Ken Ham calls to end space program because, "aliens are going to Hell anyway"

[Explorer]

the most recent developments in origin studies

I'm struck by your use of the term "origin studies," which isn't part of any scientific field I know about. There's biology, physics, astronomy, and so on. "Origin studies" is normally used by fundamentalist Christians, in order to lump together the things they feel impinge on matters of their holy writings and dobma. Is that the context from which you're using it?

Abiogenesis is not supported by rigorous scientific studies.

Actually, there has been lots of research on possible models for abiogenesis. Like astronomy working its way towards the non-Scriptural heliocentrism, the theories and research go towards finding knowledge. And, most importantly, the research continues, something which many fundamentalists feel is unnecessary because "God did it, so we don't need to look at that stuff."

As for astronomy, the Bible supports a round earth....

Does it? The International Flat Earth Research Society existed as a pro-Scripture, anti-spherical group for quite a few years. It declined after the death of Charles K. Johnson in 2001, which is extremely recently, and was pretty soundly based on Scriptural references. It's an entirely modern argument to redefine a word in Scripture which means "circle" in Hebrew (and which in every case where there is a Greek version, is also "circle") to now mean "sphere." In other words, the writers of the Bible had it wrong, and the people who mis-translate in the modern day have it right.

Any belief that Christians have or had in a spherical earth came from other sources and evidence, not from the Bible.

These are not points of argument but rather merely a response to refute the blind assumptions made that there can be no intelligent creation theories which are in any way consistent with reality.

Now this is a place where there hasn't really been any sustained research, a creation theory which is testable. I'm not aware of any rigorous work on this, only work to disprove evolution, arguments from ignorance and an assertion of a god in the places where you don't know the answers yet.

Interesting slip-up, incidentally. Creationism is a religious point of view, and has been tossed out of science classrooms because it's religion. Most people who want to sneak creationism into classrooms have to deny their Creator at least once before the cock crows, and instead they call it "Intelligent Design," positing a huge unexplained designer, with no explanation for the designer's existence, in order to explain how life came about. Where did that designer come from? What abilities did it have? How do you prove such a designer exists? The failure to be able to address these questions is why creationism, even if you call it ID, isn't science.

Yes, I absolutely feel that if you refuse to follow the evidence, wherever it leads, you are not doing science.

I don't want to mock the god of the Yahwists (Jews, Christians, Muslims). I just think that if he really inspired the Bible to be inerrant, he got it wrong. Hence, for example, the two contradictory Nativity stories.

And you can't base good science on a source which has it wrong. You discard the errors and find correct answers upon which to build more questions. That's the difference between science and dogma.

 

[Explorer]

One last thing:

I was looking for information on the Flat Earth Research Society, and I stumbled onto another group which is threatened by modern astronomy, the 4th Day Alliance.

We are in the midst of a major culture war and we need your help! As you know, one of the foundations upon which great negative change has taken place in our world is the false belief in evolution (naturalism).

While most people are familiar with Charles Darwin’s theory, few realize that an even greater fight is being waged in the area of astronomy. This is because evolution, as it pertains to astronomy, doesn’t just deal with the origin of life, but with the origin of EVERYTHING! If belief in evolution is defeated in the area of cosmology and astronomy, then other forms of evolutionary belief don’t have a leg to stand on. This is why evolutionary astronomers are some of the most dogmatic philosophers in existence today. Their ENTIRE WORLDVIEW rests on the foundation of evolutionary cosmology and astronomy. This is why evolutionists oftentimes feel most threatened by Creation Astronomy and wage the most virulent attacks against Creation Astronomers.

Besides their inaccurate definition of "naturalism," they also oppose any evidence which doesn't support their pre-existing beliefs, as stated in the agreement you sign before you can get their fabulous "Start a Chapter" kit to start shutting down free inquiry.

• Please do not post content on the website that is doctrinally divisive or controversial (there are other forums available for that—this is an astronomy website).
• Please do not post content that supports or promotes an old-earth/universe viewpoint.
• Please do not post content that is contrary to any of the 5 points in our articles of faith.

That's not an astronomy website, incidentally. It's a religious website which is wrapping itself in a sheepskin of scientism.

You feel that there is a perception of fundamentalists Christians as being anti-science, unable to do serious research because they are dedicated to preserving their faith, not to actually doing science.

There *are* people of faith who do real science, but that science is based on naturalism, and it is in pursuit of knowledge, wherever the evidence leads. It's not called Christian science because it's objective no matter what your faith system. It's just science.

At the point you rule out areas of inquiry because it's not Scriptural, you're doing religion and not science.

And it's the obviousness of that foolish behavior which people easily see, even if you object to people seeing that the Emperor has no clothes.

Cheers!

 

[Necris]

"We'll find a new earth within 20 years" | Around the World with Ken Ham

He never said anything about aliens going to Hell...

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.

In other words, Aliens are going to hell.

...the point is that it would be difficult to reconcile the existence of other intelligent beings due to the Biblical model of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation.

For example someone like Ken Ham would have to grapple with how a loving god could create beings only to doom them either to endless torment or annihilation without any possibility for redemption. Animals on planet earth fit that description but ignoring them the problem would raise it's ugly head again.


But without going too off track in other words a more accurate description of his viewpoint is, "The space program must be stopped because the discovery of alien life will directly contradict scripture, but also it should be stopped because it's pointless since according to scripture we won't find aliens, but if we do the aliens are going to hell anyway because the bible says so*, but we won't because the bible says so and therefore we should stop spending all of this money and look instead to the book of truth that is the bible for our answers."

*The bible which will have been proven not to be inerrant since it was just directly contradicted by reality.

Explain how that is a more logical, reasonable standpoint. It's a mess by any measure.

His standpoint comes from a need to preserve the inerrancy of scripture. Scientific inquiry is a threat to his worldview which is based in a literal interpretation of the bible justified by a belief in the inerrancy of scripture. If science can show that reality directly contradicts scripture his worldview falls apart. In reality this has already happened but he hangs on to his views tenaciously despite them, but that seems to be common in creationists.

His argument relies on circular logic to prop itself up, as many creationist and biblical literalist arguments do (using the bible to prove the bible for example). Allow me to try to illustrate how much of a mess it is.

• The bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore the bible is true, the Bible is true because it is the inerrant word of god.
• The bible is the inerrant word of god which states that we will not find alien life, as such the search is pointless because the discovery of alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god.
• The Bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore we won't find alien life because the bible is inerrant word of god and discovery alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god, the bible cannot be contradicted for it is the inerrant word of god as such search is pointless because the discovery of alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god.
• The Bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore we won't find alien life because the bible is true and discovery alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god, hypothetically if alien life were discovered said aliens would be doomed to hell because the bible states that salvation is only for the descendents of the biblical Adam and the bible is the inerrant word of god, however aliens cannot exist because alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god therefore the search for alien life is pointless because...

etc etc etc

 

[Xaios]

What about the Gelgamek Catholics?

The thing that Ken Ham forgets is that, even if he was correct (which I certainly hope he's not) and there is no other life in the universe, the mission of space exploration would still be a worthy goal. Imagine if humans could colonize other worlds and take advantage of the vast mineral and energy wealth of the universe. That sounds great to me.

 

[ilyti]

Does it? The International Flat Earth Research Society existed as a pro-Scripture, anti-spherical group for quite a few years. It declined after the death of Charles K. Johnson in 2001, which is extremely recently, and was pretty soundly based on Scriptural references. It's an entirely modern argument to redefine a word in Scripture which means "circle" in Hebrew (and which in every case where there is a Greek version, is also "circle") to now mean "sphere." In other words, the writers of the Bible had it wrong, and the people who mis-translate in the modern day have it right.

Any belief that Christians have or had in a spherical earth came from other sources and evidence, not from the Bible.

Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell."

What is a "circle" from any direction you look at it? A sphere. The Bible is accurate. The church made up the flat earth thing.

Job 26:7  "He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing."

As for this guy's idea that intelligent alien creation (if it existed) are affected by Adam's sin, that's silly. Romans 5:12 says "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world [not the whole universe] and death through sin, and so death spread to all men [not aliens - they are not genetically related to Adam]." And going into other unrelated concepts... "Hell" is sorely misunderstood by many Christians. It's not a place of eternal torment, it's just a word for the common grave of humankind. Jesus was in "Hell" for 3 days before his resurrection. Why would God torture his son for 3 days when he never did anything wrong?

Job actually prayed for God to let him die and go to Hell or "Sheol" (the Hebrew word equivalent) because he knew it was just like sleeping.

Job 14:13 O that in Sheol you would conceal me, that you would keep me secret... That you would set a time limit for me and remember me! If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?... You will call, and I myself shall answer you. For the work of your hands you will have a yearning." Job hoped to sleep until God resurrected him to the earth to a new life. That is what the ancient believers in the God of the Bible believed - not that they'd die and go to heaven, or die and suffer for all eternity.

By the way, I'm not interested in preaching here guys. I just have to say what I have to say when extremely anti-Bible things come up, and if I don't speak up, I might be lumped in with idiots who don't know why they believe what they do. So.. for my own peace of mind I think I'll just stop looking at this subforum, or you could all stop posting stuff for me to have to reply to, to clear up misconceptions.

 

[Varcolac]

What about the Gelgamek Catholics?

If I remember correctly, the Catholic Church's head of Astronomy (yep, they actually have one, Catholics just love that science stuff) said something along the lines of "saying there's no aliens is underestimating God" and then speculated that there might be aliens who had never fallen from God's grace like Adam's folk, and might thus be free from original sin.

But of course, I'm sure Ken Ham is that kind of evangelical nutbar that probably regards the Catholic Church as a Satanic Masonic Zionist conspiracy, so such speculations are not likely to trouble him.

 

[asher]

Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell."

What is a "circle" from any direction you look at it? A sphere. The Bible is accurate. The church made up the flat earth thing.

I have no idea where in that quote you're finding reference to "a circle from any direction you look at it" and the tent analogy makes much less sense about a sphere than a circle. If you're saying it's because God looks at the earth from above and sees a circle: that's why they're calling it a circle in the first place.

I don't have any particular stake in this but that evidence is not particularly convincing.

 

[ilyti]

That's up to you, and on its own, I wouldn't be convinced either. Obviously nobody knew for sure if the earth was round until someone travelled all the way around it, and then astronauts saw it from space. But those verses are of interest, because it SUPPORTS what science has PROVEN.

I only believe the whole Bible because I have read it several times and have done extensive research using secular sources to prove to myself what I believe. I don't expect you to just believe because I say so or because I "cherry pick" a few verses to make my point. Faith is based on KNOWLEDGE. Faith is not just "believing what you know ain't so." That's unfortunately what most people think faith is.

Edit: Also that thing about the fine gauze and the tent.. the nearest I can figure is, that's talking about the expansion of the universe. Again, that's of interest to ME because science has proven that the universe is expanding, and in poetic language, the Bible refers to it. But don't take my word for it. It's unrelated from the other thing about the shape of the earth anyway.

 

[asher]

That's up to you, and on its own, I wouldn't be convinced either. Obviously nobody knew for sure if the earth was round until someone travelled all the way around it, and then astronauts saw it from space. But those verses are of interest, because it SUPPORTS what science has PROVEN.

I only believe the whole Bible because I have read it several times and have done extensive research using secular sources to prove to myself what I believe. I don't expect you to just believe because I say so or because I "cherry pick" a few verses to make my point. Faith is based on KNOWLEDGE. Faith is not just "believing what you know ain't so." That's unfortunately what most people think faith is.

When I read it the first couple of times I was getting the impression you were saying "hey, look, the Bible actually says the earth is round" in which case it doesn't hold at all. "The Bible isn't contradicted by spherical earth" is what I'm guessing what you mean, but isn't really how your phased it.

 

[ilyti]

Sorry, yeah. The Bible is not meant to be a science textbook, but when it has touched on scientific matters, it's accurate. And by the way, if your next thought is to debate about the 6 "days" of creation, I don't believe that these were literal 24 hour "days" 6000 years ago. Science proves THAT idea wrong. But the order in which certain kinds of life appeared is definitely in the correct order as to how it actually happened.

 

[Ricky Roro]

1. The Fall, in the Garden of Eden, put Original Sin on everyone.
2. There is a heaven for those who are saved, and a hell for those who aren't.
3. The day of judgment will come for everyone.
4. You can only be saved through Jesus Christ.
5. Jesus will not give salvation to aliens, only human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, aliens are going to hell.

Wrong conclusion. The point of the article is that he is giving a Biblical basis for why he expects no aliens to be found. That is the given premise of this section. Even if his logic or explanation is flawed, it dishonest to extrapolate a different conclusion than the one he is attempting to present. The conclusion seems to be implied from the introduction.

"And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. "

If we are not the only intelligent beings, that presents the theological problem for Christians given that the gospel is meant for mankind. The existence of other intelligent beings would confuse the meaning and extent of the gospel, so it conflicts with a Christian worldview to expect to find other intelligent beings. The irreconcilable position of having creatures which were intelligent but could not respond to the gospel is the basis for expecting them not to exist, not that the ones whom you might presume to exist anyways will be going to Hell.
If Ken Ham wanted to send aliens to Hell he would say so and stick to what he said.

 

[Konfyouzd]

You have to remember that even modern astronomy is a problem for some fundamentalist Christians. Satellites are bad because they assume a round earth, casting doubt on Scripture.

If it contradicts Scripture, wipe it out. That's my take-away from anything Ken says....

----

By the way, what happened to Ken's challenge to Pat Robertson when Robertson said Ken was making Christians look stupid? I'm still waiting for that Creationism debate.

Astronomy? For real? I honestly didn't know there was anyone that had a big problem with that. I should probably get out more.

 

[asher]

Astronomy? For real? I honestly didn't know there was anyone that had a big problem with that. I should probably get out more.

If that's what you're going to find, maybe not.

 

[asher]

Wrong conclusion. The point of the article is that he is giving a Biblical basis for why he expects no aliens to be found. That is the given premise of this section. Even if his logic or explanation is flawed, it dishonest to extrapolate a different conclusion than the one he is attempting to present. The conclusion seems to be implied from the introduction.

It's not wrong if that's where his logic actually leads - which it is. We can't make allowances for people poorly employing logic in their arguments

Any if he expects aliens won't be found (or no "intelligent" life, which certainly leaves tons of wiggle room), why the hell is he going on about GodMartians?

 

[Ricky Roro]

I'm struck by your use of the term "origin studies," which isn't part of any scientific field I know about. [/qoute]

I was speaking broadly. As I understand it, naturalism usually asserts that the universe as we know it originated from the 'big bang.' When I hear that people are studying what happens 'moments after the big bang' then I infer that they are studying to find what can be known about the origination and beginnings of the universe.

Actually, there has been lots of research on possible models for abiogenesis. Like astronomy working its way towards the non-Scriptural heliocentrism, the theories and research go towards finding knowledge.

Heliocentrism does not contradict the Bible. You watch the sun rise even though you know that the planet is merely turning on its axis. You might tell your friend that the full moon is coming up even though you know that it is just reaching your side of the planet during its orbit.

It's an entirely modern argument to redefine a word in Scripture which means "circle" in Hebrew (and which in every case where there is a Greek version, is also "circle") to now mean "sphere." In other words, the writers of the Bible had it wrong, and the people who mis-translate in the modern day have it right.

Any belief that Christians have or had in a spherical earth came from other sources and evidence, not from the Bible.

I have heard that the claimed prevalence of the flat-earth beliefs is a myth, but even if it is true, it is possible that people superimposed their erroneous interpretations of the solar system onto the text which would otherwise contradict them.

Now this is a place where there hasn't really been any sustained research, a creation theory which is testable.

The point is not that I want to debate whether people should believe in creationism but rather that it is irrational to 'religiously' believe in naturalistic evolution and yet claim that you are only being objective.

Also, there are testable theories which can be extrapolated from a creationist perspective.
-An intelligent creator made life, so abiogenesis will not be possible.
-The earth is relatively new, so there are methods which could be used to fossilize animals or make fossil fuels which take less time than what has previously been considered necessary.
-God made humankind uniquely intelligent and valuable, so alien intelligent life is not likely to be found.
etc.

And you can't base good science on a source which has it wrong. You discard the errors and find correct answers upon which to build more questions. That's the difference between science and dogma.

Even the best science will always have unanswerable questions. Then dogmas are invented to fill their own gaps. Naturalism is dogma superimposed onto science because people find the notion of a God who holds them accountable to be uncomfortable. Science should simply be a method of testing ideas.

 

[tedtan]

What about the Gelgamek Catholics?

The thing that Ken Ham forgets is that, even if he was correct (which I certainly hope he's not) and there is no other life in the universe, the mission of space exploration would still be a worthy goal. Imagine if humans could colonize other worlds and take advantage of the vast mineral and energy wealth of the universe. That sounds great to me.

New resources would be great, but we've already gained A LOT of technological advancements through our exploration of space. Even simple things like Velcro and carbon fiber.

 

[tedtan]

If we are not the only intelligent beings, that presents the theological problem for Christians given that the gospel is meant for mankind. The existence of other intelligent beings would confuse the meaning and extent of the gospel, so it conflicts with a Christian worldview to expect to find other intelligent beings. The irreconcilable position of having creatures which were intelligent but could not respond to the gospel is the basis for expecting them not to exist, not that the ones whom you might presume to exist anyways will be going to Hell.

What if, like Varcolac mentioned in post 26 above, the aliens were created by god, but never committed original sin and were therefore free from the need of the new covenant? I don't see that as being irreconcilable.

 

[ilyti]

I agree with tedtan. It's possible, and totally logical but it's best not to speculate either way.

 

[flint757]

What's wrong exactly with speculating the existence of life beyond Earth?

 

[SD83]

I believe that God created the universe, so that makes me comparable to the scum of the earth who slaughter children without remorse. That makes sense.

That was not what I said. To believe in God creating the earth does not make you a Creationist, just as to believe in the Quran does not make you a terrorist. And I didn't mean to say that Ham is as BAD as the Isis guys, but if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs and men walked side by side then yes, I think that is about the same level of insanity as to believe that women should be invisible and the infidels shall be slaughtered. The symptoms of the later are worse, but that also means it will probably not infect that many people as it seems too extreme, thus being the smaller of the problems. And I'm not at all sorry if that hurts someones feelings.

I'm totally fine with ilyti's view of things, for example. It is not what I believe, but neither of us can prove the other wrong. If someone tries to tell me the earth is about 6000 years old, that does not only contradict 99% of science but even those things that you can actually witness. Erosion, for example. Assuming God made the universe, the universal laws of nature are God's laws.

To get back on topic:
The original sin. Adam's fault. God curses Adam and his descendants. Jesus. Salvation. In a christian context, that kind of makes sense to me. Maybe the aliens still live in Paradise because they didn't care about the apple. Or they had their own 'Adam'.
The original sin. Adam's fault. God curses all intelligent life. Jesus. Salvation, but only for Adam's descendants. In that case, God is an asshole (letting creatures suffer for absolutly nothing and never giving them a chance to end the suffering) and no one should support assholes.