Category Archives: Creation

The earth’s design for life

04 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by in Creation, Current events

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

A couple of weeks ago, there was a widely-disseminated news story about the discovery of seven “Earth-like” planets orbiting a distant star, Trappist-1, which supposedly proves that there is nothing special about man or the earth, which supposedly proves the existence of alien life, which supposedly proves that there is no Creator and the Bible is false. This is not the first time a discovery of an “Earth-like” planet has been announced; such announcements, complete with bogus “artist’s concepts,” have been coming out for about ten years now, with some of the more recent being Kepler 452b, Proxima b, and Kepler 186f. The first supposed “Earth-like” planet was Gliese 581c, whose discovery was announced in 2007; within a couple of months, astronomers realized that Gliese 581c could not support life, but they found another planet in the same system, Gliese 581d, that they said was just right for life; after Gliese 581d proved to be too cold to support life, the discovery of the better-situated Gliese 581g was announced in 2010, with one astronomer telling the press that “the chances of life on this planet are almost 100 percent.” Further investigation, however, showed by 2014 that both Gliese 581d and Gliese 581g were mere illusions and do not even exist. News stories about the discovery of planets where life could possibly exist date back to 1996, shortly after the first extrasolar planets were discovered. The two planets heralded at that time were not Earth-like and proved to have serious problems for habitability; the one deemed most suitable for life was estimated to have a surface temperature of 185°F, and is a gas giant eight times the mass of Juipter.

Though the latest planets were discovered through a telescope in Chile, many of the new planetary discoveries have been made using NASA’s Kepler spacecraft, which was built expressly to look for Earth-like planets in hopes of finding evidence for alien life. Many of the missions of NASA and the European Space Agency now have a theological aim—specifically, the aim of supporting atheism. The director of astrophysics at NASA said when Kepler was launched, “Kepler will answer a profound and fundamental question about our place in the universe”—a theological question. The meaning of this statement is that NASA wants to use Kepler to support their deeply held belief that life and the universe were not the product of special creation, the earth is not unique, and the same processes which led to the formation of the earth and the evolution of life on the earth led to the formation of innumerable other earths with life elsewhere in the universe.

It may be asked, however, does the discovery of “Earth-like” planets imply that there is life outside the earth? The answer is a resounding “No!”—first of all, because the earth is uniquely designed for life (hence, these planets are not truly “Earth-like”); and, secondly, because life cannot arise by evolutionary processes.

The earth is the ideal size to produce the perfect gravitational force necessary for life. Studies of astronauts have shown how zero-gravity impairs human health; presumably gravity that is too low or too high would also be harmful to human health. In addition, a planet that is too small, like Mercury, will not have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere in place; gases will simply escape into outer space. And an atmosphere is needed not only to have breathable air, but also to provide pressure to hold liquid water in place and prevent it from escaping; the low atmospheric pressure on Mars causes water to boil away. A planet that is too large, such as Jupiter, will trap light gases that are poisonous to life. A thick atmosphere and strong gravity will also create surface air pressures that are oppressive for life. For these reasons, scientists look for planets that are similar in size to the earth when searching for extraterrestrial life. The seven recently-discovered planets do, indeed, appear to be similar in size to the earth.

Venus is similar in size to the earth, but its atmosphere consists mainly of greenhouse (polyatomic) gases which render its surface temperatures unbearably hot for life. The earth’s atmosphere, by contrast, has exactly the right composition for life. It has just the right oxygen/nitrogen ratio to maintain suitable air temperatures and support life processes. It also has just the right amounts of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and ozone for life to exist. It contains just the right amount of greenhouse gases (less than 1%), so as to retain some warmth but not too much. The atmosphere sustains life, regulates the climate, and protects life from harmful radiation. There is no other known planet with abundant free oxygen. With regard to the seven newly-discovered planets, the authors of the study concluded that they probably formed far away from Trappist-1 and then migrated closer to the star, which means that their composition is probably more similar to planets like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus, than to the earth—in other words, they likely do not have abundant oxygen.

Not just the composition of the earth’s atmosphere is important, but also the composition of the its crust. The earth’s crust contains minerals such as iron, calcium, and sodium that are essential for life; other planets lack one or more essential minerals.

The earth has the ideal axis of rotation to have the widest possible zone of habitability between the poles. It has the ideal rotation period for the length of the day and night, keeping nights from getting too cold, and days from getting too hot. And the earth has the ideal period of revolution around the sun, so that its seasons are the perfect length (winters and summers are neither too long nor too short). Critically, its orbit is close to being circular; if its orbit were strongly elliptical, temperatures would be too hot for part of the year and too cold for part of the year. While the earth’s orbit takes it slightly closer to the sun during fall and winter in the northern hemisphere, the climactic effect is offset by the greater amount of water in the southern hemisphere.

The most striking feature of the earth, from a scientific point of view, is its abundant liquid water at the surface. Temperature and atmospheric conditions must be just right, and also very stable, in order for water to exist in liquid form. Further, just the right amount of water is present so that the earth is neither too dry nor completely covered with water, and land surfaces receive regular rainfall though the hydrologic cycle. Liquid water has not been observed as presently existing in significant quantities anywhere else in the universe. This is significant, because scientists believe life cannot exist without water. The search for extraterrestrial life is therefore a search, first and foremost, for a planet or moon with the right conditions for liquid water to exist. But not only does the earth have water, its water is suitable for life because the earth’s crust has the right blend of minerals (e.g., the oceans are not too saline for life to exist).

Having a planet with abundant water, of just the right size, just the right atmosphere, the ideal axis of rotation, the ideal rotation period, and the ideal period of revolution is not enough to support life. Life on the earth is dependent upon the sun’s energy to provide warmth and to allow organisms to convert sunlight into food through the process of photosynthesis. The earth is situated an ideal distance from the sun to keep it the perfect temperature for life (i.e., a temperature where liquid water exists in abundance and is not too hot). The case of Trappist-1, the star which the seven newly-discovered planets were found orbiting, is much different. Trappist-1 is a dwarf star, only one-twelfth the size of the sun. Scientists believe that at least some of the seven planets are the right distance from Trappist-1 to potentially have liquid water (i.e., the surface temperature may be between the freezing point and the boiling point). However, the surface temperature of a planet is determined not just by its distance from a star, but also by the composition of its atmosphere. Since scientists have never found a planet with a diatomic atmosphere like the earth’s, speculation that the newly-discovered planets may have such an atmosphere has no basis in observational science.

The sun, crucially, provides abundant light for life on the earth. However, the light from Trappist-1 on the newly-discovered planets is only about 1/200th the strength of the sun’s light on the earth—something similar to a permanent twilight, and certainly not enough light to support the earth’s ecosystems. The light from Trappist-1 is also much redder than the sun’s light, which results in even weaker photosynthesis. In addition, because the planets are so close to Trappist-1, they do not rotate, but rather are “gravitationally locked” or “tidally synchronized,” meaning that one side is always facing the star and the other side is always facing away. The result is a very uneven distribution of temperature, with half of the planet being very cold and very dark, the brightest part of the planet being very hot, and only a dim sliver of the planet with a pleasant temperature. However, that small zone with a pleasant temperature would likely be constantly beset by powerful winds.

A larger problem with dwarf stars like Trappist-1 is that they are usually variable stars whose energy output is very inconsistent. This means that a planet orbiting one those stars would alternate from being frozen solid (when the star’s energy output wanes) to being burning hot (when the star’s energy output increases). In addition, M-dwarf stars (the type where most of the new planets are being discovered) periodically emit powerful flares of far greater intensity than any solar flare. Since planets have to be very close to dwarf stars in order to have surface temperatures which could allow for liquid water, the effect of these flares would be absolutely devastating to life on those planets (if it existed). The sun, by contrast, is not just another star; it differs from every other known star in that it has an extremely consistent energy output, creating the stable conditions needed for life. The sun is also just the right size to give the earth the perfect balance of warmth and light.

While the earth relies on the sun to produce the light and heat needed for life, the sun also produces damaging radiation. The earth has a magnetic field of the ideal strength to keep radiation from the sun (and other celestial bodies) from damaging life. Also, without a magnetic field, solar radiation would strip the earth of its atmosphere over time. This magnetic field is created by electrical currents within the earth. While the earth’s magnetic field has weakened considerably since Creation (electrical currents encounter resistance), it still exists at a strength which gives good protection to life. But while life cannot exist without a magnetic field to protect it, a magnetic field that is too strong would create catastrophic physical damage (e.g., melting the earth). A magnetic field must exist at the right strength to be right for life. As for the seven recently-discovered planets, they are gravitationally locked, and gravitationally locked planets likely do not have magnetic fields, meaning that they cannot protect their atmospheres or their surfaces against radiation.

Not just the sun, but also the moon plays an important role in supporting life on the earth. The moon is the perfect size, composition, and distance from the earth. It is 400 times smaller than the sun, but also 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, so that it appears exactly the same size as the sun in the sky. It gives enough light to keep nights from being completely dark, but it is not so bright as to make sleep difficult. The moon moves about 1.5 inches further away from the earth each year (lunar recession), but basically stays in the same place over time on a biblical timescale (though it would have moved off into space long ago on an evolutionary timescale). Critically, the moon stabilizes the earth’s rotation, keeping the poles consistently at about 23.5 degrees, which in turn stabilizes the earth’s climate and produces seasons. This stabilization occurs because the moon orbits the earth in nearly the same plane as the earth orbits the sun (only 5.145 degrees of difference) and is relatively large in comparison to the earth. By contrast, the satellites of other planets are generally far smaller than the planets they orbit, and they orbit these planets around their axis of rotation (and thus do not provide stabilization). But the 5 degrees of difference between the moon’s orbital plane and the earth’s is also important, because without it the earth would experience a total solar eclipse every new moon; as it is, total solar eclipses are rare.

Somewhat surprisingly, the other planets in the solar system are also necessary for life on the earth. The largest planet, Jupiter, is particularly helpful—it is too far away to pull the earth or the moon out of orbit, but its gravity deflects most of the asteroids and comets that come hurtling in our direction. It was for this reason that the scientific community got excited in 2002 over the possibility of extraterrestrial life when a “Jupiter-like” planet was discovered orbiting the star 55 Cancri. However, the orbit of this planet is much more elliptical than the planets in our solar system, meaning that it would cross the orbit of any “Earth-like” planet in the system, disrupting its orbit and thereby rendering conditions for life impossible. While the earth and other planets in the solar system have low orbital eccentricity (making the earth’s temperature and orbit stable), most exoplanets have high orbital eccentricity (i.e., are highly elliptical), except for the ones that are very close to the stars they orbit and are therefore gravitationally locked. In the case of the seven planets revolving around Trappist-1, Danny Faulkner notes, “Numerous simulations revealed that the system likely would disrupt within a half-million years” because of gravitational interactions among the planets. Obviously the evolutionary timescale requires far more than 500,000 years for life to evolve.

Finally, the Milky Way is an ideal galaxy for life, and the sun is in an ideal location within the Milky Way. Our night sky is just dark enough, with just the right number of visible stars, none of which is excessively bright, and which are distributed fairly evenly throughout the sky.

The earth has the perfect conditions for life to exist. These conditions are so specific, there is probably no other place in the universe that has these conditions—that is, there are no other earths. Speculating that planets which are barely detectable may have conditions suitable for life to exist is not scientifically responsible. But the conditions for life to exist are different than the conditions for life to evolve. In fact, it is absolutely impossible for life to evolve; one of the most basic principles of biology is that life only comes from other life. The most fundamental characteristic of the earth that makes it able to support life is that it already supports life, diverse life. Living things on the earth depend on other living things to survive and provide balance to the earth’s ecosystems; new life arises when existing life reproduces. The Bible teaches that all life is ultimately sourced in God the Creator, who not only created biological life, but also fine-tuned a planet and a universe to support it. The discovery of “Earth-like” planets, which in fact are not truly Earth-like, is not a discovery of extraterrestrial life and does not provide supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Advertisements

A review of The Ark Encounter

19 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by in Creation, Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Most people have by now heard of The Ark Encounter, a full-size replica of Noah’s ark in Williamsburg, Kentucky that opened on July 7, 2016, and that has already been visited by more than half a million people. The Ark Encounter was constructed by the creation apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis under the leadership of Ken Ham. I visited the Ark Encounter for the first time this past Wednesday.

The reconstruction of Noah’s ark at The Ark Encounter is of far superior quality than any previous attempts to draw or reconstruct the ark, such as the Noah’s Ark on the island of Ma Wan in Hong Kong, which I visited in 2010 (see photo in the gallery below), or the half-size and full-size floating arks built by Johan Huibers. It is the largest wood-frame building in the world, and its size is very impressive—both as you look at the ship from the outside, and as you walk through it on the inside. Great efforts were made by the scientific experts at Answers in Genesis to reconstruct the ark as accurately as possible and to show that it was both feasible for ancient builders to construct and capable of holding and sustaining eight people and two of every kind of land animal and bird. Rigorous scientific analysis was conducted to calculate the number of animals that would have been on board, the amount of food they would have needed, and the space that Noah and his family would have required. Attention was even given to such details as water collection, waste disposal, ventilation, and lighting. Models were constructed by engineers to test various hull designs for their seaworthiness and the amount their contents would be rocked in rough seas. Efforts were also made to be faithful to the biblical text, and to take the Genesis account seriously. The Ark Encounter is very impressive, and is worth visiting if for no other reason than to see how large Noah’s ark actually was (assuming that the long cubit used by the Answers in Genesis builders was the one used by Noah, which is likely). It is also an incredible feat of engineering and ingenuity.

Answers in Genesis has done great, groundbreaking work to raise awareness of the biblical story of origins and to defend the scientific credibility of the biblical account. The Ark Encounter is the most visible and already the best-known work that Answers in Genesis has ever produced. It is too big and too famous to be ignored, and secular scientists and the media are increasingly being forced to grapple with biblical creationism. Countless Christians, including both laymen and clergy, have become convinced through the ministry of Answers in Genesis and The Ark Encounter that it is indeed possible that God created the world only a little more than 6,000 years ago, and that He destroyed the world with a deluge of water only a little more than 4,500 years ago. The Ark Encounter should be considered a great success merely for the impact it has had as a public proclamation of the biblical history of origins.

Answers in Genesis places great emphasis on scientific accuracy, museum-quality artistic representations, and professional media productions. There is a nice exhibit inside The Ark Encounter on the Ice Age, for example. Answers in Genesis does not, however, hire experts on Bible scholarship or archaeology. One sees in the bookstore that Answers in Genesis assigned someone with an M.A. an engineering and no seminary training to write a book on the tower of Babel, and they assigned someone with a Ph.D. in astronomy to write a book on hermeneutics. With regard to The Ark Encounter, while Answers in Genesis is faithful to the basic biblical storyline, they never go beyond this to the realm of detailed exegesis of the Hebrew text. They also appear to have done little serious (i.e., expert) archaeological research, apart from matters which have a direct bearing on the construction of the ark (such as the length of a cubit and ancient shipbuilding techniques). As a result, the representations of life aboard the ark, the clothing of Noah and his family, and their tools and household items, is simply said to be an artist’s guess at how these things might have been, based on a non-expert understanding of the technologies and cultures of ancient times. Someone who has done serious study of ancient artifacts, as I have, can see right away that some of these artistic representations do not match extant ancient artifacts or cultural patterns. In fact, for representations of writing on the ark, the Answers in Genesis artists have simply made up a nonsense script of letters which never existed and which mean nothing; in my opinion, an attempt to (re)create Proto-Semitic writing would have been better. It also would be nice to see real ancient artifacts displayed, or reproductions of ancient artifacts, rather than “artists’ conceptions.” Some errors also existed when reference was made to the Hebrew text of Genesis, such as the assertion that we cannot know whether the text means there were seven or fourteen of every clean animal (there were fourteen), or that the name “Methuselah” has no prophetic significance (this name means “when he dies, it shall be sent,” a name given by the prophet Enoch, who was Methuselah’s father; and Methuselah did indeed die as a sign in the year of the Deluge after living longer than anyone ever had).

The biggest archaeological gap in The Ark Encounter is that no attempt was made to find or excavate the remains of the actual ark of Noah, which could yield precise information about the ark’s size, shape, construction materials, and construction methods. The Ark Encounter was built on the basis of biblical statements about the ark, our knowledge of ancient shipbuilding, and scientific testing of various possible design features. Answers in Genesis has shown virtually no interest in the thorough research done by their friend Bill Crouse and others which demonstrates that both ancient tradition and modern archaeological investigation overwhelmingly supports the identification of Mount Cudi (a.k.a. Cudi Dag, Cudi Dağı, Mount Judi, Mount Qardu) as the landing site of Noah’s ark. (See the article by Bill Crouse and Gordon Franz in the Fall 2006 issue of Bible and Spade, available here or here. The same issue contains a counterpoint article by Richard Lanser which makes the case for Mount Ararat. See also this 2013 blog article by Gordon Franz, the articles here and here by Timo Roller, and these articles by S. C. Compton.) I found it somewhat strange that The Ark Encounter said nothing at all about whether remains of Noah’s ark might still exist today (as many claim), nor did it mention the various traditions and theories about specific landing sites for the ark. It would have been nice to see the artist’s portrayal of the landing site of the ark match one of the traditional landing sites. The Ark Encounter’s portrayal of the first settlements after the Deluge should also have shown an authentic scene from Turkey, with drawings to match archaeological remains from the most ancient settlements in the area. Some photographs of the traditional landing sites could also have been included.

View of The Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky
Me standing below the door of The Ark Encounter
Ramp inside The Ark Encounter
Center of The Ark Encounter
Center of The Ark Encounter
Roof of a deck on The Ark Encounter
A son of Noah refilling a feeder
Hallway on the side of a deck in The Ark Encounter
Display in The Ark Encounter
Display in The Ark Encounter
Display in The Ark Encounter
A leaf from the London Polyglot Bible, in the Voyage of the Book exhibit
The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky
Noah’s Ark in Hong Kong from a ferry boat

The major upside of The Ark Encounter is the attention it brings to the historicity of the biblical account. The major downside of The Ark Encounter is that it blurs the line between the historical and the conjectural. Children will have trouble understanding that when they see and hear an animatronic Noah describing life aboard the ark, this is merely someone’s hypothesis concerning the way things on the ark might have been, and that virtually none of what is heard or seen in the dioramas is specifically described in the Bible. It is a mistake to think that what is seen in The Ark Encounter is what actually was, or that the Bible affirms that it was so. Many people, both children and adults, will come away from The Ark Encounter thinking that Noah’s wife was probably named Emzara, when in fact this name comes from a Jewish legend that likely has no historical basis (from The Book of Jubilees 4.33, a pseudepigraphical work composed by a Pharisee between 135 and 105 BC). People will also assume that details such as the way Noah and his family are dressed are archaeologically accurate, when in fact their clothing was likely more similar to the standard robe and tunic of the ancient Near East. To their credit, Answers in Genesis does make an effort to distinguish between the things they have hypothesized or simply invented and the things that the Bible teaches. Still, when people walk through an exhibit which describes Noah’s life before he began building the ark, many will believe that this is indeed what Noah’s life was probably like, when in fact it is all a fairy tale. Ditto for the exhibit which describes the ark’s living quarters, and which says, e.g., “Ham enjoys building things with wood and metal, and he is the most ambitious of the sons. His wife, Kezia, is also a hard worker, and she is more interested than the other women in dressing up and looking her best.”  There really is no reason to include these fictions, which detract from the credibility of the more plausible conjectures concerning the use of a system of ventilation on the ark, a rainwater collection system, and a process for sewage removal.

One issue many people have with The Ark Encounter is its high ticket prices. I understand that Answers in Genesis spent $100 million on the construction of The Ark Encounter, and it needs to recoup these costs. It is also an expensive, high-quality operation which requires a lot of money to run (including tight security, with three bomb-sniffing dogs). There is a price to pay for quality. Donor plaques are everywhere (a common practice, but one which violates Matthew 6:1-4 and James 2:1-9). The Ark Encounter has been called the world’s most expensive gospel tract. For a large family, the cost of visiting The Ark Encounter ($40 per adult, which starts at age 13) could easily run into the hundreds of dollars, especially if two-day passes are purchased which include admission to the Creation Museum or if tickets are purchased for such extras as the zip line, the “fossil find,” the camel rides, or the planetarium show. The single restaurant onsite charges $12.99 for lunch and $16.99 for dinner (which starts at 1 pm). Parking is $10. And most visitors will have travel expenses and a hotel bill. The United States is certainly the only country in the world where there are significant numbers of people who are willing to pay these prices for a chance to see a replica of Noah’s ark. Still, with half of Americans earning less than $30,000/year, it will be difficult for many to pay. I would suggest that The Ark Encounter offer a  discount for pastors, missionaries, seminary students, and/or seminary professors. It currently only offers a 20% discount for active members and veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, which can be used to purchase up to five tickets. Veterans also receive free admission on Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day. This practice is rather puzzling, since the United States military has nothing to do with advancing the mission of the church. Christian organizations should favor soldiers in the Lord’s army. Also, while it is important to reach everyone with the message of Genesis, it would seem especially advantageous for Answers in Genesis to reach pastors and other Christian leaders if it wants to maximize its influence on the church.

In the category of miscellaneous criticisms, I found some of the background music (which plays constantly) objectionable and did not care for the movies. I also questioned whether it would have been necessary to keep each pairing of animals together in small cages, like a zoo, after they had all come to Noah and walked on board the ark voluntarily. Perhaps many of them could have been kept together in large pens or holds. I also found it odd that there was no exhibit to explain why The Ark Encounter is built with a wooden fin on the bow and a skeg on the stern—a shape which will appear strange to many (explained here). Nor were there exhibits to explain how the ark was constructed, how its boards could have been held together, what type of wood was used, or how it was pitched. There was not even an explanation of how The Ark Encounter itself was built, or any information about the huge logs used as posts in the center of the structure. On the upside, I found the food in the restaurant to be better than some of the online reviews had said (all of the complaints were about the hamburgers, before the restaurant switched to buffet-style dining). The zoo was also nice, and free with admission.

In spite of these criticisms, I found my visit to The Ark Encounter to be an enjoyable and educational experience, and I highly recommend visiting this amazing edifice at least one time. The Ark Encounter is a landmark in the modern creationist movement, if it is still only a model to be improved upon. It is a truly unique place; there has not been an opportunity to see anything like it since the original ark of Noah rotted away. Even people who do not believe the biblical account of creation will likely enjoy seeing the ark and the exhibits inside of it. The nearby Creation Museum is also well worth a visit, preferably the day before your visit to The Ark Encounter, so as to provide the background information necessary to understand The Ark Encounter. If you want to avoid large crowds, do not visit on Saturdays or holidays. Be prepared for a lot of walking, although motorized carts can be rented by those who need them. While a scholar who is hoping to find an archaeological museum at The Ark Encounter will be disappointed (outside of the excellent “Voyage of the Book” exhibit, presented by the Museum of the Bible), one can still enjoy The Ark Encounter after realizing that it was designed for scientific accuracy within a biblical framework, not for archaeological or language accuracy. Above all else, it stands as a giant witness to an unbelieving culture that Bible’s account of the origins of the world is true, and that it really was possible for an ancient man to build a great ship which could contain two of every kind of animal in the whole world.

A biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life

03 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by in Creation, Current events

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

Extraterrestrial life is a topic of great interest in modern Western culture, as evidenced by the recent success of the new Star Wars movie. While various people have differing conceptions of what aliens are or may be, the secular scientific conception of extraterrestrial life is one of biological life. Thus, in what follows in this post, by the terms “extraterrestrial life” and “aliens” I am referring to biological life, not to spirit beings.

Space agencies such as NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), along with numerous privately funded enterprises, have spent untold billions of dollars on programs designed to find life outside of the earth. Why are so many resources devoted to a search for something that has never been proven to exist? It is because extraterrestrial life is a key component of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview. That is, if the earth is the only place in the universe where life exists, then it must be a special creation; man does not exist merely by accident. If, on the other hand, life arose by means of natural processes, then these same natural processes would have given rise to life in many other places, both in our own solar system and throughout the universe. Because evolutionists reject the idea that life is a special creation, they believe that life probably evolved in other places in the solar system (including Mars, comets, and Saturn’s moon Enceladus), and that life almost certainly exists in other places in the universe. At the same time, many people have considerable doubts about the existence of extraterrestrial life, since none has ever actually been found. Thus, the huge, decades-long search for extraterrestrial life by mainstream scientists is actually a search for evidence to support the assumptions an atheistic worldview.

A second motivation for the search for extraterrestrial life is that atheists, who claim not to believe in God, nevertheless sense that there is a greater reality outside of the earth and its physical processes. There must be other sentient beings out there, in possession of superior forces which we do not understand, and with knowledge and intelligence that far exceeds our own. Virtually no one believes that man is totally alone, without other intelligent beings in existence somewhere else. Fairy tales about aliens, presented in the context of evolution’s mythological history of the universe, have gripped the popular imagination in the same way that pagan legends and cosmogonies gripped the imagination of ancient man.

Far from confirming evolutionary theory, the search for extraterrestrial life has only raised more doubts and questions about Darwinian evolution, since it has come up empty-handed. First, the physical search for life on Mars and elsewhere in our solar system has found nothing; scientists are so desperate to find extraterrestrial life that merely the discovery that there is water on Mars, or that there has been water on Mars in the past, is trumpeted as powerful evidence that there is or once was life on Mars. In fact, water does not produce life; living organisms can only be produced by other living organisms (or by a special creative act of the living God). In addition, Mars is an extremely inhospitable environment for life; if large numbers of living organisms were transported from the earth to the Mars and then released, they would all die quickly.

Second, the search for communication signals from intelligent aliens living on planets outside of our solar system has found no such signals. One might object that we simply lack the technology to detect communication from the distant places where extraterrestrial life may exist. However, in fact we do have the technology to detect communication signals from across the Milky Way, or even from other galaxies, so the fact that we have not detected any communication from aliens is a great puzzle to SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers. The Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico is capable of transmitting and detecting narrowband signals across a range of many thousands of light years. Although estimates vary, some sources claim that Arecibo could detect a duplicate of itself at the center of the Milky Way, or, with minor system improvements, could communicate with a hypothetical twin all the way on the edge of the galaxy; see this page and this one. Arecibo is nearly capable of trans-galactic communication, and we have the capability to build a more powerful system (Cyclops) that could certainly be used for trans-galactic communication. The first Arecibo Message, intended to establish communication with intelligent extraterrestrial life, was transmitted in 1974 to a cluster of stars 25,000 light years away. Other messages have been sent since then, and Arecibo has been used to search for messages sent in our direction. (Apparently scientists assume that alien life must be friendly; they do not seem troubled by the possibility that by revealing our existence to a powerful and evil race of aliens, they may enslave man or wipe him out.)

The reasoning behind the use of Arecibo and similar projects for SETI runs as follows (from my friend Rodger Young): “very broadband signals as used in TV broadcasting are attenuated fairly quickly and most estimates are they could not be decoded outside our solar system. But narrow-band frequencies can transmit much farther. The most intelligent way to announce our presence to whoever-is-out-there would seem to be to broadcast at a single frequency, sending by binary signals something like the set of prime numbers that would show the whoevers that ‘Hey! We’re here; let’s try to communicate.’ ” If life on earth evolved by natural process, then life should have evolved in many other places by means of these same natural processes, and the trajectory of extraterrestrial civilizations should be similar in many ways to ours. Young states further, “According to the prevailing (evolutionary) viewpoint, there should be many, many civilizations out there who have evolved up to, and beyond, the point where they would have such broadcasters and receivers. If so, they would have the same curiosity about contacting other intelligences. One Web page estimated the number of stars in our galaxy as from 100 billion to 400 billion, although Wikipedia (‘Milky Way’) says this may be as high as one trillion. If only one out of a million such stars had planets capable of supporting life, then any theory that says that, given the right conditions, life will spontaneously evolve, should predict hundreds of thousands of sites in our galaxy where life has evolved at least to the level where we are now.”

Unfortunately for the theory, as Young states, “No signals have been detected. This is in spite of the fact, explained above, we are now capable of listening to a good part of our galaxy. . . . In summary, the lack of communication from out there, even though we have the capability to receive it, is a very, very great puzzle to the SETI people.”

For Christians who believe the Bible, it comes as no surprise that the search for extraterrestrial life has failed. It is clear from the creation account in Genesis 1 that everything in the physical universe was created for man. The earth was specially made to support biological life, and the sun, moon, and stars were created for the benefit of life on the earth. Further, all plant and animal life on the earth was created for the benefit of man, who is the center of the physical creation. Biological life outside of the earth—which is never mentioned or implied in the Bible—would serve no purpose, since it would be of no benefit to man. And for life to exist elsewhere would require a special creative act of God (life cannot evolve from non-living substances), and also a planet, a solar system, and galaxy designed to support life, requiring many more special acts of God. Such special creative acts of God would surely merit mention in Scripture, yet the Bible presents God’s plan of the ages as entirely about His dealings with man. Christ only became incarnate as a man, and He only died once, for Adam’s race, not for fallen folk on other planets (Rom 5:12-21; 6:10; 1 Cor 15:22; Heb 2:16). History also involves angelic (spirit) beings, which were created to be intermediaries in God’s dealings with man (Heb 1:14). However, the history of the universe is centered completely around life on earth; and when Christ returns to the earth, He will destroy the whole universe and create a new heavens and a new earth (Matt 24:29; 2 Pet 3:10-13; Rev 6:12-17 et al.). If intelligent life exists in the universe outside of the earth, surely it would have to be given due consideration at that time. The fact that it is not mentioned may rightly be taken as an implication that it does not exist. In addition, every time the Bible describes the final judgment and the eternal state, the only persons mentioned are men and angels (Rev 20:7-15 et al.). In eternity, God will move His throne from heaven to a new earth (Rev 21:1-3), and His throne will be situated in a New Jerusalem, which is the capital city of the nation of Israel (Rev 21:22-23), although the nations of the earth and the kings of the earth may enter the city freely (Rev 21:24). There is no mention of aliens. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel are written above the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:12), and the names of the twelve apostles are written on its foundations (Rev 21:14). Everything about the eternal state of the righteous has to do with man and the earth, while the angels continue in their role as ministering spirits (Rev 21:12). There simply is no room in the Bible for aliens.

“Wait a minute,” someone might say, “the Bible just does not say anything about extraterrestrial life. The Bible therefore allows for its existence.” But the Bible does in fact deny the theories of extraterrestrial life in the shape that those theories took in the ancient world—legends, for example, about the gods of Greco-Roman mythology, their feats in the universe, and their identification with celestial objects (cf. Acts 14:15-17). The Old Testament repeatedly and emphatically denies the reality of the gods of pagan mythology and their supposed feats and dwelling places (2 Kgs 19:17-18; 1 Chr 16:26; Isa 44:12-20). But ancient man did not possess the telescopes, rockets, and other technologies which are necessary to understand the nature of celestial bodies outside of the earth. The ancients did not know that Mars is a planet similar in size and shape to the earth; to them, it was just a light in the night sky, no different from the stars except for its strange motions. Had ancient astronomers understood the nature of our solar system, extrasolar planetary systems, and the Milky Way galaxy, and had they known that there are an unfathomable number of stars and galaxies in the universe, they might well have postulated the existence of extraterrestrial life as modern secular science envisions it, and the Bible likely would have made a statement on that subject in response. But the Bible’s denial of ancient theories of extraterrestrial life are sufficient to disavow analogous theories in their modern form.

Additional resources regarding a biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life may be found on the Answers in Genesis website.

Some unheralded evidences for a Creator

13 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by in Creation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The European Space Agency’s Rosetta space probe successfully placed its Philae lander on Comet 67P yesterday, which is a remarkable achievement. The Rosetta probe is carrying a prototype of the Rosetta Disk, a three-inch nickel disk which contains, among other things, Genesis 1–3 engraved microscopically in 1,000 languages—a great irony, considering that one of the major aims of the probe’s mission is to look for evidence to support Darwinian evolution. (Water, which is an essential ingredient for life on earth, could not have been part of the original planet if the earth was formed by pieces of rock slamming and melting together, as evolutionary theory claims. So where did the incredible amount of water that is on the earth come from? The best evolutionary hypothesis out there is that the earth was hit by A LOT of comets, and that the icy cores of these comets—which are not that large—melted to build up the oceans. Presumably this theory will be ruined if the probe finds that the chemical composition of comets is significantly different than the chemical composition of the earth.) As the Rosetta probe gives unwitting praise to the Creator in outer space, we can pray that it moves men on the earth to recognize and praise the God who made them. In what follows in this post, I will present some evidences for a Creator that have impressed me personally, that I do not recall reading elsewhere.

There is in nature a simple, yet profound and incredible mark of an all-wise Designer that is very impressive: colors never clash in nature. Have you ever looked at a multi-colored flower, and said, “Those colors just don’t go together”? Have you ever seen a peacock or a parrot with colors that did not match? Tropical fish may have many different stripes and spots, and yet the colors always complement each other beautifully. There are many exotic birds of wild and varying colors, yet the colors never clash. Of all the millions of species of plants, flowers, fish, birds, and land animals, there is not one that is not color-coordinated. The colors always meld together perfectly and complement each other. And this does not hold true merely for living organisms alone—the colors of the rainbow, for example, never clash. The colors in a sunset always meld together beautifully. Telescopic images of celestial bodies find an extraordinary amount of variation in colors and in combinations of colors; the microscope and the chemistry lab reveal the same sort of variation. How is it that the colors they find never clash, no matter what is imaged? If everything in nature came about by random, mindless accidents, why don’t the colors clash? If we decorated our homes and put together our outfits randomly, the colors would not just clash, they would be raging all-out war! We can only keep colors from clashing by giving careful thought and intention to how we put them together. Only a perfect Designer of infinite wisdom could have color-coordinated every last living organism, and even inanimate objects and elemental compounds.

Remaining on the subject of colors, one may observe by looking at nature that God made green, blue, and brown the predominant colors in nature. Plants are overwhelmingly green, the sky and sea are blue, and the ground and trees are brown. This makes perfect sense, for greens, blues, and browns are much easier on the eyes and are more calming than brighter colors such as red, yellow, orange, purple, or pink. There are many bright colors in nature, but they occur in small patches for variety and excitement. If colors occurred by random chance, all colors should occur with about the same distribution. The world would look like a tie-dye t-shirt, and nature would be anything but calming and peaceful.

Another amazing fact which points unmistakably to a Creator is that everything makes sense in nature. There is a reason for everything. There is a reason why white people have white skin. (Their skin produces low levels of melatonin, which is a trait passed down through genetic coding. This trait is beneficial in northern latitudes, and therefore likely to be passed on in those regions, whereas it is not beneficial in warmer regions.) There is a reason why birds migrate south for the winter, and why certain species always migrate to certain areas. There is a reason why volcanoes tend to occur near subduction zones. Indeed, a fundamental assumption underlying all scientific research is that all scientific phenomena make sense, and therefore the job of the scientist is merely to discover the orderly principles that govern the universe. Everything in nature is regular and logical. To see how impossible it is that this could have come about by chance, consider how much more regular nature is than even that great invention of modern man, the computer. Computer programs invariably have bugs; they are not designed as efficiently as they could be, and they are constantly being improved upon. There is a basic natural cause for everything that happens in a computer, to be sure, but it does not all make perfect sense. Why, a computer expert might ask, did the authors of a particular program write such inefficient code? A user might wonder why a program crashes unexpectedly or why the interface is so clumsy. The answer is probably that some things in the computer program just don’t make logical sense. There is no such thing in creation. Everything in the original creation, and everything about it, was very good. There were no defects and there was no room for improvement. There was a reason why God made everything the way He did, right down to the smallest detail.

When you see a picture of a famous person on a billboard, the TV, or elsewhere, you normally recognize that person right away. When you see friends or acquaintances on the street, you recognize them right away. Have you ever stopped to consider how astounding it is that with more than seven billion people in the world, we can still identify everyone on sight? Every single human face is unique, and each is unique enough to be distinguished from all the others. Given the fact that every face has the same basic features and underlying bone structure, it is truly amazing that each one is unique. The best artist in the world could not draw seven thousand unique faces, let alone seven billion. Only God could create man in such a way as to make every person with a unique face.

And what about the power of the human mind to distinguish between all the different faces that are physically quite similar on the basis of minute differences? What’s more, God created man with a large number of small facial muscles that are capable of working together to express a wide variety of emotions, yet faces remain recognizable even when they are altered by making these expressions.

We differentiate other images all the time without even thinking about it. If we look at a clump of bushes, our mind automatically distinguishes the different bushes from each other, even if they all belong to the same species. If they are different species, we can tell which leaves and branches belong to which bush, and we can see which are in front and which are behind, even though the leaves may be of a very similar color and shape. When you look at a lawn, you can immediately differentiate the weeds from the grass, and the different kinds of weeds from each other, even if they are all the same color, the same height, and are mixed together.

We can see from these and countless other examples that our world, including ourselves, did not come about by random, mindless chance. The world had to have been created by an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator God.