aren’t affected by Adam’s sin the way you and I are, they’re affected in the same way the animals and the rest of the universe is. So the question becomes: are aliens without sin? If so, then they don’t need a savior. And it’s up to God to decide what happens to them after they die. And if they are sinners, can Christ be the atoning sacrifice for an alien race through faith? I guess we don’t know exactly how Jesus would answer this question, but I don’t see how Jesus could be the substitute for an alien or animal, can you? It’s certainly true that, if aliens exist, they could go to hell, but there’s enough that we don’t know about that I don’t think we can emphatically say that all aliens would go to hell, and Ham never said that. I think there’s a reason why Jesus was born by humans, otherwise he would have avoided the process. Since we don’t believe in aliens anyway, it really becomes irrelevant.

      The Ham quote, “secularists cannot allow earth to be special or unique” is a worldview that stems from the secularist belief system. You may think such a statement indicates that creationists don’t understand evolution, but it’s not creationists who believe such a philosophy- it’s evolutionists. Further, I think we understand evolution much better than they do, and this quote also demonstrates that we understand the secular worldview better than they do.

      1. What other conclusion am I supposed to reach here? That Ham thinks that while these programs are awaste of hundreds of millions of dollars, time, and a blasphemy against God, he WANTS them to continue? Given Ham’s words, it doesn’t really make sense to think that, if it were up to him, Ham wouldn’t defund them instantly and pour all the money into something like more creationist museums. So no, I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about asserting that Ham would love to see these programs defunded. Granted, he’s not launching a petition or letter writing campaign or anything, so I wouldn’t say that he’s actively trying to defund them. But I think his desires on the matter are abundantly clear.

        Nothing I say in response to the rest of your reply would make any impact, so I won’t waste the keystrokes.

      2. I’m guessing you read the articles you were referring to, and you may have even read Ken Ham’s rebuttals. If so, then I think a reasonable conclusion is that the Huffington Post and Cleveland Leader were completely fabricating their stories to demonize Ham, and I would have been satisfied had you ignored them or condemned them for writing a biased, self-serving article- even if you dislike Ken Ham. While I’m opposed to Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye, if I were to be critical of them (and I have been), I’d want to get the facts correct and not be accused of sloppy journalism.

        But then you get to the crux of a bigger issue. It’s not just that you dislike Ham because of what he says and does, you’re opposed to him because of what he THINKS and what you think his motives and desires are. And that’s key. Okay, let’s consider his sinister motives: since he does think the search for extraterrestrial life is a waste of time and money, maybe, deep down inside, he would defund such projects if he had the power and ability to do so. And then he diverts the funds (not to a creation museum) to real scientific research that would help people in practical ways, such as creating stronger, more flexible material that could be used in car manufacturing, or find new uses for food and drugs, or ways to treat sickness and disease. Well, what so horrible about that? Wouldn’t that be just awful if we stopped searching for ETs that you admit may not exist, and divert that money towards things that would help humanity? Ham is such a monster for thinking that, huh?

        But the point of the matter is that Ham is not advocating the defunding of anything, and you can’t stand that he might wish he could do that if he had the power. So what if he does? He doesn’t have such power, he’s not making any demands, and he’s not a threat to the program, unless those with the power listen to him and agree with him, and I guess the purpose of this outcry against him is to stop anyone who might have such power from agreeing with him. This whole thing is a dishonest witch hunt, and that’s my point. He voiced his honest opinion, and evolutionists want to make him pay.

        The reason I say we understand evolution and secularism better than evolutionists or secularists is because most evolutionists don’t know what evolution is and what it’s not. They confuse evolution with speciation and adaptation. They think any change within an organism is evolution. And they probably don’t even consider themselves secularists because that suggests some type of religion, and they don’t think they’re religious. In fact, they’re typically opposed to all religion (except their own). I’ve spent years interacting with evolutionists and secularists, and I understand them pretty well. I know what drives them, I know how they think and how they behave, and their reaction to Ham is indicative of their philosophy. Just like you “know” that Ham would defund the search for aliens if he had the power, we know secularists believe that life “must” have evolved elsewhere, and that’s why they’re driven in their search for life. It’s not like they think, “Well, there could be life out there, so we might as well take a look.”

        I thought I did answer your question, but I guess I didn’t answer it adequately, so I’ll try again. I don’t want to be accused of a cop-out. Maybe I didn’t fully understand your question. According to Ham, “Secularists cannot allow earth to be special or unique”. It sounds like you’re disagreeing, and that human life would be unique, even if evolution were true. But Ham is saying that human life wouldn’t be unique because, if life has evolved all over the universe, then there’s nothing special about us. We evolved from non-life just like any other living organism in the universe. Why would we be any more special than a Klingon? From an evolutionary perspective, we wouldn’t be. In fact we we’re not considered anymore special than a worm or amoeba, and that’s why some secularists want rights for animals. But if the Bible is true, and God created us in his image, and he created the earth to be our home, then we are special, and there’s no reason to believe in aliens.

      3. At the risk of the argument becoming circular, I’ll just say that I don’t think Ham is sinister. I’m sure Ken Ham is a well-intentioned person and his motivations aren’t coming from a place of maleficence.

        But the crux of this is not that I don’t agree with his belief system. His beliefs have no bearing on reality. So he’s welcome to them. The crux of the issue to me is the fervency with which fundamentalists want to suppress all other ways of thinking or systems of beliefs and supplant them with their own. And that applies to all fundamentalists all over the world, not just the Christian ones like Ham. Fundamentalism in general is the most dangerous force on the planet, in my opinion, and the point of my argument against Ham was to illustrate his fundamentalism.

      4. Wow, that’s scary to think that intelligent people really think that fundamentalism in general is the most dangerous force on the planet. Did you happen to take that position based on other evolutionists, like Nye or Dawkins? And do you know what fundamentalism is? I think the term can be aptly applied to evolutionists as well, so let’s consider this. Wikipedia says that fundamentalism is the “demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines,” and usually has a religious connotation indicating an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. The term can be applied to a broad tendency among certain groups, main, although not exclusively, in religion.

        Evolution certainly fits the bill. Evolutionists demand a strict adherence to their doctrine, and any deviation is met with ridicule and vitriol. They protest anyone who doesn’t conform, and they demand laws that will forbid anyone from straying outside the accepted dogma. Evolutionists have an unwavering attachment that cannot be deterred by scientific evidence or logic. They won’t even allow others to THINK something that disagrees with their belief system. They choose to suppress all other ways of thinking or systems of beliefs- especially creationism- and supplant them with their own. So I agree that fundamentalism, as practiced by evolutionists, is one of the most dangerous forces on the planet. I can see what it has accomplished, and it’s not good. Perhaps this is the message creationists need to begin sending. And we need to become activists, demanding that evolution no longer be taught, while only creation science may be taught. Of course no creationist is suggesting this, while evolutionists are demanding exactly what you fear creationists want. I think you know this is true because you can’t point to a single example to support creationist fundamentalism as you’ve described it, but I can point to plenty of evolutionists who exhibit this behavior. As a case in point, would you be willing to allow other ways of thinking or systems of belief (such as creationism), or will you only allow evolution be taught in public schools? As a creationist, I think evolution should be taught in public schools, and that creation science should not be censored, but students should be allowed to examine all the evidence available. I think what I believe is much more reasonable than the fundamentalism that exists within the evolutionist community.

      5. Well, I did say that ALL fundamentalism is bad, didn’t I? Of course secularists can be fundamentalists. But I don’t know where the vitriol within the evolutionary community is that you perceive. Even the most outspoken proponents of secular ideas, like Nye and Dawkins, aren’t militant about their values.

        You don’t see secularists introducing legislation that mandates evolution be taught in Sunday schools so that students can “see all the evidence and make up their own minds.” You don’t see secularists trying to pass legislation that can tell you what you can’t do with your body if you happen to be a woman. You don’t see secularists trying to pass legislation that can tell you who you can and can’t marry. Secularists don’t go door to door to give you literature about Dawkins or Darwin.

        There are no secular fatwahs. Secularism doesn’t cause someone to strap on a suicide bomb. Secularism doesn’t picket outside the funeral of soldiers with signs that degrade and demean their lives and service. Nobody was ever burned at the stake because of secularism. People didn’t fly planes into buildings in the name of secularism. People who kill each other over who gets to control the holy land don’t do so because of secularism.

        So you can go ahead and claim that fundamental evolutionism “isn’t good” but it doesn’t look like history is on your side. I can’t really think of anyone who’s been killed in the name of evolution, but there are millions who were killed because they gave the wrong answer to the “which god do you believe in?” question.

        Do I mind different belief systems being taught in public schools? Of course not. The vast majority of the people of the world are religious, and therefore it makes sense to learn what the major religions believe and their histories. Do I think that should occur in a science class? No, of course not. A history class maybe. Maybe a separate class dedicated to only studying different religions. Given globalization in this day and age, as well as our status as a cultural melting pot, it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to have high school students take a class on the major religions of the world. They’d be more informed citizens for it.

      6. The vitriol within the evolutionary community is fairly obvious and out in the open for all to see. Some who’ve posted on this article have resorted to vitriolic name-calling, such as calling creationists rubes, conman, and hurling other insults. Richard Dawkins has called religion a “dangerous virus”, and God a “petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Dawkins even went so far as to claim that forcing religion on children is as bad as child abuse, and Lawrence Krauss said that teaching children young earth creationism is child abuse. Bill Nye is known for his vitriolic comments towards Christianity and creation, saying that those who don’t believe in evolution inane, silly, and crazy. I’ve written several posts concerning his militant attacks against creation. These are but a few of those spewing their vitriol within the evolutionary community.

        Actually, secularists have proposed laws to prevent private schools from teaching creation. Activist student Zack Kopplin is fighting against Christian schools that teach creationism and has written articles appearing across the major media. I’ve written about the UK doing this, and there are those in the US who want this to happen. And we do see secularists trying to pass legislation to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Laws have been passed telling women they must wear seatbelts in their cars, wear helmets on bikes, and that they may not take certain drugs. The left convinces women that they’re incapable of taking care of themselves, and that the rest of society must take care of them, and I think that’s a worse sin than anything the right is being accused of. So it’s normal to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. The issue is who is telling them and what they’re telling them. And it’s common for all nations to determine who one can and cannot marry. Name me one country that has ever existed that didn’t tell their citizens who they could or couldn’t marry. And yes, I have been given literature by secularists at festivals and other public places.

        Secularism has caused countless deaths over the years, namely because of the belief in evolution and the survival of the fittest and superior races. Exterminating the unfit and less evolved was a way of life, and abortion was a major act to kill of blacks and others who are “unfit”. More have been killed in the name of evolution than any religion. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others were notorious for their evolutionary beliefs as justification for their acts. Christianity, however, is known for helping the poor and needy.

        I’d also be fine with having evolution taught in history class, or a world religions class. As long as evolution and creation are treated the same, I’m fine with where they’re taught, or if they’re not taught at all.

      7. I’m sure a lot of secular people would argue that the atrocities that you’re attributing to evolution were really caused by racism, which has absolutely nothing to do with secular values or evolution. Because at the end of the day, there’s nothing in evolution or any secular doctrine that calls for anything remotely close to eugenics. But I could name a few holy books that literally command their followers to slaughter anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their beliefs.

      8. Racism has certainly been around a lot longer than evolution, but racism flourished under evolution. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” And after the Nazis came to power, they incorporated the teaching of Darwinism in the classroom. In Germany, Robert Lifton called the Nazi state a “biocracy”, or rule by biology. Eugenics was a result of putting Darwinian fitness into practical action and eliminating certain inheritable traits from the population. And there were many doctors who participated quite willingly because of their scientific beliefs.

        Christianity has recognized that all humans have been created in God’s image and are worthy of life and respect, and Christians have traditionally sent missionaries to all people all over the world. So while there have been atrocities committed in the name of religion, those atrocities are inconsistent with Christian beliefs and are in violation of God’s laws. Evolution, on the other hand, is consistent when natural selection is practiced by human beings in hideous ways when the “unfit” are eliminated.

        I guess my point is that, when evolutionists begin criticizing religion, Christians, fundamentalists, creationists, conservatives, and the like, the same charges can be brought against those leveling the charges. Their beliefs are open to the same criticisms, and that means they shouldn’t be so quick to judge. So it’s this judgmentalism and hypocrisy that I have an issue with. There are many evolutionists who have done the very things you’re condemning us for. Those secularists and evolutionists are no better than anyone else. In fact, with all the atrocities done by humans, this is exactly why we need a Lord and savior, and that’s why Jesus came and offered himself as a sacrifice for our sins.

  5. …guess we know who his go to AUTHORITY is. Just so ya know, Ole Hambo isn’t an authority on anything except how to get the money from a rube’s pocket into his own.

    I had a moment there where I wanted to refute this guy’s points, but I got over it. Been down that road… better off banging my head on the desk.

    1. What Hambo and the above commenter have in common is that their entire worldview is predicated that the truth about the universe is entirely indicated in one book. This simply does not constitute evidence, but if you believe that it is, then no amount of contrary evidence will matter. The fact that the Bible doesn’t mention aliens as evidence against the existence of extra-terrestrial life is ludicrous. When it was written the simply didn’t even know what a planet was, or that the stars in the sky were the same as our sun, but simply a lot farther away. The Bible also doesn’t mention the llama, or the land mass of Australia, so should we deny it’s existence to simply because the bible fails to mention it? The list of things the bible fails to mention are so numerous that if we treated all those things the same way as Ken Ham wants to treat the search for extra terrestrials then we would literally have to stay living as we did around 100 B.C. It’s clear that Ken Ham isn’t looking forward to the mental gymnastics that explaining extra-terrestrial life will entail. Make no doubt about it, he will try, but somewhere in his mind he knows that even more people who already have doubts about Christian mythology will be even more convinced about how incomplete the Bible actually is to explaining anything anymore.

      1. You are preaching to the choir brother. 🙂

        What gets me is how a supposed authority figure can freely extrapolate about one of these somethings not mentioned in the bible, and make conclusions about what their g_d has willed. Then the rube says “oh yeah that makes sense, it must be true”

        The ability to think for ones self and make decisions based on evidence observed is what is freakin alien to these people. I won’t bother going into much detail about the vastness of the universe and the unlikely prospect that life has only propagated on one little planet in one little galaxy, in one little solar system, in an unfathomable universe of many billions of galaxies, with many more trillions of solar systems, and a likely unkowable figure of planets.
        Granted the demands as we know them for life are somewhat constricted, the odds are certainly in favor of other forms of life being out there.

        To assume otherwise based on a musty dusty old religious text and the spittle from a con man, shows a complete lack of understanding of what we know of our observable universe, and an unwillingness to try. I cannot imagine being that blinded to reality. But I see it occur frequently.

      2. I think what bothers me the most about people like Ham–and really most fundamentalists–is the complete and utter arrogance involved in the statements they make. They’re always railing against the arrogance of secular science, yet they’re the first people to try and tell you that they know for certain how the entire universe works. It’s mind boggling to me how they can sit there with a straight face while accusing secular science of all these offenses, and then turn around commit the same offenses.

        Actually wait, it’s not mind boggling. I almost forgot that hypocrisy and ignorance are part and parcel of religion. That was a close one!

      3. Exactly, no where in the bible does it mention alien life, yet ole Hambone knows for sure there is none, and if there was they are going to hell!!

        It would be funny except for the part where people are actually walking around that think this way.

        That is the biggest problem IMO, the battle is not just one of evidence based understanding versus a fantasy based all knowing attitude… well on second thought I suppose it is. I thought I was going somewhere there, then realized that pretty much sums it up.

      4. Swarn Gill: Yes, my worldview is predicated on the truth of the Bible. And so it is for countless millions of people. And it is evidence for the truth, although I understand no evolutionist would concede that. True, no contrary evidence would matter. If we truly believe we have found the truth, then why would we allow something else to lead us away from the truth? That doesn’t make sense. If we allow something else to pull us away from the truth, then did we ever really believe the truth in the first place? Your worldview is predicated on the idea that nobody can know what the truth is. And such a worldview doesn’t constitute evidence.

        Let me provide a better explanation of the aliens vs. the Bible paradigm. Bible believing Christians believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that God is truth. We believe the Bible is Gods’ revelation to man. And according to God’s revelation, he provided an account of his creation of the entire universe- maybe not a detailed, in depth, scientific revelation, but a general revelation. And in this revelation, the creation of man-kind was his crowning achievement. Earth was created to be his home, and the purpose of the sun, moon and stars is to serve as lights to separate the day from night, to mark the sacred times, days and years. Nowhere does it mention that they were created for us to colonize, or that there’s other life that he created beyond earth. The only creation of life mentioned in the Bible is on the earth. So there’s no reason to conclude that aliens exist. That would be merely speculation. Further, how would aliens fall into God’s redemptive plan? Man is born into sin through Adam, and it was necessary for Jesus to become a man in order to be a substitute sacrifice. Death is the penalty of sin, and Christ paid that penalty on the cross by being a perfect sacrifice without sin. So, if aliens exist, they’re either without sin, or they have fallen into sin as well. If they’re without sin, then do they have souls? If they have souls and are without sin, then they don’t need a savior and couldn’t be condemned to hell. But if they don’t have souls, then I guess they’d cease to exist once they die. If they are sinners like us, were they also made in God’s image? If so, wouldn’t they need Jesus to be born of their alien race so that he could be a substitute for them as well? The Bible mentions that Christ died once for all (not multiple times), so can aliens be redeemed through a human sacrifice? That doesn’t make sense, but if you want to feel better about yourself and believe that all aliens will go to heaven, then have at it.

        To suggest that the people of Biblical times didn’t know what a planet was is a ridiculous assumption without merit. If the Bible is the truth, and it doesn’t mention aliens, where do aliens fit within the Biblical paradigm? Can you enlighten us, since you seem to know more about the Bible than the rest of us? Though the Bible doesn’t mention llamas, it does say that God made all the land animals on day five, and a llama is a land animal. So there’s justification for believing in llamas and land masses, but no justification for aliens.

    2. Shelldigger, I guess you’re implying that Ken Ham is my “authority”. I respect Ken Ham, but God is my authority, not man. I also respect a lot of creation scientists. You don’t need to insult Ham. He’s done a fine job, and he’s free to sell books to promote God’s creation. No one is forced to buy them, just like you’re not forced to buy books from your authority, Dawkins, who hasn’t done any real research in years.

      Yes, stop banging your head against your desk. Perhaps it’s the concussions that make you think you could refute me 😉

      1. Shelldigger: Yes, we’re allowed to extrapolate. You do the same thing when it serves your interest, even against the evidence. But you don’t have to resort to name-calling just because you can’t refute what we’ve said. That just demonstrates that you can’t argue on the facts. There’s no reason to call me a rube, or that the Bible is a musty, dusty old religious text, or that Ken Ham is a conman with spittle. That’s intolerant and unscientific.

        And who says you’re able to think for yourself? You’ve fallen into thinking what the Huffington Post, Cleveland Leader and Ryan wanted you to think about Ken Ham. They wanted you to despise Ham, and they twisted what he said to cause you to fall in line with their thinking. You also believe all the evolutionary propaganda they taught you in school and college without questioning if what they were telling you was true. I doubt you could think for yourself if you tried. On the other hand, I was able to read the article and come to a completely different opinion.

        That’s fine if you don’t go into detail on the vastness of the universe, because if God didn’t create any life outside earth, then the odds of alien life become zero.

        I find it humorous that you think creationists lack a complete understanding about the observable universe just because we don’t believe in aliens. But according to all the observable evidence, we have no reason to believe in aliens. There’s not one shred of observable evidence in favor of alien life. Everything beyond earth is completely dead, as predicted by the Bible. The only reason why anyone believes in aliens is not based on science, but based on emotion, speculation, extrapolation, and a secular worldview. Therefore it’s those like you who show a complete lack of understanding of what we know about the observable universe, and an unwillingness to try.

      2. lol! You are the one that got all butt hurt over Hambone.

        Creation scientists? Oxymoron alert.

        …and I’ve seen troll bait before. Not interested. Trying to have a back and forth with anyone that lives in fantasy land is pretty much fruitless.

        Now, move along the adults are talking.

      3. Haha, I’ve got to hand it to you, you’re quite the comedian. Perhaps if you behaved like an adult, I might believe you, but name-calling and childish behavior isn’t something adults partake in.

        I’m “butt hurt” over Ham because I don’t think the attack was justified. And I think you’ve helped demonstrate the ignorance that leads to such attacks. Ignorance over substance.

        And anyone who has a real understanding of science and its history also knows that the first scientists were all creationists. Creationist Francis Bacon is the one credited with formulating the scientific method that secularists have hijacked. So the oxymoron is the non-creationist scientist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s