It’s the same old story. The consensus hides behind an appeal to authority while suppressing dissenting views by barring those who stray from the party line from discussion forums and attacking the dissenter instead of his arguments. We’ve seen it a thousand times.
FROM EVOLUTIONISTS.
Since the publication of Strangers and Aliens: A Christian Sci-fi Author Examines the Argument for Extraterrestrial Life, I’ve been targeted by fellow young earth creationists who hold a dogmatic anti-alien stance. The irony is that I usually find that evolutionists who hide behind consensus, especially when they prefer to attack the person rather than his arguments, are desperately trying to hide a glass chin. What am I to think of creationists who engage in the same sort of trollish behavior?
Since I dared to champion the mere possibility of extraterrestrial life and to challenge the false dichotomy that would have us believe that aliens are antithetical to the Bible, I have been called a false teacher [even though the Bible is silent on aliens] and accused of helping to usher in a Great End Times Deception that involves the AntiChrist and some sort of scenario in which fallen angels pose as ETs [an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy wherein someone points out an alleged slippery slope or some other undesirable outcome and asks you to accept their position based on your opposition to the outcome rather than evaluating whether the opponent’s position is true or not]. I’ve been belittled by Gary Bates, author of Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection and CEO of Creation Ministries International [Creation.com], who compared my “individual considered opinion” to the opinions espoused on creation.com which he characterized as being “derived from a ‘multitude of counsellors’ including theologians and scientists with the aim of defending Genesis” [a faulty appeal to authority or consensus that asks you to take their argument on authority rather than engaging their opponent’s arguments]. He also beat the thatch out of a straw man argument I’ve never held and apparently felt that was sufficient to answer my counter-arguments to his anti-alien stance.
I was also booted out of a 1000+ member Young Earth Creationism group on Facebook based solely on the fact that I did not tow the party line. When I asked why my post was taken down, I was quoted the last paragraph of an article by ICR’s Frank Sherwin:
Creation scientists maintain that we will never receive messages or entertain intergalactic visitors from deep space simply because there are no such civilizations out there. “As far as the Scriptures are concerned, they teach unequivocally that the earth is uniquely the abode of man [Psalm 115:16 and Acts 17:20]… It seems grotesque and blasphemous to suggest that the tragedy of Calvary’s cross should be repeated on millions of other planets, for the benefit of other unknown and hypothetical members of God’s creation.”5 Theoretical speculations and imaginative evolution-based predictions aside, all research beyond Earth has shown that when it comes to organic
life — we’re it.
Note that the response claims that this is THE creationist position on the subject. Since that was the entirety of the admin’s response, I replied thus:
Am I not a creationist? I am the founder of CreationSundays.com. Look me up. By suppressing dissenting creationist views on this subject you are no better than an evolutionist!
Mind you, I wasn’t looking to impress this fellow with my credentials so much as my authenticity. Receiving no response, I attempted to further appeal the admin’s decision, only to find that he’d blocked me from sending him messages and had booted me out of the group for good measure!
By this time, I wasn’t surprised. Apparently, in the eyes of the Creationism Consensus, a dissenting creationist view is the same thing as a non-creationist view.
It’s hypocrisy to use the same tactics against a fellow creationist that we rightly criticize evolutionists for using. As Christians, we should be above this sort of lowbrow tactics. For the record, NONE of these folks who seek to belittle, demonize and suppress my dissenting view are bothering to engage the arguments I’m presenting, which is significant because they’re counter-arguments to the anti-alien consensus. You’d suppose that intellectual integrity would compel them to answer my challenge. Especially if they’re so sure of their position, as they claim.
Again, I sense a glass chin.
Others must sense it too, because the book is selling nicely, despite the aforementioned efforts of the Creationism Consensus to suppress, belittle and demonize me and my arguments. I encourage you to read the book for yourself and see whether or not my arguments hold water. At least then, if you still reject my argument, you can do so with intellectual integrity.
As for the Creationism Consensus, I offer the following advice, usually I reserved for evolutionists: Perhaps it would be wiser to comprehend what it is I believe before you bother to so vehemently object to it.
You can purchase Strangers and Aliens at Amazon.com.
Defending Genesis 
Cheers, brother! Thank you for being on the front lines and taking hits for rest of us heretics. I’m an evolutionary creationist, and I’ve known about alien presence on earth for two years now, and honestly don’t have the time and energy to lock horns with the illogical religionists of our day on either creationism nor whether aliens are real. I’m on to bigger topics, like, “what do we (the church, lightworkers) do from here?”
I encourage you to pay attention to disclosure outlets like the website, disclosure.org.
Really, thank you for taking this on. If nothing else (like it doesn’t change any “creationists” minds), it prepares you for where the Lord is taking you next down the road to All Truth. Blessings.
Thanks, I think. My book argues for the possibility of extraterrestrial life but I go to great lengths to demonstrate why the UFO phenomenon is not relevant to the discussion. Also, I find that an evolutionary creation position really just puts you in place as the ultimate authority over the Bible and science, since you pick and choose which parts to believe. I affirm Biblical creation because the revelation of the Bible is supernaturally authenticated by fulfilled prophecy and the Resurrection of Christ. Science cannot make such a claim to authority. Therefore I take the Bible as my ultimate authority over any other claim
Reblogged this on Creation Exotheology.
While I don’t ‘believe’ in aliens, I do not negate the possibilities of their existence, nor do I think that those possibilities make belief in God, Jesus or the Bible false.
I don’t think Jesus has to die ‘several times’ for all worlds, for according to the Word, once was enough for ‘all’. ‘All’ being the operative word here; it includes all of creation, not just us. If God created everything, (which He did!) this is not hard to understand. Keep the faith, brother, and do not be silent.
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.
I’m familiar with the Drake Equation. Frank Drake ran Project Ozma right here in West Virginia. Based on his model and evolutionary assumptions in general, life is supposed to be ubiquitous throughout the universe, but it’s not, hence the Fermi Paradox. Creation exotheology does not require the ubiquity of life. Rather it be rare or even exclusive to one planet according to the Creator’s will.
I am not surprised but, certainly saddened by the attitude taken by these well-known creationists and their organizations. How Christ would have loved to have had years of discussions with other Nicodemus-minded leaders. Down through the centuries most Protestants would have loved to have Romanists calmly sit down and just have some discussion over the place and authority of Scripture in the believer’s life. AnaBaptists would have treasured the same with Protestant antagonists. Why is simple, polite, Christian discussion so despised when someone’s institution is threatened by questions or differing viewpoints? Why the vitriol? Why the ad hominem attacks?
What will these professed believers do when they stand before Christ’s judgment seat to answer for such Pharisaical, pontificating in His name?
Personally, I stand convicted Satan is, without question, going to use the UFO phenomenon to stage last day delusions and deceptions. That in no way discounts a universe filled with loving and loyal beings watching with great interest how the “controversy” with the nations plays out on this wayward planet.
Mercy. Take a deep breath and give people some space to actually think things through for themselves and not follow the company line every minute of every day. I seek to denigrate no one’s character but, you know, if people buy your book, they may not be buying theirs, and their dvds, and all the rest of the merchandising, with all the competition between dozens, if not hundreds of ministries out there, for funds to function. Money really is the root of all evil.