Let me say right off the bat, the title is misleading. Ken Ham does not think E.T., that adorable alien from the 1982 movie, is an atheist. No—Ken Ham believes that scientists who think there might be life on other planets are atheists in rebellion against God. So, if you’ve ever wondered if there was life on other planets, you are just flirting with godless, atheist propaganda. Take that, Steven Speilberg!
Reading Ken Ham’s blog posts are is both incredibly frustrating and astoundingly comical at the same time. As I’ve said before, I will try to clearly articulate what the “basic theology” of Ken Ham and young earth creationism is, and I will conclusively show that his claims about the Bible, Genesis, and science are antithetical to (1) the basic rules of biblical exegesis and interpretation, (2) the basic facts of Church history, and (3) the fundamental rules of modern science.
Say Goodbye to E.T., Yoda, and Spock!
But every now and then, I will just have to share some things for pure comedic enjoyment. On July 20, 2014, in a post entitled, “We’ll Find a New Earth in 20 Years,” Ham took on NASA and commented on…wait for it…alien life! He initially responded to a NASA scientist who said he expected that we would find a new earth-like planet in the next 20 years. I don’t know about you, but I know I have often wondered about the possibility of life on other planets—who hasn’t watched E.T. and dreamed of finding life on other planets?
Well apparently, Ken Ham finds such a thought dangerous and sinister. Needless to say, Ham was not happy about this comment by the NASA scientist. He voiced his displeasure that “countless hundreds of millions of [tax] dollars” had been spent over the years searching for extraterrestrial life. Why? Because…I’m not making this up…Ken Ham believes it is all just a secularist conspiracy to disprove God! He wrote:
“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!”
Think about what Ken Ham actually has said for a minute. He actually believes that space exploration is rebellion against God. He actually believes that searching the universe for signs of life is just a secularist conspiracy trying to prove evolution. If that is not evidence for a fringe and outright paranoid worldview, I don’t know what is.
In any case, Ham couldn’t just end it there. He felt impelled to give supposedly a biblical perspective on the possibility of extraterrestrial life. I need to quote his comments a bit more fully:
“Now the Bible doesn’t say whether there is or is not animal or plant life in outer space. I certainly suspect not. The Earth was created for human life. And the sun and moon were created for signs and our seasons—and to declare the glory of God.
“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. One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire, and there will be a new heavens and earth. God’s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the ‘Godman,’ to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin—the Savior of mankind.
“Jesus did not become the ‘GodKlingon’ or the ‘GodMartian’! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the ‘Godman’ as our Savior. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word). To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong. An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race—human beings who are all descendants of Adam.”
I don’t think any commentary is really needed here. Ham’s comments speak for themselves. But for clarity’s sake, let’s note his main points:
- Ham doesn’t think there is life on other planets because the Bible doesn’t say so.
That really is a peculiar reason for rejecting the possibility that there is life on other planets, don’t you think? After all, there are a lot of things the Bible doesn’t tell us about: chromosomes, genes, sperm, eggs, the whole process of variation within a species (something that Ham argues happens—of course, he’s right on that one: it does happen. But the Bible doesn’t tell us it can happen, so how can he justify his acceptance of it, when he rejects the possibility of life on other planets?).
The fundamental point here is that Ham’s comments reveals a very odd understanding of the Bible: the only things in nature that can be “true” are the ones the Bible specifically talks about. But everyone knows that to be wrong. Ham himself claims things all the time regarding Genesis 1-11 that aren’t in the Bible (remember Noah’s “mocking hired workers” and the super groovy advanced technology Noah had access to?). For some odd reason though, the possibility of life on other planets freaks him out. Why?
Actually, I think I know. He himself says the reason: if life came about through natural processes on other planets, then that would mean that’s how it could have come about here on earth…and that would be “evolution,” and “evolution” = “anti-God religion” for Ken Ham. That line of thinking, though, is just completely incoherent. Merely explaining the natural process by which life comes about and varies within creation does not, by any means, mean you’re denying God.
Ham astonishingly cannot tell the difference between (a) explaining a natural process, and (b) making a philosophical claim that nature is all that exists. As I said in an earlier post, is explaining the development of a clump of cells the moment after conception into a zygote, then embryo, then fetus, then baby—is that a denial of a Creator God? Doesn’t everyone know that the process of development from zygote to a baby is the natural process by which God brings about life? Apparently, Ken Ham can’t conceive the same thing applies to all of nature.
- Ham claims the gospel is another indicator that there can’t be alien life, because Adam’s sin effected the entire universe, therefore aliens would be effected, and thus couldn’t receive salvation.
Let’s ask the obvious: where in Genesis 3 does it say that “Adam’s sin effected the entire universe”? It doesn’t. To claim that Genesis 3 is making a definitive statement that human sin somehow effects (or is even talking about) any potential life that might or might not be in the Andromeda galaxy is well…just silly. It is painfully obvious that Ham is reading into the Bible things that aren’t there, and then using those things that aren’t there to support his claim that there can’t be life on other planets because the Bible doesn’t say they’re there!
- Only human beings can be saved; Jesus was not the “GodKlingon” or “GodMartian.”
Does this strike you as just an absurd statement? It does me. The ironic thing, given the fact that I am now also writing about C.S. Lewis, is that Lewis wrote a science-fiction space trilogy entitled Out of the Silent Planet, in which he speculated about there being life on other planets, and that earth itself, because of sin, is the “silent planet,” completely cut off from the rest of God’s creation that is bursting with life.
It’s a great trilogy; I taught the first book to freshmen for a few years when I taught English. Sadly, though, it’s a shame to know that Ken Ham probably thinks C.S. Lewis is in league with those “secular scientists” who are just rebelling against God!
- Ham believes that to suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is totally wrong.
I’m sorry, who exactly is suggesting this? Oh that’s right—C.S. Lewis suggests it in is science-fiction trilogy. Of course he would…he’s Anglican, and he accepts evolution is a valid scientific theory.
Ham vs. The Huffington Post
Now what makes Ham’s comments on aliens so incredibly bizarre is that a few days later the Huffington Post had an article about Ham’s alien-comments, and then, on July 22, Ham responded to the Huffington Post’s article in a post entitled, “Huffington Post is Fiction.” Ham was incensed that the Huffington Post was falsely accusing him of saying that space aliens were going to hell. He wanted to be clear: that was a total false accusation! He never said that space aliens were going to hell. He said that aliens didn’t exist because the Bible doesn’t tell us about them; but if they did exist (which they don’t, because the Bible says so…well, it doesn’t say so, but you get the point!), if they did exist, they couldn’t receive salvation!
Well then, I guess that’s totally different! If one is not saved, one goes to hell, and Ham said if aliens existed, they couldn’t be saved—ergo, they would go to hell, right? WRONG! Ham didn’t say they would go to hell, only they couldn’t be saved!
If that sounds like pure insanity, that’s because it is. It is impossible not to come across as mocking when one comments on it, precisely because it is utterly absurd. And just to put an exclamation point on such absurdity, Ham ended his rant against the Huffington Post with these words: “We need to start proclaiming the authority of God’s Word from the very first verse—even on the subject of alien life!”
News flash: the Bible doesn’t even address alien life! How can you “proclaim the authority of God’s Word” on a topic it doesn’t address? How can anyone take a man seriously who actually thinks that searching for life on other planets constitutes rebellion against God and undermining the authority of the Bible? And yet, alarmingly, there are Evangelical pastors and leaders who buy into this nonsense.
Conclusion
What more can I say? On a personal note, it just is so surreal to know that I lost my job because certain Christian leaders believe what Ken Ham is saying. The thing is, though, you can’t let yourself get angry at this man’s absurdity. I am taken back to a fundamental tenant found all throughout the Bible: that of the consequences of idol worship. You will become what you worship—worship an idol and you will become deaf and blind, just like that stupid idol. You will be unable to see, hear, and think clearly.
If you look into Ken Ham and young earth creationism long enough, you will see that they have made a modern-scientific interpretation of Genesis 1-11 their idol, and that has rendered them completely unable to use their God-given reason to understand anything.
So rest assured, it’s okay to speculate that there might be life on other planets. You’re not rebelling against God to think that.
I always figured that if there were life on other planets, Jesus’ death would count just as much for them. I think God is powerful enough to do that–otherwise, he wouldn’t be God.
There was a song by Larry Norman, a Christian Rocker back in the 1970s, entitled “U.F.O.”–and one of the lines was, “If there’s life on other planets, then I’m sure that he must know; and he’s been there once already, and has died to save their souls.” –Quirky song…I’ve always remembered it.
Interesting what you say about interpreting Genesis as science being like idol worship. If that’s what you live and breathe, then it IS your idol. Going on and on about creation does nothing to spread the Gospel of Christ.
I would tweak what you said, Jane–Going on about how Genesis 1-11 has to be science or it’s not true–THAT does nothing to spread the Gospel. That is actually ignoring what God is trying to communicate in Genesis 1-11, and putting one’s one assumptions in its place. And yes, that is idol worship: it is worshiping something of your own creation. If we take the inspiration of the Bible seriously, we need to read and interpret it on its own terms; we cannot impose on it what we want to make it mean. Ultimately it just makes us look dumb, and it discredits the Christian faith.
“Merely explaining the natural process by which life comes about and varies within creation does not, by any means, mean you’re denying God.”
Saying that evolution means there is no God is like saying procedural generation means there is no game developer. But you don’t see people online getting into heated debates about how the idea that the worlds of Minecraft are procedurally generated from a numerical seed denies the existence and power of Notch. In other realms, we are perfectly fine with the idea that an initial setup, a bunch of rules, and the right environment can produce variety and complexity that testifies to the intelligence of the person who built the system. Why not here? Especially when we have heck-tons of evidence for it?
This website (http://www.dayandhour.com/essays/index.html) actually has an essay called “The Ball Cap Makers” that likens God’s initial act of creation to writing a computer program; it makes the same false “evolutionist = atheist” claim, but the overall conclusion is a lot like what I said.
“Doesn’t everyone know that the process of development from zygote to a baby is the natural process by which God brings about life? Apparently, Ken Ham can’t conceive the same thing applies to all of nature.”
Brilliant pun right there.