Is Belief In Alien Life Harmless? Why Creationists Are Wrong About Aliens And The Bible

“The thought that aliens might be living on other planets may sound innocent enough. But lurking underneath are some deep theological dangers.”

This little blurb begins Dr. Danny Faulkner’s article, “Is Belief in Alien Life Harmless?” in the Oct/Dec 2015 issue of Answers magazine. It lets us know right from the start where the article is heading. No surprises. Little green men are bad for the Bible.

Dr. Faulkner’s conclusion is just as starkly bleak for Christians who love science fiction:

“So while alien visitations might have a fun place in frivolous fiction, the heart-felt belief that life really does exist elsewhere can have eternal ramifications.”

As a science fiction author, I had to know what he had sandwiched in between these statements to support his claim.

Dr. Faulkner begins by referring to a 2012 Kelton Research survey of a random sample of 1114 Americans adults. Of those surveyed, 36% said they believed that aliens have visited the Earth, 17% said that aliens hadn’t, and 48% were undecided. This survey is consistent with similar polls done in the past. The takeaway message is that more people believe in the plausibility of the premise of the X Files than those who don’t, but most of us aren’t sure enough to risk looking like total idiots by speaking up in favor of either extraterrestrial dogma. This data does not support Dr. Faulkner’s non sequitur that “With ET believers outnumbering non-believers nearly two-to-one, the intense fascination with aliens is obvious.”

The survey speaks nothing to society’s fascination with ETs, but pop culture certainly does. We’ve got toys, blankets, games, books [both fictional and nonfictional], models, TV shows, movies, and a whole lot more featuring aliens, both benign and terrifying. West Virginia is partly responsible for this craze. While we didn’t give the world Roswell, we certainly contributed in other ways. Wild and Wonderful West Virginia has gave the world Gray Barker. After making an alleged extraterrestrial called the Flatwoods Monster from his native Braxton County known in FATE magazine, Gray went on to add to UFO culture by writing magazine articles and books like They Knew Too Much About Flying Saucers [1956], which introduced the world to the Men in Black. He also wrote a book about the Mountain State’s most famous cryptid, the Mothman of Point Pleasant, whose fame has been fanned various monster hunter/myth buster type shows, by a horrible movie starring Richard Gere based on an even worse book by John Keel, and also an annual Mothman Festival.

Having said all of that, it is well known that Gray Barker was a notorious UFO hoaxer and that he fabricated and embellished many of the sensational saucer stories he published.

Which is to say, Dr. Faulkner’s questions, that “Given all this hype, should Christians care? Does the Bible have anything to say?” are legitimate questions that all Christian sci-fi enthusiasts need to know the answers to. As both a preacher/apologist and a sci-fi author, I’ve certainly explored these questions. My first novel, Johnny Came Home actually features a stereotypical 1950s flying saucer crash landed in front of a church on the cover. The scene actually occurs in the book.

I’m gonna be honest. Christian sci-fi and fantasy authors are kind of the black sheep of the evangelical ghetto. We write about aliens and elves, magic and super-powered mutants, things that make some Christians very uncomfortable. I can tell you that Christian sci-fi and fantasy authors, take our craft and our faith very seriously. A lot of us see ourselves as exploratory apologists or, more specifically, anticipatory apologists. We anticipate how technology and future discoveries might impact traditional Christianity because [A] we love a good sci-fi story and [B] it’s a great medium to ask the sort of uncomfortable questions that nevertheless allow us to anticipate ways to be ready always to give an answer to those who ask in the spirit of 2 Peter 3:15. Yet when people start asking these questions, no one ever bothers to ask the guys who’ve invested a ton of time in asking science fiction’s “What if?” in regards to Christian doctrine. Maybe it’s because apologetics fiction has only recently been on the rise.

So does the Bible say anything about aliens or flying saucers? In case, you’re wondering, Dr. Faulkner says it doesn’t. Technically, that’s true. As he mentions, there is a difference between a flying saucer and a UFO, the latter of which is quite literally something you see in the sky that you can’t quite identify.

Oddly, he doesn’t mention that UFOlogists often cite Ezekiel’s wheel as a UFO. In the strictest sense of the word, Ezekiel’s is certainly a UFO. And the description certainly resonates with folks who obsess over strange lights in the sky that change direction at sharp angles:

“And when I looked, behold the four wheels by the cherubims, one wheel by one cherub, and another wheel by another cherub: and the appearance of the wheels was as the colour of a beryl stone.

And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel.

 When they went, they went upon their four sides; they turned not as they went, but to the place whither the head looked they followed it; they turned not as they went.” Ezekiel 10:9-11.

Of course, unlike a classic saucer sighting, these wheels were accompanied by angelic beings [cherubim]. Furthermore, the wheels followed the cherubim, mimicking their flight exactly. It should be said that Ezekiel was a prophet and he was likely seeing a supernatural vision akin to the valley of dry bones rather than reality [Ezekiel 37:1-14]. If Ezekiel’s wheel is the Biblical equivalent of a modern “saucer” sighting, one wonders if people are seeing the wheel but not the accompanying cherubim, rather like Balaam was unable to see the angel sent to kill him [Number 22:31] and Elisha’s servant was unable to see the heavenly hosts [2 Kings 6:17] until their respective eyes were opened to the spiritual reality. It’s certainly the only compelling Biblical parallel we have to the modern phenomenon of UFO sightings.

UFOlogists also tend to mention the Nephilim of Genesis 6, insinuating that sons of God who procreated with humans to produce these mighty men of renown were actually aliens. One here objects that angels and aliens aren’t really the same thing. Are we sure about that? Technically speaking, angels are created beings who are not indigenous to Earth. As such, we could, tentatively, properly classify angels and even God Himself as extraterrestrials. I say this with due reverence and only in the interests of fairness, because I think the dichotomy between angels as supernatural and aliens as scientific [albeit paranormal science] is completely artificial. If we believe God is real, then we ought to dust off our definitions and consider him and his heavenly hosts a bit more scientifically [albeit with reverence for Someone who is in a larger degree beyond our ability to put in a box]. The very Biblical fact of angels [fallen or otherwise] in God’s court implies that Earth may not be unique, except possibly where it concerns beings created in His image. Of course, it’s probably better to say angel when we mean angel and alien when we mean alien because folks have very, very different images in their heads of what those terms mean.

This brings up the problem of what we mean by the term alien or extraterrestrial. While some folks thinks of aliens as interdimensional beings, most folks think of ETs as being from other planets.

As a sci-fi author, I’ve noticed that extraterrestrials tend to come with the assumption of an evolutionary worldview. That is, there is the assumption that life on other planets must be pretty common and that it developed by purely natural means.

By contrast, Dr. Faulkner notes that:

“From the Bible, we know that this is not how life came about on the earth. Rather, God specially created life on this planet. It would be inconsistent to believe that God created life on earth but that life arose naturally on other worlds. So if life exists elsewhere, God must have created it too.”

Actually, I don’t have to use logic to figure that one out. I have revelation for that:

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” Colossians 1:16.

God made everything. He made plants. Animals. Microbes. Angelic beings. Mankind. And if they exist, He made aliens.

Now Dr. Faulkner asks a pretty interesting question in his article: “How would ETs fit into God’s greater purpose? God certainly could have created life on other planets, but is this consistent with what we know about the purpose of God’s works?”

How would ETS fit into God’s greater purpose? Is an amazing question. It’s probably unanswerable because, well, God’s thoughts are higher than ours and, frankly, we don’t have enough information. What is the purpose of all the stars and infinite worlds that are only detectable by telescopes as powerful as Hubble if they were solely meant to serve mankind by being objects to light the night sky, to mark off seasons [Genesis 1:14-19]? One might here object that such far flung heavenly bodies fulfill the revealed purpose of proclaiming the omnipotence and majesty of God [Psalm 19:1], but I can’t help but feel we’re being reductionist by stating that these revealed stated purposes of heavenly bodies necessarily implies that there are no unstated purposes to said bodies. Furthermore, even if I do not know how ETs fit into God’s greater purpose, I can assure you that if they do in fact exist, they do fit into God’s greater purpose somehow.

Theological Geocentrism

I digress. Dr. Faulkner’s thesis is that:

Isaiah 45:18 makes a distinction between God’s role for the earth and the heavens (the rest of the universe). It says that God did not create the earth in vain, but that He made it to be inhabited. While the Bible is not geocentric (placing the earth at the physical center of the universe), the earth is the center of God’s attention. Humans—and not ETs—are God’s primary concern in the universe.”

Creationists tend to posit a sort of theological geocentrism. We believe that the Earth is special and that God is actively involved in the affairs of its inhabitants. It may be true that the Earth is the center of God’s attention. He did created mankind in His own image after all. I won’t argue with that.

I can and will argue with the idea that just because Scripture says that God did not create the Earth in vain [empty] that this is meant as an iron-clad contrast with the heavens. We have three statements: God created the heavens. God created the earth. God did not create it in vain but to be inhabited. This does not necessarily imply that He by contrast made the heavens in vain to be uninhabited. Yet we have creationist organizations making absurd statements like this one made in Chapter 18 of the New Answers Book, “But where does the Bible discuss the creation of life on the “lights in the expanse of the heavens”? There is no such description because the lights in the expanse were not designed to accommodate life.” That, my friends, is a bona fide argument from silence, the weakest and most inadvisable of all arguments. The Bible is equally silent about microbes and Black holes. We cannot say that the heavens were not designed for life simply because the Bible fails to mention this as being the case [especially since it may be that it does, as we will see]. It may simply be that the Bible’s revelation is, well, geocentric and does not concern itself with the affairs of God’s creations “in a galaxy far, far away.” The Bible’s silence regarding extraterrestrial lifeforms would not invalidate its inerrancy. We might simply note that extraterrestrial life was not really germane to the discussion as it were.

The context of Isaiah 45:18 is that God is assuring Israel that He is in control and that there is a purpose to everything He’s doing; there is a plan. God here is saying nothing more than He did just a few short verses before when He declared, “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.” Incidentally the word “hosts” means “army or armies.” I believe the term is being used here to refer to the heavenly bodies in a figurative way, but an argument could be made that God is referring to angelic or alien beings as well!

In any case, in this passage God is saying, “I created the heavens. I created the Earth. I created the Earth with every intention of creating man. I had a plan when I created the universe, just as I have a plan for Israel and I did not make my promises to Jacob in vain.” To say that Isaiah 45:18 precludes the possibility of alien life is simply overstatement, especially because it may actually imply its existence.

Interestingly enough, most translations include a semicolon in this verse. For example, the King James Version reads: “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” This means that the “it” in “He created it not in vain” may refer not only to the earth but everything in the section preceding the semicolon, including the heavens. Something to keep in mind if we ever find aliens.

It is unlikely that man will discover life from beyond our solar system, given the prohibitive nature of space travel. All science fiction writers employ black boxes to overcome this obstacle [warp engines, inertial dampeners, wormholes, hyperspace], but the physics and distance make the whole venture wholly impractical. Impossible really. If we discovered extraterrestrial life at all, it would likely be because said life came calling. I can’t imagine that being a good thing

The trouble is that Creationists have come up with this argument that the Scriptures demand an absence of alien life as a proof of the specialness of earth. As Dr. Faulkner argues elsewhere:

“The creation worldview is very different, because, as usual, we start with very different assumptions. We believe that life exists on earth because God created life here, but He first had to fashion the earth to be a suitable habitation for life. The evolutionist must believe that life is inevitable wherever conditions are suitable for life, but creationists understand that even if conditions on another planet could sustain life, life there is not possible–unless God created life there or permitted life somehow to travel to that planet from earth.

While we cannot prove biblically that God did not create life elsewhere, the strong implication of Scripture is that He did not. These very different predictions of the special creation and evolution models mean that the search for life elsewhere amounts to a powerful test between the two theories of origin.”

Categorizing the idea that alien life does not exist as a prediction of special creation is the worst sort of overstatement. We are in real danger of setting up a Galileo debacle here. In Galileo’s day, folks had found proof texts in the Bible that could be seen as supporting the geocentric Ptolemaic cosmological model. One of the major arguments for geocentrism was the idea that the Earth was special in God’s sight. Now we know that we are neither the center of our solar system nor the center of the universe, except from a relative perspective.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible is not silent on alien life. Aliens are extraterrestrial sapient beings. They were created some time before man. Scripture reveals that there are different forms of angels, seraphim, cherubim, archangels, living creatures… and some of them are quite bizarre. They recognize that they are not the Creator God; for example, the angel who speaks to John in Revelation tells him not to bow before him because they are both equally servants of God. Spiritually speaking, some are fallen and some are not, definitely suggesting free will on their part.

Which brings us to a point any serious Bible student must consider regarding alien life: How did Adam’s sin affect other sapient beings in the universe? Are all sapient beings fallen in Adam? Or are there unfallen sentient, moral non-humans who must endure a fallen universe?

Keep in mind that the question of non-sapient alien life isn’t really a threat to anyone’s doctrine. They would be subject to this fallen world in much the same way animals and plants and microbes are on this planet. They could even be as intelligent and social as bees or dolphins and still not qualify as sapient. Oh, I’m sure evolutionists would hail it as a victory for their theory, but that’s what they do with every new discovery anyway. Biblicists would simply be forced to recognize that their understanding of the specialness of Earth had nothing to do with the presence of life here, but rather that God created beings in His own image here. Just as we had to adjust our view of the specialness of Earth when geocentrism was disproven.

The problem for Christianity where geocentrism was concerned was not so much that the Bible taught it – there were verses which appeared to coincide with this idea, but which never demanded such a view – but that this science had been erroneously hailed as a truth of the Christian worldview. Interestingly enough, my grandfather told me that there were once preachers who said that man would never reach the moon because God had stopped mankind from building the Tower of Babel. They said that Psalm 115:16 made it clear that man would not be allowed to trespass into the heavens. With all due respect to conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landing was fake, those preachers were wrong. The Bible wasn’t wrong, but they mislead folks into thinking it was by overstating what it actually said.

Grace for Other Worlds?

My fear now is that is that creationist will have erroneously canonized this idea that our position, the Biblical position, predicts an absence of alien life. It is a great leap from strong suggestion to actual prediction. We need to refrain from such dogmatism where we cannot yet be certain in the absence of a clear Scriptural revelation. Inference isn’t quite enough in these cases.

By way of further example, Dr. Faulkner states that “John Adams observed in his diary on April 24, 1756, that if many other worlds were inhabited as people then thought, then Jesus would have to die on each of those worlds.”

John Adams’ April 24, 1756 diary entry actually says the following:

“Astronomers tell us, with good Reason, that not only all the Planets and Satellites in our Solar System, but all the unnumbered Worlds that revolve round the fixt Starrs are inhabited, as well as this Globe of Earth. If this is the Case all Mankind are no more in comparison of the whole rational Creation of God, than a point to the Orbit of Saturn. Perhaps all these different Ranks of Rational Beings have in a greater or less Degree, committed moral Wickedness. If so, I ask a Calvinist, whether he will subscribe to this Alternitive, “either God almighty must assume the respective shapes of all these different Species, and suffer the Penalties of their Crimes, in their Stead, or else all these Being[s]must be consigned to everlasting Perdition?””

The following day’s entry comments further upon the subject:

“The Reflection that I penned Yesterday, appears upon the review to be weak enough. For 1st. we know not that the Inhabitants of other Globes have sinned. Nothing can be argued in this manner, till it is proved at least probable that all those Species of rational Beings have revolted from their rightful Sovereign.—When I examine the little Prospect that lies before me, and find an infinite variety of Bodies in one Horizon of perhaps two miles diameter, how many Millions of such Prospects there are upon the Surface of this Earth, how many millions of Globes there are within our View, each of which has as many of these prospects upon its own surface as our Planet—great! and marvellous are thy works!”

You see, a sapient unfallen alien race that is subject to the fallen universe is not really a problem for Christina theology… because they don’t need saved. And thus far we must admit that astrotheology has the same basic dilemma that astrobiology has: a lack of subjects.

Nevertheless, the sci-fi author in me asks the dread What If? What If we found sapient aliens who were fallen? Would they require God to come to send His Son to sacrifice themselves for their sin? Well, no. Not unless they were also made in God’s image.

If they fell in their own right and not because of Adam’s sin, that is between them and their Creator; not Adam and their Creator. The angelic beings who fell have not, to our knowledge, been offered a hint of salvation and no one cries foul over that! Why is not God unjust to offer them grace…?

The preacher in me smiles. Oh, wait. It is grace that we preach, isn’t it? Doesn’t the notion of grace come with the unspoken acknowledgement that God is not impugned if He does not provide a remedy for our sin; that He didn’t have to do anything; that He did so out of love and mercy and for the sake of His own good Name? We do not impugn God for condemning fallen angels to hell without a mention of redemption because we know that we’ve no right to impugn God’s justice over the matter when it is a matter of grace and grace alone that it is offered to mankind at all. It is NOT a matter of God’s justice, for if we all got what we deserved, if we all got justice instead of grace, we’d be in hell tonight!

When we ask, “What about the angels? Or what about salvation for fallen aliens?” we echo Peter’s question to Jesus regarding John: “Lord, what about him?” Jesus had just told Peter that he would die a martyr and Peter wanted to know if the same fate awaited John. Jesus’ response was “If I want him to live until I return, what it that to you? You follow Me!”[John 21:18-22]. Like Peter, we want everything to be fair we think it should be, but God alone is sovereign and God alone is omnipotent.

Some will perhaps think I am sidestepping the issue, but I assure you I am addressing it in the only way a Biblicist should.

If aliens require salvation, will not the Lord of Heaven deal justly?

Of course, we must consider the fact that death entered the universe by Adam’s sin. Yet Luke 20:36 tells us that angels do not die. There seems to be an exception to the death penalty where these created beings are concerned, and this apparent immortality of angels seems to still apply to the third of the hosts who are fallen! They are eternal in the sense that man’s soul is eternal. We die physically, but heaven or hell awaits us eternally. This seems to present the solution to the dilemma: Mortality as a consequence for Adam’s Fall may only apply to creatures who are, for lack of a better term, corporeal. Or perhaps the effects of the Fall only apply to denizens of this dimension of reality and not those whose natural realm is extradimensional.

I’m of the opinion that all life in this dimension is subject to the Fall’s death penalty, because the Bible explicitly said that death entered into the world by man’s sin [Romans 8:18-22]; therefore, we need to discuss to what extent the Fall affected any sapient aliens God may’ve created.

We know that they die as a result of the Fall, but do we know whether they inherited man’s sin nature? Creationists tend to view both death and depravity as part and parcel to the Fall, because that is precisely the case for man. It is not the case for animals, who only die and have no sin nature. Of course, animals have been affected in other ways. Originally vegetarian creatures became carnivores or parasites, or else developed harmful and even lethal defenses. We can reasonably expect non-sapient life forms from other worlds to basically parallel what we see on Earth because the Bible says that plants and animals were cursed as a result of the Fall [Genesis 3:14, 17-18].

What of sapient life forms then? Does their cursed state make the concept of an unfallen sapient alien nothing more than a hypothetical thought exercise, but ultimately impossible? Perhaps. Animals are affected by the Fall by they are not fallen in the sense of requiring salvation. Animals do not sin; they are amoral. Nevertheless, ever since the Fall, the lion placed in a pen with a lamb does what its cursed nature compels it to do. Animals do not require salvation, so much as redemption from the corollary effects of the curse: death and corruption.

Would ET find this situation unfair? First, we have to ask if they have enough information to think it’s unfair. They die. They know why? I believe so. I have no reason to believe that God would not send his angels as messengers or give them revelation of some sort. If they are unfallen and die, they would not criticize their Creator for making them subject to the penalty He placed on the creature to Whom God had given Dominion. A king falls and his kingdom suffers. A man’s sin always affects more than just himself. An unfallen race would praise God for His grace and mercy in providing a means of redemption for the universe. As unfallen xenosapients, they would require no salvation. If they lack immortal souls, they would thank God for their lives, however long or brief. If they had immortal souls beyond their corporeal bodies, they would not be in danger of hell beyond death; death would simply be what it is for the Christian: a joyous reunion with their beloved Creator!

So the question becomes: Would sapient aliens require salvation or would they merely require redemption from physical death and the other effects of the curse?

The Bible’s scant revelation regarding angels may once again give us insight. We know that there was a war in heaven [Rev 12:7-13]. We all know war is bad. Satan rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven with a third of the heavenly hosts who followed him BEFORE the Fall. The punishment God has meted out for them and the timetable He has decreed for this future judgement are completely independent matters from Adam’s Fall and mankind’s subsequent judgment. They knew rebellion and war before we knew sin and murder! Our punishments were not identical. Angels do not die. There is no indication that they suffer from any of the corollary effects of the Fall. They have not been given, to our knowledge, any Gospel such as mankind has been given by God’s grace. It would seem then that the God who is revealed in Scripture would deal with sapient non-human races according to their own merits and situations. If angels are our example [and not some exception to a rule we’re as yet ignorant of], this strongly implies that sapient races may be exempt from the corollary effects of the Fall, though they live in a universe very much cursed by the Fall of Adam. That is, if a sapient race is fallen, it is fallen on its own response to its Creator and not Adam’s Fall. If this is the case, the question of sapient alien life, fallen or unfallen has no effect whatsoever on Christian doctrine.

But What IF? What If all sapient aliens were fallen along with Adam in exactly the same way mankind is? The root cause of their sin would be an imputed [as opposed to inherited] sin nature. They would sin, as all human do, because they are sinners. You see, sin is something of a spiritual computer virus. It corrupts the program and corrupts the code of everything that program produces. By analogy, we require a completely new operating system to rid ourselves of the virus, but we are completely helpless to affect that sort of change; we require the Programmer to remedy the situation. If sapient aliens were imputed the same spiritual virus we humans have, they would still be guilty of sin because they would sin according to their nature. Would they then require salvation? Yup. Would God’s justice be impugned if He didn’t offer it to them when they didn’t commit the original sin that gave them this imputed nature? Yes and no. Scripture makes it clear that we have all sinned in Adam, yet we are also personally accountable for the sins we commit. I can’t imagine aliens getting a pass on the second count. Still, God being God, we have to suppose He would give them the Gospel on account of that borrowed sin nature alone. So as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive, right [1 Cor 15:22]? We need Christ to come die on an alien world, right? That’s what John Adams thought. That’s what Dr. Faulkner thinks:

“In order to secure their salvation, Jesus would have to be born, live, die, and rise again on countless planets. Even skeptics have noted that this is the logical consequence of believing in human-like beings on other worlds.”

Is it true? Well, not necessarily. In fact, that seems a bit wasteful. And it may even be Scripturally prohibitive if the several passage that state that Christ died once for all includes aliens as well. Logically, the Gospel to ET would have to come from Earth or, more likely, through revelation and refer to earth and its history with Adam’s Dominion and later Fall and Christ’s sacrifice for sin and the resurrection as the promise of eternal life.

But wait! Don’t we have to be of Adam’s bloodline in order to enjoy the blessings of salvation? Isn’t that why Christ came and became a man and shed His own blood for our sins? That’s how it works for humanity; however, if depravity is imputed to ETs as it must be for them to be fallen in Adam [rather than on their own], then salvation may be imputed as well.

Trivializing the Gospel?

Dr. Faulkner objects that “A gospel message that begins, “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away . . .” trivializes the gospel.

To which I respond, in Appalachian, “Bullroar!” What is the difference between giving folks the Gospel today and saying, “A long, long time ago, Christ was born in a country far, far away, lived a sinless life, and died a cruel death to redeem mankind from the sin of a man who lived an even longer time ago?” What special pleading is this? Some of you have heard the tale of New Tribes Mission’s efforts to reach the Mouk Tribe of Papau, New Guinea. These missionaries tried traditional evangelism methods with almost no success. In order to reach a people with absolutely no Bible knowledge, they began with two months of Old Testament Bible stories. Only after this foundation was laid did they begin teaching about Christ. After teaching them about God and the Bible, NTM missionaries taught them about “Creation, and Adam and Eve, and man’s choice to sin. We explained how God promised a Savior would someday come to deliver us from sin.” How is this situation substantially different than delivering the Gospel to ETs? And as I ask this, keep in mind that God may’ve given them revelation and perhaps even a Law to act as a schoolmaster in preparation for said Gospel [Galations 3:24].

Skeptics may suppose that the logical consequences of sapient alien life that Jesus would have to incarnate upon and sacrifice Himself for each and every one, but this Santa Claus view of the Gospel is the product of a superficial consideration of the subject. This is true of skeptics. This is true of creationists who associate the ET question with an evolutionary worldview.

If life is common in the universe, we’ve certainly seen no evidence of it. The Fermi Paradox asks, “If the universe is teeming with life, where is everybody?” The Star Wars universe, the Star Trek universe, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and similar fictional worlds where the ether simply teems with alien civilizations are based on an evolutionary worldview. Sort of. If we’re fair about it, we have to ask ourselves why most of these aliens look pretty much like us and can interbreed with us with fertile offspring. Because that makes biological sense, right? Just about as much sense as various worlds independently developing humanoid intelligent life that looks pretty much like us in the first place, huh? Science fictions aside, there’s no way to know whether life is rare or abundant in the universe.

If life is common in the universe, there’s no reason to conclude it’s just as probable there is no God. After all, abiogenesis and molecules-to-man evolution are so statistically improbable as to rate impossibility. Multiplying zero by infinity doesn’t really add up to better odds. I tend to think if the all-natural Just-so story they’ve concocted were true, they’ve used up all of their odds on Earth alone and the chances of it happening again become less likely not as likely or more likely. In other words, if life were common in the universe, this invokes the supernatural, for it proposes that nature must overcome do impossible things. It actually makes it more probable that God does exist!

Dr. Faulkner asks that we accept the false dichotomy that “If the God of the Bible and the gospel are real, then ETs are not.” This is completely unnecessary. God and the Bible are real regardless of whether ETs exist or not, and they certainly don’t require Jesus to repeat His sacrifice on multiple worlds.

An Alien Agenda?

I should say that just because ETs are not prohibited by the Bible, it doesn’t make UFO sightings extraterrestrial in origin. There are several ways we might account for UFOs.

  1. A good number are misidentified objects of a much more mundane nature. Common things that are already there like clouds, weather balloons, comets, commercial or known military aircraft, et cetera. Any UFO nut who insists that ALL or even most UFO sightings are the real McCoy is an unrealistic true believer.
  2. There is the possibility that some are secret government projects. No, I’m not using “the reverse engineered from UFOs” line here. I think that type of thinking is rather circular. [OK, we’re not seeing real space craft, but we are seeing government UFOs based on the real UFOs we’re not really seeing… huh?] These would just be real government aircraft like the stealth bomber, et cetera. [For example, the Flatwoods Monster [Flatwoods, WV], believed by many to be either an alien or a UFO, is allege by many to be a test launch of the lunar lander that went awry and was subsequently misidentified!]
  3. We could be seeing some of the “signs in the heavens” promised by Christ Jesus as a sign of the End of Days. If this is the case, then we are projecting a bit when we see these lights and presume they are manned. In this case, we would be looking at as yet unexplained natural phenomenon [like ball lightning] or angelic messengers flying about as a sign to earthly man. The point we should recall here is that heavenly signs [as unexplained natural phenomenon], things like the darkening of the sun, the moon turning the color of blood, comets, celestial oddities and possibly some sort of natural phenomenon which causes the “UFO” lights could simply be warnings – celestial wake up calls if you will – that the End is approaching.
  4. We may be looking at actual extraterrestrial aircraft and/or phenomena. You know, textbook UFOs and ETs. This seems entirely unlikely to me. While the Bible does not exclude the Creator from having created other beings to inhabit our cosmos, it does seem unlikely that they would visit this planet for so many years with no evidence of their approach to our solar system. It seems unlikely that we would not know they were here. There seems to be no motive for their being here, unless they were trying to grab our resources or the planet itself. Space travel [across light years] seems a prohibitive venture for any group of beings, so why would they string out their conquest of a technologically inferior race by hiding for years in the background, positioning themselves as some sort of vast subversive alien conspiracy? I think you see my point.
  5. We may be looking at interdimensional beings, which would explain how they can vanish and appear so suddenly. The idea of angelic beings departing and re-entering the spirit realm for brief excursions into the Prime Material plane come to mind. This phenomenon is consistent with Biblical accounts of angels. As I discussed earlier, the dichotomy between angels and aliens may be a cosmetic devise for distancing Christianity from the paranormal and other weird nonsense.

So there we have it:
1. Misidentified everyday things.
2. Unpublished military/scientific research assumed as extraterrestrial in origin. [i.e. – government UFOs or unpublished man-made terrestrial aircraft]
3. Natural but as-yet-unexplained celestial phenomenon; aka biblically foretold “signs in the heavens” [i.e. – UFO lights]
4. Actual extraterrestrial craft [however unlikely]
5. Interdimensional beings [such as angels, fallen or otherwise]

Of the two more exotic explanations [#4 & #5], I lean toward the latter. Genuine extraterrestrials simply lack a motive and a feasible means. On the other hand, centuries of sightings and the conspiracy that implies makes more sense if they’re really already here, only separated by the material/spirit [i.e. – a dimensional] boundary and can make excursions into the material dimension.

Especially if we ask the question: Who benefits, God or the devil, from these increasing UFO sightings and the subsequent increased belief in extraterrestrial life? Does this lead to an increased belief in God? Or increased unbelief? Oh, you see my point. While the possibility of little green men would in no way invalidate the Bible [and Christendom with it], since the Bible is an account of God’s dealings with MEN, it would be advertised popularly as evidence against special creation. In fact, the discovery of extraterrestrials would be evidence more in favor with intelligent design, given the improbable odds against life coming to be twice! Yet by the time creationists were given a voice to correct these notions, the evolutionists would have had a field day and would have again recruited those cowed theistic evolutionists [or progressive creationists or whatever you call these compromisers] into stating that good Christians really believe a form of evolution and not creation after all. Pawns.

I’ll expand the scenario. This is what I believe may occur.

I believe fallen angels may pose as aliens and will finally “come out” and feed the world a line about how they seeded us and how they’ve been watching us and will now aid us in the next stage of evolution. I believe they will initiate a purge of religious and philosophical beliefs which contradict them, in the name of evolutionary progress. Those seeds [that religious belief is the evolutionary equivalent of childhood and that atheism is a sort of growing up] have already been planted. Both evolutionists and progressive creationists will be satisfied since both evolution and ID will be given credence [you evolved according to our intelligent design, Earthlings]. If the Rapture occurs before or concurrently with their appearance, they may claim the disappearance of Christians is part of the initial purge. They may overcome moral objections to such religious cleansing by invoking the idea that we are in a sense property of theirs since they designed us [lightly accented], but besides that we Christians were some sort of evolutionary throwback or possessed of a mental/evolutionary flaw which was infecting humanity and holding us back from evolutionary Ubermensch [strongly accented].

I believe this is a good candidate for the “strong delusion” which the world will be sent during the Tribulation.

Even so, the issue of the identity of UFOs and the belief in alien visitations to this planet is quite independent of the question of whether extraterrestrials might exist and whether they contradict the Bible’s revelation. I would caution creationists against using emotional appeals based on the former to condemn consideration of the latter.

The Present Danger

I strongly believe that a knee-jerk rejection of the idea of alien life somewhere in the universe based on fearmongering will only serve to increase the effectiveness of the Satanic deception surrounding belief in ETs. Especially if influential creationists organizations continue to insist on creating a false dichotomy between Biblical Christianity and the possibility of alien life. Telling folks that the Bible says what it has almost nothing to say on at all places a potential stumbling block to the Gospel if the thing we deny turns out to be true after all.

So the conclusion of the matter is this:

  • Non-sapient alien life poses no threat to Christianity. Its discovery would merely confirm the notion that the Bible is a geocentric revelation to humanity.
  • The possibility of unfallen sapient aliens exists because unfallen angels exist; such aliens would be affected by the curse but would not require salvation.
  • Fallen sapient aliens who fell apart from Adam’s fall would not necessarily receive the grace offered to mankind for salvation; God is not impugned for meting out justice rather than granting grace.
  • Fallen sapient beings who fell with Adam would not require Christ to die for them on each fallen world; Christ died once for all, so if man’s depravity is imputed to them, it follows that Christ’s righteousness could be imputed to them as well.

The only circumstances in which alien life would truly be a problem for Christianity is if well-meaning Christians falsely conflated an absence of alien life as a prediction of the Bible.

18 Comments Add yours

  1. billschwan says:

    In the ’50s an astronomer named Frank Drake came up with what is known as the Drake equation to calculate the potential planets in our galaxy capable of supporting life as we know it. The equation goes as follows:

    N* x fs x fp x ne x fi x fc x fl = N

    N*= stars in our galaxy
    fs= fraction of sun like stars
    fp= fractions of stars with planets
    ne= planets in a star’s habitable zone
    fi= fraction of habitable planets where life does arise
    fc= fraction of planets inhabited by intelligent beings
    fl= percentage of a lifetime of a planet marked by a communicative civilization
    N= numbers of planets with intelligent life

    Keep in mind that little was known regarding most of these variables in the 50s. There was no Hubble and there was no estimation of planetary masses orbiting around other stars so many assumptions were made.

    By the late 90s, evolutionary biologists Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee revised this equation to place it more in line with current understandings of cosmology. They have named this updated equation the Rare Earth Equation.

    N* x fp x fpm x ne x ng x fi x fc x fl x fm xfj x fme = N

    N*= stars in our galaxy
    fp= fractions of stars with planets
    fpm= fraction of metal rich planets
    ne= planets in a star’s habitable zone
    ng= stars in a galactic habitable zone
    fi= fraction of habitable planets where life does arise
    fc= fraction of planets with life where complex metazoans arise
    fl= percentage of a lifetime of a planet marked by the presence of complex metazoans
    fm= fraction of planets with a large moon
    fj= fraction of solar systems with Jupiter-sized planets
    fme= fraction of planets with critically low mass extinction events
    N= number of planets with intelligent civilizations

    Ward and Brownlee admit that this is a sketchy equation, though less sketchy than Drake’s. They have left out some factors whose effects can’t as yet be determined, such as the effect of repeated ice ages, and inertial interplay between celestial bodies within a solar system. But they contend that even from sparse data a general signal may be perceived. And yes, this is using Earth as a model for a life bearing planet. Terra-centric perhaps, but it’s the only model available to us. And as with any equation, when any term in the equation approaches zero, so too does the product. Earth may be one of a very few planets capable of supporting life as we know it. Admittedly, this model presupposes animal life. I am fully aware that there could be types of life that would not fit any definition we use (It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it!). I really think that life is the exception rather than the norm, even by evolutionary standards, which do not presuppose a creator with a bias towards life. I personally lean towards a designer rather than chance.

    Now to the explanation of the terms-

    N*- we will limit our discussion to this galaxy. Isn’t that a big enough sample?
    fp- not all stars will have planets. A star must be of sufficient mass for planets to form and then hang around after their formation.
    fpm- if the star from which planets form is not metal-rich, planets with an outer lithosphere upon which water may form are not likely.
    ne- There is a very narrow band around any star that will constitute a habitable zone. Any planet forming outside this zone is not likely to have liquid water. Prospects for life are not good.
    ng- there are places in the galaxy that are less conducive to the formation of life. Anywhere life formed in the galactic core where radiation is much more intense, they would have to develop sunscreen with an spf of several million long before the wheel.
    fi- life simply is not going to happen everywhere. Water won’t form every time a planet in the right place does.
    fc- bacteria may be living, but if they never organize professional sport teams, are we really going to consider them alive? If the basic portions of life do not gain complexity, creatures of even greater complexity may never arise.
    fl- complex metazoans that die out the first time the tide rises a little too high simply don’t have the stuff required to make it any further up the food chain.
    fm- If there is no moon, there are no tides, and tidal pools are thought to be likely pots in which life potentially ferments. Also, the moon takes a lot of hits intended for us. There are no seas on the dark side. Just lots of meteor strikes.
    fj-You need a large gravity well farther out in a solar system to attract objects capable of crossing the orbit of a life bearing planet at the wrong time. Note the Shoemaker-Levy comet impact on Jupiter in the early 1990s.
    fme- too many mass extinction events will eventually wear down any life form to the point where it finally gives up trying.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      I think it’s unlikely we’ll discover a “Devil in the Dark.” Rather than a Horta, we’re more likely to find extraterrestrial life that conforms to what we’ve found on Earth. Certainly carbon-based as opposed to silicon-based or anything with acid for blood ;]

      Thank you for your comments regarding the Drake equation, etc. I was going to include that, but the article was already running a bit long.

      1. Doug says:

        But in a creationist worldview, the Rare Earth equation becomes meaningless. by definition, fi = 0, so N = 0. The creation equation is much simpler: fc x ft – fkboom = N, where fc is the number of planets where God created intelligent life, ft is the percentage of those planets where that life developed advanced civilization, and fkboom is the number of planets where that civilization destroyed itself (or was destroyed by outside forces). My guess is that ft is likely to be equal to 100%.

        I’d go further to suggest that fc = 1, as Danny does, but you’re right–God is sovereign and He can create whatever He wants. So I’m not as dogmatic as AiG is on this issue (and others at AiG actually disagree with the whole premise of the argument), but I’m still inclined to agree with Dr. Faulkner.

        Sad, in a way, because I would have loved to meet Spock and take a joyride on NCC 1701 (A, B, C, D, or E), or even NX-01.

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        My point is that the dogmatism is inadvisable where Scripture is silent; I actually think the chances of there being extraterrestrial life is pretty slim. I think that we should state that it’s highly unlikely and leave it at that instead of making it a “prediction” of Scripture that no aliens exist. Thank you for the comments. Good stuff ;]

  2. jesusknight says:

    “This is what I believe may occur.”

    I have believed this for years, and have also said so. It will be interesting to see what really happens. In any case, whatever the answer actually is will not change my faith in God or His word in the least.

  3. MC says:

    I would agree that the Bible does not automatically make *certain* alien life untenable, but it does have a very strong case against it.

    Firstly, the Bible was written long before the theory of evolution was crafted, before stories of aliens as we know them today were written and produced, and even much further before the first modern telescope was invented. God gave this revelation, not to speak on what is out there, but what is going on right here in Earth, here for humanity (1 Peter 1:18-21). The Hebrew’s had no understanding of life outside of earth besides the spiritual realm of Heaven, which, of course, is spirit, not flesh. The only other intelligent beings He created besides humans were angels; that is what Scripture teaches us. Scripture also teaches us that man was given dominion over every living creature and every plant, to tend to its care (Genesis 1:26-31; 2:15).

    So with this knowledge, how can man tend to the care of plants and animals that don’t exist on Earth? He can’t, and based upon our knowledge of space, the vast distances and limitations of speed to cross those distances, it would in all likelihood, especially in our fallen state, be impossible to tend to the care of any animal or plant of other planets. If we weren’t tending to the care of plants and animals from day 6 of creation (when God created all other life the day before), God would have set us up for failure in our command to have dominion. So in a pure reading of Scripture, WITHOUT any external sources, there are no extraterrestrial animals or plants because it would be folly and impossible for men to try to place their God given dominion over it (I do believe that if the fall wouldn’t have happened, God would’ve wanted us to explore space and we would have had the means to do so with uncorrupted minds and immortal lives).

    Secondly, you can’t equate the fall of angels with the fall of mankind (Genesis 3:1-19; Revelation 12:7-9). Angels are spirit (Hebrews 1:7), of a completely different existence (for the sake of this argument I won’t even say dimension because a “dimension” is understood to be governed by physics/boarders, Heaven is eternal and has no boarders). The reason why the fall of mankind affected nature was because God gave the physical dimension to Adam, this is why creation experiences death and enmity (Genesis 3:14-19; Romans 5:12-14; 8:20-21). The reason why only some of the angels fell and not all, as is the case of mankind, was because angels weren’t given dominion over Heaven nor was there ever a single angel that represented them all (they are only servants of God and therefore are only each answerable to God). Since angels can’t reproduce (Matthew 22:30), it is reasonable to assume they were created all at once, so this would necessitate a different judgment, a judgement based upon each individual angel’s choice rather than the choice of one man who was the first of his kind, father of humanity.

    Any creatures created in our physical dimension would be affected by the curse of sin because sin is both physical and spiritual (Romans 5:12-21; 8:10-11; 1st Corinthians 15), so any alien would be like any other creature we observe, fallen. Angels are not given dominion like we have been (1st Corinthians 6:3), and are of another existence that we cannot understand, much less have very little information on. This is because God does not concern us with the in’s and out’s of angels, because we are not made for angels, we are made for God. I believe it is the same with angels, because just as we wonder about them, they also wonder about us (1st Peter 1:10-12).

    Thirdly, aliens could not be, nor angels can be, saved because they were not created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). This is what people miss or overlook during these discussions. Salvation is for man BECAUSE we are created in the image of God, we are part of Him. THIS is why God saved us, not because we are His creatures, but because we are His CHILDREN. He cut us off from His family because of our rebellion, but grace grafts us back into His family again. Angels are not part of God’s family (Hebrews 1:5-14), and nothing else in creation is part of God’s family, only the human race. Period.

    If aliens do exist, they could not boast the same level of creativity or intellect as mankind, because what we have is the highest reflection of God’s character that He placed in any creature. All creatures do have a semblance of creativity and intelligence, but not as much as us. So it would be safe to assume that complex societal alien life is by definition non-existent. The only alien life that could exist would be that of animal or plant life, but even then, because of the dominion God gave mankind (Genesis 1:26-30), it wouldn’t make sense that life would be there before we ventured out there because no one, no human, would have been there to tend to them (remember, angels couldn’t do this because they weren’t given dominion to do it, and God wouldn’t do it because that was His authority He imparted to us). If He did this, God would have set us up for failure from the very beginning.

    Fourthly, Jesus WOULD have to become a sacrifice for each species, because in order to receive salvation you would have to be 1) created in the image of God and 2) the bloodline of the sinner must be cleansed by God taking on their form and correcting the that species’ rebellion (Romans 5:12-21). Since sin is physical as much as spiritual, taking on the flesh of the alien species, in order to wash it with His redemptive blood, Jesus would have to take on their flesh (Philippians 2:7). This would mean that there would necessarily be other revelations of God to other species (God revealing Himself to them in a way they can understand, past histories of His work to secure their redemption like He did with ours, and these in many ways would be completely foreign to us), which would make Scripture void because it claims to be the only revelation of God given to us (Acts 4:12; Galatians 1:6-9). You are necessarily changing the Gospel and Scripture because the aliens would need a Gospel for them to understand.

    REMEMBER, alien life, intelligent or not, can mean ANYTHING from roughly human-looking to slug-like or even microbial amorphous creatures. Do we really, rationally, think that God would make something like a slug in His image? Of course not, if you are reading with a straight forward understanding of Scripture. If you allow outside sources to cause you to reinterpret Scripture, you will find yourself thinking and believing non-sense (Romans 1:21-22).

    In my conclusion, the existence of aliens are not addressed in a straightforward reading of Scripture. The dominion mandate, angels being created all at once, and the necessity for there to be multiple Gospels would make alien life not possible. The only other intelligent creatures that exist are angels, which are touched upon in Scripture, but we aren’t meant to know them in great detail. In order to come to the conclusion that Scripture does allow for aliens is solely based upon outside sources because Scripture is focused on God’s relationship with mankind.

    The debate among Christians on whether alien life exists is what I’d believe Paul would call, “doubtful issues” (Romans 14:1). This shouldn’t divide us and this is something that should preoccupy our minds.

    1. Bill says:

      Well said.

    2. Tony Breeden says:


      Thanks for your comments.

      I would agree that the Bible does not automatically make *certain* alien life untenable, but it does have a very strong case against it.

      While I do agree that the Bible’s revelation is rather anthropocentric, I take objection with a few points you raise.

      1. You overstate the case when you say man was given dominion over creation and created “to tend to its care (Genesis 1:26-31; 2:15).” I do affirm the Dominion Mandate [as it’s usually called], but the Bible only states that Adam was placed in the Garden to tend to the Garden’s care… not the entire creation’s making invalid your question of “how can man tend to the care of plants and animals that don’t exist on Earth?”

      On this issue, there is some disagreement as to what dominion means. Man continually discovers new life here on Earth and his dominion [if he still has it] is not infringed. Lack of present contact does not seem to be an issue for whatever dominion implies [if man presently has dominion… and I have reason to doubt that].

      As for angels, I merely note that there is precedent for God creating intelligent moral beings who fell and who do not apparently warrant salvation. In other words, man’s Fall did not affect them in a spiritual sense, nor apparently subject them to death and corruption. It may be that angels are a moot point, given that their original abode was the Third Heaven and only the Earth, and the first two heavens were affected by the Fall. I’ve considered how fallen and unfallen extraterrestrials would or wouldn’t be affected by Adam’s Fall in another post:

      On a side note, Matthew 22:30 deals with marriage not reproduction. I wish folks would stop overstating the case with that verse. I have no idea whether angels reproduce or not. The Scriptures are silent on this.

      You state that “aliens could not be, nor angels can be, saved because they were not created in the image of God.” This is debatable but only because no one’s really sure what being made in God’s image means on a practical level. I do like what you’ve said about it meaning we are His children. This certainly resonates with me. Unfortunately, it does not follow that aliens could not be saved because they weren’t made in God’s image. It only follows that that they couldn’t be saved by Christ’s sacrifice if man’s depravity was not imputed to extraterrestrials; if depravity was imputed to all moral, intelligent creature sin creation, Christ’s righteousness could likewise be imputed by grace through faith. Stating reasons for man’s salvation do not prevent the salvation of alien life by different means according to God’s good pleasure, or even tell us whether they are fallen or not or by what means.

      Your assumptions about extraterrestrial creativity and intellect are based on what you believe the image of God means. Angels as revealed in Scripture evidence both creativity and intelligence at least on par with humanity. If your definition held, given that angels exist, complex societal alien life is by no means ruled out.

      Your presumptions about Jesus needing to sacrifice Himself for each extraterrestrial species ignores the fact that if depravity is solely imputed to those aliens, Christ’s righteousness can likewise be imputed by grace through faith. You’re making a physical sacrifice for them but Christ’s blood was shed once for all. If all means everyone who has ever fallen by Adam’s sin, His sacrifice here on Earth is sufficient for alien salvation.

      Your comment about the physicality of alien life in relation to being made in God’s image is completely misleading as NO ONE believes that being God’s image bearers has anything to do with our physical bodies because God is a spirit. You’re relaly just attempting to poison the well.

      In my conclusion, we both agree that the existence of aliens are not addressed in a straightforward reading of Scripture. Any position that precludes their existence makes assumptions about the extent and current state of the dominion mandate, what it means to be made in God’s image, the extent to which the Fall affected creation, etc. A good portion of anti-alien arguments are based on logical fallacies.

  4. Bill says:

    I think that one should keep in mind that the Creator (John 1:2, Hebrews 1:2) walked the earth 2000 years ago who said that He saw Satan fall as lightening from heaven. (Luke 10:18) All things were not only created by Him but for Him and He holds everything together. (Colossians 1:16-17) So, the mystery of whether there were other planets with life on them is known to Him because He would have made them, yet we find no hint of that in His or the Apostles words recorded in the New Testament even though He opened their understanding. (John 16:25-30, Luke 24:45) What we find is that the Biblical time line starts from the beginning of Creation but not only of the Earth but the entire universe in which man’s sin has affected. (Romans 8:22-23)

    Before sin entered the natural world EVERYTHING that God made was VERY GOOD. (Genesis 1:31) I believe that it included God’s entire creation, visible and invisible, natural and spiritual. From a theological standpoint SIN could not have been and the full understanding of death and it’s consequences was unknown.

    Another thing to keep in mind is Genesis 1:14-19 reveals the very reason that God went on to creating the rest of the universe: man’s GINORMOUS clock. Oh how much God loves us!

    The last thing to consider is the musings of Joseph Smith the founder of Mormonism, found in the book of Mormon. Man is said to have preexisted, born spiritually from a spirit mother on a distant planet called Kolob. All humans, angels, demons, Satan and Jesus Christ are literally spirit brothers via celestrial sex between God the Father and an unknown spirit mother. Even God has a mother. Where this ends is anyone’s guess. The stars are so numerous! INFINITY?

    So, I believe that being open to alien life leaves the door wide open to more serious doctrinal error.

    1. Tony Breeden says:


      The idea that the universe is God’s “GINORMOUS clock” is a reductionist fallacy. Truth cannot be built on logical fallacies. Consider the moon, for example: the Bible expressly reveals that the moon was created to light the night sky and to be part of that big clock you mentioned. The moon also affects the tides [as does the Sun] which is not mentioned in Scripture but is nonetheless true. The Bible reveals that the stars have the express purpose of being a big clock, declaring His glory and power, and providing light does not mean that the stars have no other purpose that has not been expressly revealed to us [i.e., the reductionist fallacy I mentioned].

      He loves us regardless of whether He created life in the Second Heaven just as He did in the First Heaven [man, animals, plants here on earth] and the Third Heaven [angels]. It actually seems kind of odd that He made the Second Heaven in vain! And perhaps He didn’t…

      As for the musings of Mormons, their “prophets” also claimed that the moon was inhabited and furthermore that they were uniformly six feet tall and dressed like Quakers! The extraterrestrial musings of Mormons and other cults have no bearing on whether extraterrestrials actually exist or not. Furthermore, you’ve given us an appeal to consequences [another logical fallacy] tethered to a false correlation. It is not being open to alien life that leaves the door wide open to more serious doctrinal error, it is abandoning the ultimate authority of the Bible that does so. God warns about putting words in His mouth; He doesn’t like it. Making dogmatic statements about alien life when the Bible is silent on the matter potentially undermines the authority of Scripture if such life is ever discovered. We ought rather say that it is highly improbable and leave it there

      Tony –

  5. MC says:

    I may have overstated the dominion mandate because its true that we can’t care for animals in the deepest depths of the ocean, at least as we are post-Fall without any kind of special equipment. Though I do believe that God intended for us to explore the heavens because human creativity and curiosity got us there, and this comes from God. So I do think that the mandate goes out beyond the Garden and beyond the earth.

    However, to interpret the Bible giving leeway for aliens is to impose an evolutionary worldview on Scripture. The only other intelligent free-willed being that God made were the angels, and He did not make them in His image, only man, as I’ve described above. God gave all creatures forms of intelligence and creativity, but this doesn’t equal being made in God’s image. It is the Father-son relationship that denotes being made in His image, much like when we are physically born we resemble our father or mother or even grandparents. God is spirit, so it’s not that we psychically resemble Him, it is our spirits that do. That’s why when we are saved we cry out “Abba, Father!” (Rom. 8:15) God came to save His children and no body else.

    It’s true that reproduction doesn’t necessitate marriage, but the only creatures that do this are un-moral and un-spiritual animals. For any moral and spiritual creature, marriage IS THE DETERMINATE of reproduction. If you reproduce out side of marriage it is sexual immorality, that’s why people can say this whenever they read Matthew 22:30. Angels can’t reproduce.

    Really though, the essence of the discussion is the acceptance of the atheist, Darwinist, and evolutionist worldview over the authority of Scripture. Replacing God’s Word with man’s word. That’s what is being done here.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Regarding angels, you’re basing your statements on humanity’s condition. You yourself said that angels are exempt from salvation because their state is different. Whether angels reproduce or by what means is immaterial to the question of whether they marry. I tend to think that the reason we marry is because “it is not good that man should be alone” and simple reproduction does not solve that problem. The reason man’s aloneness would be a problem is that we are created in God’s image, who being Three yet One, is never alone.

      On a more important point, there is nothing inherently atheistic, Darwinist or evolutionary about the idea of extraterrestrial life. Would it be consistent with an evolutionary worldview if we found alien life? Sure. But you’re offering up a false dilemma. Just because it’s consistent with the opposition’s worldview does not mean it is inconsistent with ours. This is but one of several logical fallacies I regularly encounter in this debate being employed by those opposed to alien existence.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s