What if Gliese 581d had life?

Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and the Politics of Astrobiology

The “Pillars of Creation” formed from interstellar gas and dust in the Eagle Nebula. (Source: Hubble Telescope)

2013 American Academy of Religion Annual MeetingChris Crews ~ The New School, NY

In the beginning...

What if Gliese 581d had life?Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and the Politics of Astrobiology

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of Christian beliefs concerning the origins of the universe from a young earth creationist worldview. This worldview is explored in relation to the search for extraterrestrial life and origins cosmology, with a focus on what creationists perceive to be the political stakes for Biblical literalism on this subject. The relationship between science fiction, astrobiology and creationism is also explored. I argue that understanding what young earth creationists believe is at stake in debates over extraterrestrial life and origins can help scientist, ethicists, and members of mainline Christian traditions better understand some anti-scientific public reactions to the search for extraterrestrial life (SETI) and the space sciences more generally. Creationists views on this subject are explored in detail, including discussions about the possible Biblical basis for a Christian belief in extraterrestrials. These views are explored in relation to the field of astrobiology and the work of bodies like NASA, as well as creationist research done under the guise of creation astronomy in response to both. Materials I look at include creationist science textbooks, popular theological materials and public comments submitted to the ‘Hello from Earth’ project in 2009, which sent thousands of messages received by the public towards Gliese 581d, an exoplanet approximately 20 lights years away in the constellation Libra that is believed by some scientists to be a potential candidate for extraterrestrial life.

Chris CrewsPhD Candidate, Political Theory (ABD)

Department of PoliticsThe New School for Social Research (NSSR)

New York

Questions and comments for the author may be sent to:

chris@chriscrews.com

This is a working draft. Please do not cite without author’s permission.

EPIGRAM

From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that, since the Holy Ghost

did not intend to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, whether its shape isspherical or like a discus or extended in a plane, nor whether the earth is located at itscenter or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any otherconclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of the earth and the sun is soclosely linked with the things just named, that without a determination of the one,neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposelyneglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that is,to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them,and that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can anopinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the HolyGhost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern oursalvation? I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic [CardinalBaronius] of the most eminent degree: “That the intention of the Holy Ghost is toteach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.”1

~~~

These old-earth proponents do not understand that the ‘scientific evidence’ for billions

of years is really only a naturalistic interpretation of the observed geological andastronomical evidence. Remove the ‘hostile philosophical assumptions’ of naturalismfrom geology and astronomy, and there is no scientific evidence for millions andbillions of years.2

~~~

Much of the young-earth apologetic depends on the idea that the earth and the

entire physical universe is no more than several thousand years old. This positionappears to us as believers to be impossible to reconcile with any reasonableinterpretation of the data of nature; it is also manifestly false from the perspective ofunbelieving scientists. Young-earth claims on the age issue are so obviously mistaken,in fact, that many non-Christian scientists do not believe that young-earth apologistsare honest people, which gives them yet another reason (or excuse) to reject theGospel. Perhaps the clearest instance of the impossibility of young-earth "science" isthe light-travel problem, but this problem characterizes the entire young-earth positionon the age-of-the-universe/age-of-the-earth issue.3

1 Galilei, Galileo. “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany.” 1615.<http://www.inters.org/galilei­madame­christina­Lorraine>.2 Mortensen, Timothy. “Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are They Related?” in TheMaster’s Seminary Journal (TMSJ). 15(1):71–92. Spring 2004. <http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15d.pdf>.3 Ross, Hugh and Samuel Connor. “The Unraveling of Starlight and Time.” Reasons to Believe. 3.22.1999.<http://www.reasons.org/articles/the­unraveling­of­starlight­and­time>.

Introduction

The focus of this paper is how young earth creationists (or YEC) are responding toresearch in the US on the question of origins, with special attention on the emergingscientific field of astrobiology. By origins I mean the actual coming into being of life andthe universe, including space, time and matter. The study of these mechanisms is oftenreferred to as cosmology, with the Big Bang being the dominant cosmological theory. Byastrobiology I mean the search for life and habitable planets in space. This includes bothorganic and inorganic types of life. Historically this field was referred to as exobiology.Our focus is on theories about the origins of life in the universe and its scientific study.

Creationists believe the Bible is the inerrant and literal word of God, and they argue wecan know the universe started from a series of supernatural acts of creation becausethey are described in the opening chapter of Genesis. “In the beginning God created theheavens and the earth.” Creationists believe this initial act of creation, which took 6 daysaccording to Genesis, accounts for the existence of all things--time, space, matter andenergy. This is often referred to as special creation. This Biblical worldview emergesfrom a set of metaphysical presuppositions that stand in sharp contrast to scientificnorms as well as most mainline Christian views. By metaphysical presuppositions I meanthat the primary starting point is a belief in naturalism for natural scientist, whereas forthe creationist it is belief in supernaturalism, namely God.

This decision, more than anything, shapes our views about the external world, and thatis why I prefer to use the term “worldview” when looking at a whole complex ofinterrelated beliefs and ideas. James Sire, who has written extensively on the concept ofworldviews, defines a worldview as “a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may betrue, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously,consistently or inconsistently) about the basic makeup of our world.”4

The dominant origins cosmology right now is that organic life evolved from chemicalssynthesized and ejected from the heart of stars over billions of years, a process whichbegan from an unknown singularity and led to the creation of the entire universe. Thisbelief in “cosmic evolution of matter from the Big Bang to life as we know it” is a widelyheld view amongst both secular and religious popular culture. Although the Big Bang is5

the dominant bundle of theories concerning origins held among most scientists today, it

4 Sire, James W. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept. Downers Grove:InterVarsity Press. 2004.pg. 19.5 Bally, John and Bo Reipurth. The Birth of Stars and Planets. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.2006. pg. 246.

1

is not the only possible cosmological theory, and proponents of the Big Bang recognize itdoes not fully answer all of our question about naturalistic origins, much less provideanswers about possible extraterrestrial life. But that is not for want of trying.

Because the search for extraterrestrial life hinges centrally on the question of origins,astronomy--and now astrobiology--are increasingly becoming sites for public debatesover “secular” theories of origins. Historically these debates were mostly within fieldslike biology and geology, but recently they have been appearing in astronomy as wellaround issues of extraterrestrial intelligence or ETI. This is especially the case due to agrowing young earth “creation astronomy” movement in creation science circles in theUS. By exploring these cosmology debates in the US in more detail, I seek to delvedeeper into this public cosmology debate and consider some of the ways it may beimpacting the astrobiology community and field of study. Are those impacts negligible orsignificant? What is the substance of these debates? Where does the public stand, andhow should astrobiologists engage with young earth creationists on the issue of origins?These are some of the questions I hope to consider throughout this paper.

I should point out that such a suggestion may be viewed as unwise strategically, sincesome people feel the best approach is to ignore creationists completely, thereby denyingthem any attention to so-called scientific “controversies” which they have constructed.While I do feel it is important to recognize that many of the YEC claims are unresolvablewithin a naturalistic scientific framework, and non-negotiable from a theologicalframework, I still see value in an intellectual and spiritual engagement that transgressesthe sacred-secular binary. Part of the joy of political theory and philosophy is being ableto openly and critically engage with and think through difficult and foreign ideas.

Here I would suggest we are dealing with different ontologies of agency--scientificnaturalism versus scientific creationism, which in many respects are truly irreconcilable.By ontologies of agency I mean that what we believe has the ability to exist and act inthe universe is different between these two worldviews. God is a causal agent in thecreationist ontology, or way of knowing the world, but God has no agency in a materialistontology of natural causality. The Big Bang is an ontology of naturalistic cosmic evolutionwhich places exclusive faith in direct observation and testable models, rather thanprofessions of faith and scriptural text concerning a supernatural God. This is no less thecase with astrobiology, where we are asked to weigh the Bible against cosmic evolutionand pick a side. “Christians therefore need to study the universe within a Christian (i.e.,biblical) belief system, and not think they must rely on the beliefs of atheistic

2

naturalism.” Other times apparent religious objections are actually about something6

other than science, for example questions of public morality or ethics where science iscaught in a proxy war. By trying to clarifying these various boundaries and questions,this project could be seen as a precursor to developing an astrobiology apologetics, anidea which has never been suggested to the best of my knowledge.

It is important to state from the start that my aim is not to prove that creationism iswrong or bad, nor is it to debate the theological validity of a literal Biblical hermeneutics.As a reminder, the term hermeneutics refers to how we read a text, specifically whattype of theoretical approach we use, and it is common to talk about different type ofBiblical hermeneutics or Biblical exegesis. As Grant Osborne describes the practice ofhermeneutical interpretation of scripture, it “encompasses both what it meant and whatit means.” I view discussions about the validity of creation science as separate from7

discussions about the theological merits of creationism as a religious worldview. I willleave those matters for debate within the Church. Rather I seek to show how youngearth creationism engages with astrobiology and astronomy, and to ask how we canengage--across the pew as it were--with competing cosmologies to our own, regardlessof where we begin personally.

In The Beginning

To start, we need to recall that young earth creationist views largely fell out of publicfavor in the wake of changing cultural politics starting in the 1930’s. It was not until the1960s that we saw a renewed effort by creationists to resurrect support for a Biblicalworldview in the US. American sociologist Hornell Hart, who contributed a chapter to thePresident's Research Committee on Recent Social Trends, notes that the “weakened gripof traditional Christianity upon educated opinion in the United States has been foundreflected in general "intellectual" periodicals, in scholarly journals, in the number ofreligious books published, in declining relative circulations of religious journals and in theattitudes reflected in mass circulation magazines.” Commenting on this study, Richard8

Flory notes that “as a percentage of all periodicals published between 1905 and 1930,religious periodicals declined at almost the same rate that "popular scientific" periodicals

6 Williams, Alex and John Hartness. Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered. GreenForest:Master Books. 2006. pg. 14.7 Osborne, Grant O. The Hermeneutic Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.Downers Grove:InterVarsity Press. 2006. pg. 21.8 Hart, Hornell. "Changing Social Attitudes and Interests" in Recent Social Trends in the United States:Report of the President's Research Committee on Social Trends.Vol. 1. New York:McGraw­Hill. 1933. pg.387.

3

increased in number.” The period from 1875-1925 saw a number of significant changes,9

with a declining interest in Christian fundamentalism and a growing interest and supportfor secular science being two key trends. Hart also called attention to this shift, writing:“The most fundamental change in the intellectual life of the United States reflected in thedata covered by this study [1900-1930] is the apparent shift from Biblical authority andreligious sanction to scientific and factual authority and sanctions.” So the current10

fundamentalist theological revival, which is both cultural and political in character, is partof a longer historical trend with ebbs and flows reflecting ever-changing US religiouspolitics. In its contemporary form, this fundamentalist religious revival has two chiefconcerns: to reframe modern scientific understandings to fit a particular interpretationof the Bible; and to wage what is often referred to as a “spiritual battle” against anincreasing secular US public. One of the central strategies of this fundamentalist revivalhas been to revive earlier historical public support for a literal Biblical worldview, aneffort that has informed the creation of “scientific creationism” or “creation science.”11

In brief, scientific creationism argues that everything the Bible says is complete andhistorically accurate, and should form the basis of all of our scientific assumptions andtheorizing. In other words, science should follow directly from the Bible. In addition,certain topics, especially those dealing with past origins, are viewed as miraculous andsupernatural events that are beyond the reach of science--specifically they cannot beindependently observed or verified. As one of the founders of young earth creationismHenry M. Morris claimed: “The subject of origins is ultimately beyond the scope ofempirical science.” This has led the vast majority of scientists to ask whether there can12

even be such a thing as scientific creationism, since the metaphysical presupposition ofsupernatural agency directly contradicts accepted scientific practices. In other words,claims of supernatural agency remove any possibility for independent verification orfalsification by generally accepted scientific methods. A common skeptical response isprovided by Philip Kitcher who states there are “many Creationist objections that, whensubmitted to serious scrutiny, are simply ridiculous.”13

This widespread scientific skepticism towards creation science has led to charges by

9 Flory, Richard. “American Journalism and religion, 1870­1930" in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and theAmerican News Media. Diane Einston (Ed.). Oxford:Oxford University Press. 2012. pg. 49.10 Hart, Hornell. "Changing Social Attitudes and Interests" in Recent Social Trends in the United States:Report of the President's Research Committee on Social Trends.Vol. 1. New York:McGraw­Hill. 1933. pg.390.11 Throughout this paper the terms “creation science” and “scientific creationism” should be imagined asalways appearing in quotes (“”) to call attention to the fundamentally contested nature of combining theterms “creation(ism)” with science. I have limited the use of “” in the text primarily for aesthetic purposes.12 Morris, Henry M. The Troubled Waters of Evolution. San Diego:Creation Life Publishers. 1974. pg. 80.13 Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge:MIT Press. 1986. pg. 78.

4

creationists that modern secular society and its scientific community are politicallybiased against Christians, including practicing and teaching faulty science and at timeseven committing religious heresy, all in the name of secular humanism, naturalism andatheism. While these creationist views are still largely ignored or marginalized within thescientific community at large, their views have slowly gained public support over thepast half-century, largely thanks to the efforts of various para-church organizations andtheir affiliated networks of creation scientists and research centers. These efforts arenow quite widespread, reaching into all layers of society, and encompassing a globalnetwork of fundamentalist and creationist apologetics. Although astrobiology has notbeen a central focus of creationists historically, astronomy has gained a fair bit ofattention. With a growing public interest in astrobiology and questions of extraterrestriallife, creationists have begun to address both topics more directly. This growing attentionprovides a useful case to explore how a YEC worldview engages the science of origins.

Scope and Methods

There are several reasons why I chose to focus on YEC worldviews in relation toastrobiology. First, my own research focuses on Christian fundamentalism and itsimpacts on environmental politics and science debates, so this project is an extension ofmy ongoing research into this topic. On a pragmatic level, I focus on YEC positions in thispaper as more detailed studies of how Christianity variously relates to questions ofextraterrestrial life and origins have already been done. Steven Dick’s work is especiallynoteworthy in this regard, as are two recent astrobiology compilations, one edited byDouglas Vakoch, the other by Chris Impey, Anna Spitz and William Stoeger. But there14

has been less attention paid to the relationship between Young Earth Creationism (YEC)and the space sciences, in particular astrobiology. Although even this narrow topic is tooextensive to cover fully in this study, my hope is that this will provide a starting point forfurther research on creation astronomy and debates over origins cosmology.

I also see this project contributing to a larger discussion with the astrobiologycommunity about how its work is received by and communicated in popular culture. Forexample, in reviewing the basic principles driving NASA’s astrobiology program, asoutlined in the 2008 Astrobiology Roadmap, at least two principles seem relevant to afocus on religious worldviews and popular culture.

14 Dick, Steven, Ed. The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life & the Theological Implications.Radnor:Templeton Foundation Press. 2000.; Vakoch, Douglas, Ed. Astrobiology, History, and Society: LifeBeyond Earth and the Impact of Discovery. Berlin:Springer­Verlag. 2013.; Impey, Chris, Anna Spitz andWilliam Stoeger, Eds. Encountering Life in the Universe: Ethical Foundations and Social Implications ofAstrobiology. Tucson:University of Arizona Press. 2013.

5

3) Astrobiology recognizes a broad societal interest in its endeavors, especially inareas such as achieving a deeper understanding of life, searching forextraterrestrial biospheres, assessing the societal implications of discoveringother examples of life, and envisioning the future of life on Earth and in space.

4) The intrinsic public interest in astrobiology offers a crucial opportunity toeducate and inspire the next generation of scientists, technologists, and informedcitizens; thus a strong emphasis upon education and public outreach is essential.15

If we take NASA’s claim seriously that there is broad societal interest in astrobiology andthe search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), it seems wise to consider potentialimplications of discovering extraterrestrial life on various religious communities in theUS. As noted, a fair amount of work has already been done on Christianity in general inrelation to this question, so my focus on the YEC community is an attempt to add deeperdocumentation to a subset of beliefs within the larger fundamentalist community.

My research draws from a variety of sources, both popular and technical, and rangefrom blogs and newspaper articles to journals, movies and creation science textbooks.Much of the creation science literature and leading figures are well known withinfundamentalist circles, as they come from a few extremely active creationist groups likethe Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the CreationResearch Society (CRS), to name a few. These groups are generally less well knownoutside of creationist or science advocacy circles, yet they represent a considerablepolitical force within American fundamentalism. Since part of my focus is also on thereligious intersection of these issues with popular culture, I have included a case studywhere public opinions on astrobiology and extraterrestrial life can be examined. The caseinvolves the “Hello from Earth” project organized by Cosmos Magazine in 2009, whichinvolved collecting and transmitting thousands of text messages from the public to theexoplanet Gliese 581d, located 20 light years away in the constellation Libra. This case16

study provides an interesting glimpse into public views about extraterrestrial life andthe question of religious origins. It also provides a way to gauge if various creationistideas are discernable in public responses on these issues. While far from a detailed publicsurvey, it provide a useful starting point for thinking about these issues.

One final note is worth making here, which has to do with my own positionality in thesedebates. Although I have some advanced training in environmental science and ecology,

15 Des Marais et al. “The NASA Astrobiology Roadmap,” in Astrobiology. 8:4, 2008. pg 716.16 Hello From Earth. Cosmos Magazine. 2009. <http://www.hellofromearth.net/>.

6

I am not a practicing scientist but rather a political theorist and amateur naturalist.Therefore my focus and discussion of astrobiology and astronomy are necessarily comingfrom an outsider perspective on these fields. Likewise I have no direct affiliation with thecreation science movement or Christian fundamentalism, so my observations andanalysis necessarily reflect the standpoint of someone outside of this worldview. Being atheoretical interloper has its benefits, but I believe it is also important to recognize itslimitations. Someone working in these domains might offer a different view than mine.With that said, I want to offer a basic working definition for the term Young EarthCreationist/ism, since I use this term extensively throughout my paper.

Young Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists or Young Earth Creationism (YEC) argue the Bible provides ahistorically accurate description of the creation of the universe and everything in it in 6literal, 24 hour days in the past 6,000 years. This special creation was instantaneous, ornearly so, with humans and all “kinds” of creatures coming into existence “functionallycomplete right from the start”--an idea commonly referred to in creationist debates asthe “Appearance of Age.” Adam and Eve are considered real people who lived in the17

Garden of Eden until they ate the forbidden fruit, which brought about sin, death and thefall of the entire creation from God’s grace. They further believe in the reality of theTower of Babel and a catastrophic and global Flood in which all the Biblical “kinds” ofspecies we have today, including humans, are descended from Noah and the animals onthe Ark. They believe that Jesus was virginally born, crucified and then rose from thedead in order to forgive our sins, and it is only through personally accepting Christ thatwe can be saved on the final Day of Judgement. Belief in the Second Coming of Christ andthe Rapture are also present, although there are debates over the exact timing. Whilethere are many other YEC theological beliefs that could be outlined, these are the basicBiblical claims that inform and unite the Young Earth Creationist worldview.

In a similar vein, theologian Ted Peters and scientist Martinez Hewlett suggest there are“Six Fundamentals of Creationism” which follow from the Biblical worldview outlinedabove, and which are common creationist themes. They list these six as follows:

1. Sudden creation of universe from nothing by God (creatio ex nihilo).2. Rejection of mutations and natural selection to explain macroevolution.3. Changes only within “kinds”, not across species or into new species.4. No common descent of humans from apes.

17 Morris, John D. “Creation with the Appearance of Age.” Acts & Facts. 39 (12):15. 2010.<http://www.icr.org/article/creation­with­appearance­age/>.

7

5. Geology explained by a global catastrophic Flood, not uniformitarianism.6. Young earth under 10,000 years old.18

A typical example of this creationist worldviews is provided by Ken Ham’s Answers inGenesis (AiG), which is one of the leading YEC para-church apologetics groups. Thefollowing is excerpted from their “Statement of Faith” posted on the AiG website.

The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factuallytrue in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything itteaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themesbut includes its assertions in such fields as history and science. The account oforigins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual eventsand therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into thequestion of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.19

Notice AiG’s insistence that the Bible is the sole authority not only on spiritual questions,but also regarding history and science. This is the foundation of scientific creationism. Sowho exactly are these creationists, and where do they rest in the Christian landscape?

The Creationist Community

Most YEC’s tend to come from a Protestant fundamentalist background, as can be seenby their congregational affiliations, they are also found amongst Catholic, EasternOrthodox, charismatic and even non-denominationalists. The Christian fundamentalistcommunity in the US holds many of the views outlined above, but we should not assumefundamentalist views always equate to automatic support for creationism. As Peters andHewlett note in their discussion of the YEC movement, “although most creationists arecomfortable thinking of themselves as fundamentalists, the two belief systems are notidentical. Not every fundamentalist is an anti-evolutionist, not every anti-evolutionist isa creationist, yet every creationist is an anti-evolutionist.”20

YEC advocates are a subset of the larger Christian fundamentalist community, whichholds varying literal Biblical worldviews, including Young Earth (YEC) and Old Earth(OEC) Creationism, and a number of others denominations or sects are often lumped

18 Peters, Ted and Martinez Hewlett. Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, andConvergence. Nashville:Abingdon Press. 2003. pgs. 79­85.19 Answers in Genesis. “The AiG Statement of Faith.” 12/12/2012.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith>.20 Peters, Ted and Martinez Hewlett. Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, andConvergence. Nashville:Abingdon Press. 2003. pg. 75.

8

together in popular discourse under the broad label “fundamentalist.” A deeperexamination of these internal divergences, such as those undertaken by Gerald Rau,Ronald Numbers, and Deborah and Loren Haarsma, however reveals a much widerrange of beliefs than the generic popular usage of “fundamentalist” or “creationist” atfirst glance suggests. Regarding these differences amongst evangelical fundamentalists,21

Peter Hess helpfully reminds us they “vary widely in their approach to Biblicalinterpretation; more conservative evangelicals generally follow fundamentalists inchampioning Biblical literalism, while more liberal evangelicals tend to follow themainline Protestant denominations in preferring a historical-critical approach.” As22

mentioned before, my focus is on those who identify or advance Young EarthCreationists ideas, and not just fundamentalists, while recognizing that the distinctionbetween fundamentalism and creationism is not always easily drawn. This is anotherreason I believe the family resemblances approach common in religious studies is useful.

Without the influence of fundamentalism as a sociocultural backdrop in the US,creationism would have very little public support to draw from. In this senseunderstanding various fundamentalist trends in the US is an important part of a largerstudy of creationism. Here my work follows research done by The FundamentalismProject and other scholars of religion who argue for the value of using a “familyresemblance” approach to studying religious movements, especially to captureseemingly disparate views within a larger religious constellation. This is doubly helpfulwhen our focus is on understand the “religiously inspired reaction to aspects of the globalprocesses of modernization and secularization in the twentieth century.” The23

Fundamentalism Project provides a definition of fundamentalism that is worth reviewingsince it captures much of what we see happening today amongst creationists.

Religious fundamentalism has appeared in the twentieth century as a tendency, ahabit of mind, found within religious communities and paradigmatically embodiedin certain representative individuals and movements. It manifests itself as astrategy, or set of strategies, by which beleaguered believers attempt to preservetheir distinctive identity as a people or group. Feeling this identity to be at risk inthe contemporary era, these believers fortify it by a selective retrieval of

21 Rau, Gerald. Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything.Nottingham:Inter­Varsity Press. 2012.; Haarsma, Deborah and Loren. Origins: Christian Perspectives onCreation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids:Faith Alive. 2011.; Numbers, Ronald. TheCreationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Cambridge:Harvard University Press. 2006.22 Hess, Peter M. J. “How Do I Read the Bible? Let Me Count the Ways.” 7.26.2009.<http://ncse.com/religion/how­do­i­read­bible­let­me­count­ways>.23 Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (Eds.). Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences,the Family, and Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1993. pg. 2.

9

doctrines, beliefs, and practices from a sacred past. These retrieved“fundamentals” are refined, modified, and sanctioned in a spirit of pragmatism:they are to serve as a bulwark against the encroachment of outsiders whothreaten to draw the believers into a syncretistic, areligious, or irreligious culturalmilieu. Moreover, fundamentalists present the retrieved fundamentals alongsideunprecedented claims and doctrinal innovations. These innovations andsupporting doctrines lend the retrieved and updated fundamentals an urgencyand charismatic intensity reminiscent of the religious experiences that originallyforged communal identity.24

Although I occasionally mention Old Earth Creationists (OEC) and Intelligent Design(ID) arguments, they are not the focus of this study. Similarly, I do not focus onOrthodox Jewish or Islamic creationists, both of which are less documented but stillinteresting in their own right. For example, a survey conducted amongst OrthodoxJewish students about the ago of the universe found that nearly 27% of the respondentsbelieved in a young universe of about 7,000 years, similar to our YEC views. While25

there has been less support for these ideas within Islamic circles, countries like Turkeyhave seen an increase in what the National Center for Science Education (NSCE)describes as “Islamic scientific creationism” in recent years, and these movementsappear to be drawing upon similar YEC literature and worldviews as we see in the US.26

One of the family resemblances amongst all fundamentalists is some form of a critique ofsecular society. Everett Mendelsohn suggests the “single theme uniting militant orrevived religious fundamentalism...is the primacy of religious belief and authority in allspheres of human life,”a claim which is certainly true for scientific creationism.27

Creationists tend to be hypercritical of secular society due to their emphasis on Biblicalapologetics. This tendency encourages a more confrontational relationship withsecularism, but also creates a point of unification that sympathetic fundamentalists ofvarious stripes can rally around.

Why Astrobiology and Creationism?

24 Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (Eds.). Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences,the Family, and Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1993. pg. 3.25 Nussbaum, Alexander. “Orthodox Jews & Science: An Empirical Study of their Attitudes TowardEvolution, the Fossil Record, and Modern Geology” in Skeptic Magazine. 12:3. 2006.<http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/orthodox­jews­and­science/>.26 Sayin, Ümit and Aykut Kence. “Islamic Scientific Creationism: A New Challenge in Turkey.” Reports ofthe National Center for Science Education. 19:6. 1999.<http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/islamic­scientific­creationism>.27 Mendelsohn, Everett. “Religious Fundamentalism and the Sciences” in Fundamentalisms and Society:Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1993. pg. 33.

10

Now someone might well ask, but why bother discussing creationism at all? What does ithave to do with astrobiology? I’ll try to answer that by first establishing the culturalsignificance of Christian fundamentalism in the US, and then looking at the relativesupport and strength of creationist ideas within this segment of the public. My aim is nota detailed study of creationism, as that has already been done by others. Instead myintent is to show how creationism and astrobiology intersect in popular culture. Attemptsover the past decade to construct a coherent body of creationist astronomy are becomingmore significant, and as such deserves astrobiologists’ attention because of potentialimpacts. While still relatively young, there is a growing “creation astronomy” movementthat has the potential to negatively impact this field of astrobiology in the future.

Fundamentalist Demographics

A broad outline of US religious trends may help provide context to this claim. Based onrecent surveys, public support for fundamentalist ideas in the US has been estimated torange from 25 t0 45 percent of the Christian-identified public, which itself accounts forabout 78 percent of the overall population. If we take the low end estimates of 2528

percent, we are looking at close to 6 million Americans who may hold some form ofChristian fundamentalist religious beliefs--hardly a small audience. How many of thesemight identify as young earth creationist is harder to discern from existing surveys, butwhat we do know is revealing. For example, a 2005 Gallup poll noted significant publicsupport for creationist views in relation to the question of recent origins:

“However, the conflicts between creationism and evolution appear irreconcilable.Evolution posits millions of years of change, and the emergence of the humanspecies from apes. Creationism accepts the literal creation story in the Bible,which essentially says that about 6,000 years ago God created all living things,including humans, as they currently exist.

The poll shows, however, that many Americans apparently do not recognize theirreconcilability of creationism and evolution. Twenty-nine percent say that bothexplanations are either definitely or probably true, while 47% accept only one orthe other of the explanations-26% say creationism is probably true, but evolutionis not; and 21% say that evolution is probably true, and creationism is not.”29

28 cf. Pew Research Center. “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.” Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.2008. <http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report­religious­landscape­study­full.pdf>.29 Gallup. “Most Americans Tentative About Origin­of­Life Explanations.” 9.23.2005.<http://www.gallup.com/poll/18748/Most­Americans­Tentative­About­OriginofLife­Explanations.aspx>.

11

Exactly why this contradiction exists is still an open question, but one recent studysuggests it may be due to “widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science”in the US. As the authors note, the “biblical literalist focus of fundamentalism in the30

United States sees Genesis as a true and accurate account of the creation of human lifethat supersedes any scientific finding or interpretation. In contrast, mainstreamProtestant faiths in Europe (and their U.S. counterparts) have viewed Genesis asmetaphorical and--like the Catholic Church--have not seen a major contradictionbetween their faith and the work of Darwin and other scientists.” A 2010 Gallup poll31

gives us a more broad-brush picture of this same issue and its sociopolitical context.

“Americans' attitudes about almost anything can and often do have politicalconsequences. Views on the origins of humans are no exception. Debates andclashes over which explanations for human origins should be included in schooltextbooks have persisted for decades. With 40% of Americans continuing to holdto an anti-evolutionary belief about the origin of humans, it is highly likely thatthese types of debates will continue.”32

While we cannot say how many of these anti-evolutionists are also creationists, thenumber is likely significant. For instance, a 2012 Gallup poll found that 46 percent ofAmericans “believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their presentform at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view ofthe origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first askedthe question.” If this is in fact the case, we should expect to see considerable public33

opposition to astrobiology, with its naturalistic model of billions of years of cosmicevolution and extraterrestrial life assumptions. Yet this is not generally the case.

It is worth noting a paradox here: Gallup’s findings on creationism appear to havechanged little in 30 years, which seems to go against other indicators of growing supportfor more conservative, fundamentalist religious politics in the US. So is it the case thatpublic support for fundamentalism is growing in popularity in the US, but not scientificcreationism? If so, we may need to consider how different exegetical interpretations--forexample Dispensational versus Historical-Critical readings of the Bible--play a role in

30 Miller, John D. et al. “Public Acceptance of Evolution.” Science. 11 August 2006. 313:5788. pgs. 765­766.31 Miller, John D. et al. “Public Acceptance of Evolution.” Science. 11 August 2006. 313:5788. pg. 765.32 Gallup. “Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism.” 12.17.2010.<http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four­Americans­Believe­Strict­Creationism.aspx>.33 Gallup. “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.” 6.1. 2012.<http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold­creationist­view­human­origins.aspx>.

12

shaping intra-faith fundamentalist views for or against creationism. Here Peter Hess34

helpfully reminds us that modern American fundamentalism emerged in part as aresponse to the historical-critical movement which led conservative fundamentalists “toargue for a more “literal” interpretation of the Bible. In fact, Biblical literalism is amisnomer for this position,” argues Hess, saying it is better described as “Biblicalinerrantism”.” This dissonance becomes especially clear when listening to debates35

between young earth and old earth creationists who both claim to be defending a “literal”interpretation of the Bible. Gallup noted in discussing its findings on creationism that“almost half of Americans today hold a belief [in young earth creationism], at least asmeasured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of thescientific literature.” So where are these beliefs coming from, and what explains this36

disconnect between what scientists think and the public believes, especially when pollsconsistently show strong faith in scientists? These beliefs do not exist in a vacuum.37

One possible answer is suggested by Otis Dudley Duncan and Claudia Geist when theyargue that “the Bible Belt is bigger than readers may have thought, not onlygeographically but also metaphorically, in the sense that biblicism in the United Statesclearly affects the reaction to evolution on the part of persons who are not in any strictsense biblical literalists.” Although not traditionally focused on astrobiology, these38

debates over evolution and origins involve issues which are also central to astrobiology.

Looking back, we can see that one important lesson creationists learned from the publicfights over evolution during the 1925 Scopes trial was the power of the media to advancea particular worldview. If fundamentalism was to regain public support, and byextension young earth creationism, fundamentalists needed to control their own media.The growing YEC media presence we see today is a direct result of this revelation, andthe sustained effort to build a visible and vocal base of support for a Biblical worldviewhas begun to pay off. As James Moore notes in discussing this trend, “fundamentalistcreationism in North America retains all the vitality of a well-heeled popular movementusing advanced technologies--film, television, video, computerized direct-mailpromotions--to commend its cosmos as genuine science to a culture still largely

34 It would appear that the choice of Biblical hermeneutics does matter, especially for fundamentalists,unfortunately a detailed discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper.35 Hess, Peter M. J. “How Do I Read the Bible? Let Me Count the Ways.” 7.26.2009.<http://ncse.com/religion/how­do­i­read­bible­let­me­count­ways>.36 Gallup. “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.” 6.1. 2012.<http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold­creationist­view­human­origins.aspx>.37 Pew Center. "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media.” Pew Research Center for thePeople and the Press. 2009. <http://www.people­press.org/files/legacy­pdf/528.pdf>.38 Duncan, Otis Dudley and Claudia Geist. “The Creationists: How Many, Who, and Where?” Reports of theNational Center for Science Education. 24:5. 2004. <http://ncse.com/rncse/24/5/creationists>.

13

impressed with claims to scientificity.” As public support grows for creation science,39

what we are seeing is more muddying of the scientific waters on origin issues.

The Roots of Biblical “Science”

The belief that science and religion can be complementary is quite old, but theemergence of a sophisticated creation science propaganda apparatus arguing sciencemust be subordinated to a specific literal interpretation of the Bible is novel. Thisevolution of fundamentalism to include creation science is a prime example of theprocess of theological innovation discussed by Marty and Appleby in their definition offundamentalism. The fact that young earth creationism reach far beyond older 20thcentury issues like Darwin’s theories of evolution or Lyell’s Uniformitarian geology,although these are both still important and fully present, is another adaptation.

The genesis of contemporary creationism is usually traced back to the publication ofthree books. The first was a 1923 book called New Geology by William McCready Price,which was a revision of his earlier 1906 book Illogical Geology. The second book is titledThe Genesis Flood and was published in 1961 by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M.Morris. The third title was a 1974 book titled Scientific Creationism, also by Henry M.Morris, who was the founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and is oftenreferred to as the father of modern creationism. True to his name, both of his sons, JohnD. and Henry III, have carried on his creationist work at the ICR.

After fifty years of gradual work by early creationist like Henry M. Morris, John C.Whitcomb Jr., George McCready Price and Harry Rimmer, and with the establishmentof para-church groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the CreationResearch Society (CRS), Answers in Genesis (AiG), and Creation Ministries International(CMI), a large body of creation science materials now exist. Thousands of books,pamphlets, dvds and other media have been produced as part of the growing movement.Annual conferences are held, and publications like Acts & Facts, the Answers ResearchJournal, the Journal of Creation, and the Creation Research Society Quarterly are allproduced on a regular basis to support creation science apologetics. Anyone can take acreationist fieldtrip to learn how the Biblical Flood explains the geology of the GrandCanyon, or enjoy a leisurely “creationist cruise” to see Alaska and Canada and exploretheir faith. If these sound a little too adventurous, you can always visit Adam and Eve asthey hang out with the dinosaurs in the Creation Museum, or watch creationist movies

39 Moore, James. “Creationist Cosmos of Protestant Fundamentalism” in Fundamentalisms and Society:Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1993. pg. 51.

14

explaining the origins of the universe and the Earth in six days.40

All of these are manifestations of the holism behind creation science, which at this pointcovers everything from evolution and dinosaurs to astronomy and economics. Nearlyevery conceivable topic has an explanation through this interpretive Biblical historicalframework, which is presented as a holistic, alternative worldview which avoids themany problems of secularism and atheism. Martin Marty and Scott Appleby describethis process as one of “integration,” where the “presentation of material from history,literature, the sciences, and mathematics must be integrated with the relevant biblicalverses that provide the appropriate context for the material.”41

Walter Brown, creationist author and founder of the Center for Scientific Creation,provides precisely this response: “Subjects outside the natural (including biblicaldescriptions of creation and the flood that are so consistent with the physical evidence)are inappropriate for publicly financed science education. However, excluding what isobservable and verifiable in nature, along with possible causes, is bad science,misleading, and censorship. Creation science, then, is the study of this scientificevidence.” In other words, creation science is the study of supernatural evidence to42

demonstrate the scientific validity of a Biblical worldview. It is important to note herethat creation science cannot validate or falsify the Bible, it can only demonstrate howproper science should conform to Biblical evidence. Allowing verification would open theBible to potential refutation, a risk that creationists are careful to avoid. In the words ofthe father of scientific creationism, the “Word of God must take first priority, andsecondly, the observed facts of science…”43

Gerald Skoog called attention to this emerging scientific creationism more than 30 yearsago, when it was still in its early stages of development. In a 1980 article titled “LegalIssues Involved in Evolution vs. Creationism,” he noted this shift beginning to take placeand argued that “creationists now advocate the use of scientific creationism, rather thanbiblical creationism, to neutralize the study of evolutionary theory. Scientific creationismis biblical creationism without theological terminology...” While I agree with this point,44

40 The Alpha Omega Institute’s Discover Creation Tours to Colorado's National Monument and the DinosaurMuseum are two such examples of creationist field trips. <http://www.discovercreation.org/vacations.htm>.41 Marty, Martin E and R. Scott Appleby (Eds.). Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences,the Family, and Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1993. pg. 14.42 Dale, Walter. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix:The Center forScientific Creation. 2008. pg. 402.43 Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism (General Edition). El Cajon:Master Books. 1985. pg. 215.44 Skoog, Gerald. “Legal Issues Involved in Evolution vs. Creationism,” Educational Leadership.Alexandria:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 38:2, November, 1980. pg. 155.<http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198011_skoog.pdf>.

15

Morris interestingly himself rejected such an association. Philip Kitcher notes in his 1982book that “a political alliance has been forged between the self-appointed champions ofvirtue and religion--the Moral Majority--and a group of believers in the literal truth ofthe Bible….who call themselves Scientific Creationists.” In particular, he called45

attention to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), one of the early para-churchorganizations promoting scientific creationism still today.

As these authors suggest, there has been a concerted effort since at least the 1970’s tocreate a parallel “creation science” industry that can challenge mainstream science. Thecombined result of these efforts is a growing public confusion and misconception about awhole host of basic scientific issues and topics, with climate change denial and challengesto evolution in public schools as two prominent examples. This intentional confusion isthen seized upon as further evidence of the weakness of secular science and thesuperiority of a Biblical worldview, as demonstrated by scientific creationism.

These techniques are especially effective on people with limited scientific training whoare already predisposed to a religiously or socially conservative worldview. This isevidenced by the fact that public opinion polls consistently find strong support forcreationism among politically conservative and less well educated members of the public.As Gallup noted in response to its 2012 poll on creationist views in the US, “Americanswith postgraduate education are most likely of all the educational groups to say humansevolved without God's guidance, and least likely to say God created humans in theirpresent form within the last 10,000 years. The creationist viewpoint "wins" amongAmericans with less than a postgraduate education.” Such findings have led science46

advocates to call for reinforced public science education in public school curriculum as acounter to the perceived improper encroachment of creationist religious ideas.

Although newer to the scene, figures like Ken Hamm and Andrew Snelling from Answersin Genesis (AIG), John Sarfati, John Hartnett, Michael Oard and Carl Wieland fromCreation Ministries International (CMI) and Jason Lisle and the Morris boys at ICRcontinue to advance the same creationist agenda that was laid down in the early 1960s.But unlike the creationists of that earlier founding cohort, many contemporarycreationists have advanced scientific degrees which they use to lend an aura of scientificvalidity to their creationist views and writings, even when their expertise is far removedfrom the actual creationist topics they are discussing.

45 Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge:MIT Press. 1986. pg. 1.46 Gallup. “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.” 6.1. 2012.<http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold­creationist­view­human­origins.aspx>.

16

Taken together, these individuals and the larger creationist community they belong tohave a broad ranging sociopolitical agenda. At its core is the absolute belief in anextremely militant and conservative political agenda which argues it has sole legitimacyto define the proper reading of the Bible. It is impossible to understand any creationistarguments without first grasping this basic point. Nothing within the world ofcreationism makes sense unless the Bible is the absolute and universal Truth.

An additional part of this creationist worldview, and the larger fundamentalist politicalmovements it is affiliated with, is a rejection of naturalism and materialism--ideas mostcommonly associated with the twin evils of evolution and secular humanism. AlthoughYEC attacks on biology and geology have been the two primary areas of scholarlyattention and popular debate throughout the 20th century, the YEC critique has slowlybeen extended into other domains of natural science, including astrobiology. The searchfor extraterrestrial life, combined with assumptions about cosmic evolution and the oldage of our universe, have for obvious reasons attracted the attention of creationismapologists. They argue that astrobiology, and parts of astronomy and astrophysics, are inopposition to their literal reading of the Bible, but more importantly, are therefore alsoscientifically wrong and theologically dangerous. Ken Hamm, in discussing science basedon million of years in opposition to Biblical history, outlines what he sees as the dangers.“As soon as you surrender the Bible’s authority in one area, you “unlock a door” to dothe same thing in other areas. Once the door of compromise is open, even if ajar just alittle, subsequent generations push the door open wider. Ultimately, this compromisehas been a major contributing factor in the loss of biblical authority in our Westernworld.” Much of the creation science literature produced over the past twenty years47

has focused on showing what is wrong with these secular theories and how scientificcreationism provides a simpler and better explanation that fits with the Bible.

Here we should recall that these creation science efforts are just one part of a muchlarger fundamentalist agenda. YEC advocates and their affiliated parachurchorganizations are at the forefront of what they typically describe as a “culture war” withsecular society, a term I prefer to avoid due to its problematic historical associations.48

But many young earth creationists really do see things as black and white, good and evil,which leads them to view challenging “secular” science as one part of the largerfundamentalists critique of secular, postmodern society. Secularism is blamed for theloss of traditional social order and Christian morality, a process often traced back to

47 Ham, Ken. “Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth?” Answers Magazine. 6:1. 2010.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/gospel­young­earth>.48 The roots of the phrase “culture war” can be traced back to the German Kulturkampf campaigns underOtto von Bismarck in the late 1800s, where here was widespread anti­religious and ethnic persecutions.

17

rising religious skepticism during the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution. A classicalarticulation of this creationist view was advanced by Henry M. Morris: “Evolution is theroot of atheism, of communism, nazism, behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism,militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief andpractice.” A contemporary example of this critique can be found in Carl Kerby and Ken49

Ham’s comments in War of the Worldviews.

We are engaged in a war of worldviews. Secular humanism (with its evolutionaryand millions-of-years foundation) is fighting tooth-and-nail against biblicalChristianity (and the idea that God is the Creation) for the hearts and minds ofour children...just two generations ago, the majority of Americans supportedprayer, Scripture readings and Bible instruction in public schools. They alsosupported displaying nativity scenes, crosses and the Ten Commandments inpublic places. Gay marriage and abortion were outlawed...what has driven thismoral collapse? Why is this war going on?50

Because this young earth creationist worldview includes both a theological and a socialcritique of modern secular society, it has been able to latch onto the interest of a widersegment of the fundamentalist public than if they focused solely on science issues. Moreimportantly, in recent years these views have been increasingly impacting public sciencepolicy and education debates over what is included or excluded from public schoolcurriculum and state science standards. This two-pronged strategy of attacking thenatural sciences (especially evolutionary biology) and confronting secular politics hasimplications for those working in astrobiology, even if they aren’t immediately obvious.

Creationism and Astrobiology

I have spent some time surveying the landscape of contemporary creationism because Ibelieve it will help us to better understand where their critiques of astrobiology and thesearch for extraterrestrial life originate. Based on the current situation, I see at leastthree different ways in which astrobiology can be impacted by creationism. First, whencreationist advocates are successful in changing science education by either insertingcreationism or removing teaching about evolution from the science curriculum, as hasbeen attempted in a number of states in recent years, the basic foundations of scienceeducation are called into question. As the National Academy of Sciences 2008 report

49 Morris, Henry M. The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth. San Diego:Creation­Life Publishers. 1972. pg.75.50 Ham, Ken et al. War of the Worldviews: Powerful Answers for an “Evolutionized” Culture. Hebron:Answersin Genesis. 2005. pg. 8.

18

Science, Evolution and Creationism clearly noted, evolutionary biology “has been andcontinues to be a cornerstone of modern science.” Recent court cases, such as51

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, have upheld the teaching of evolution andrejected creationism as legitimate science (technically it was Intelligent Design (ID) ontrial in the Dover case, but the issues are the same), but there is no guarantee suchrulings will continue with an ideologically different court. So from the perspective ofscientific literacy and the future training of astrobiologists and astronomists, weakenedscience interest and literacy, especially in relation to the study of origins, could dissuadeyoung people from viewing astrobiology as a viable career path.

Secondly, and more directly relevant to astrobiology, support for additional federalresearch and funding, for example through NASA or the National Research Council, isconnected to public belief in the possibility of extraterrestrial life in the universe, a viewopenly challenged by creationists. If public support for research regardingextraterrestrial life were to decrease, funding and support for astrobiology couldpotentially be put at risk. Of course, the creationists would be fine with this. As CreationMinistries International (CMI) CEO Gary Bates makes clear when discussing ET’s,extraterrestrial life in the universe doesn’t fit with a young earth creationist worldview.

It is often asked, ‘Just because the Bible teaches about God creating intelligent lifeonly on Earth, why couldn’t He have done so elsewhere?’ After all, Scripture doesnot discuss everything, e.g. motorcars. However, the biblical objection to ET is notmerely an argument from silence. Motor cars, for example, are not a salvationissue, but we believe that sentient, intelligent, moral-decision-capable beings is,because it would undermine the authority of Scripture...understanding the bigpicture of the Bible/gospel message allows us to conclude clearly that the reasonthe Bible doesn’t mention extraterrestrials (ETs) is that there aren’t any.52

Slightly later in this same article we find the issue of political funding tied to theevolutionary science bias of astrobiology. Following this previous Biblical argumentagainst astrobiology, Bates attacks NASA’s Origins program and the $600 million infunding spent to construct the Kepler Observatory. He cites Bruce Runnegar, formerhead of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, and uses his statement concerning astrobiologyfunding as evidence of NASA’s secular bias towards evolutionary science. “‘It’s a missionthat the taxpayers can understand and support…Everybody wants to know where we

51 National Academy of Sciences. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington:National AcademiesPress. 2008. pg. xi.52 Bates, Gary. “Did God create life on other planets?” Creation. 29:2. 2007. pgs 12­15.<http://creation.com/did­god­create­life­on­other­planets>.

19

came from and whether or not we are alone in the universe.’” Having thus established53

a link between evolution and astrobiology funding, Bates then exposes the “real agenda”of NASA’s financial support for astrobiology: “The public relations machine only aids thereal agenda behind the planet-hunting. In a word, it’s ‘evolution’. Quite simply, becausethey believe life evolved on the earth they also believe it must have evolved elsewhere,particularly if they believe the universe is 14 billion years old based on their belief in abig bang.” Bates claims the public is being duped by NASA into paying for evolutionary54

science through a legitimate interest learning more about our origins. So anothercreationist strategy to attack astrobiology and space science is to draw attention tosources of public funding and advocating for the funding to stop.

Third, the continued young earth creationist rhetoric about a war between religion andscience may make it harder for sympathetic Christians, some of whom are scientists, toreconcile their religious views in relation to their scientific research. The contradictionbetween religion and science from the creationist perspective need not impact otherChristians, but since they represent the most vocal and visible wing of fundamentalistapologetics, they often get to set the terms of engagement for others. If the astrobiologycommunity is interested in having meaningful dialog with Christian communities aroundissues of extraterrestrial life and alien contact, this politics of literal Biblicalauthoritarianism may need to be publicly challenged on its own theological turf, hencemy earlier comment about the possible need for an astrobiology apologetics.

In sum, support for astrobiology could be impacted in various ways by a growingcreationist-led campaign of denial and hostility regarding an old universe and the searchfor extraterrestrial life. If enough public support were to shift in their favor, it couldimpact access to funding and other government resources, which could in turn directlyimpact the day to day and long-term future of astrobiology. This potential dilemmashould prompt us to ask, what is causing this skepticism? Are these objections toextraterrestrial origins research grounded largely in Biblical theology, or is thereperhaps a more complicated story to be told about these anti-ETI responses?

It appears that one of the sources of this religious hostility is ironically self-created bythe scientific community, and in particular by SETI-inclined astrobiologists. Because thediscovery of extraterrestrial life has been framed by some astrobiology advocates,rightly or wrongly, as signaling the end--or at the very least a major existential

53 Bates, Gary. “Did God create life on other planets?” Creation. 29:2. 2007. pgs 12­15.<http://creation.com/did­god­create­life­on­other­planets>.54 Bates, Gary. “Did God create life on other planets?” Creation. 29:2. 2007. pgs 12­15.<http://creation.com/did­god­create­life­on­other­planets>.

20

crisis--for traditional Christianity, we should not be surprised that such a claim evokesstrong negative reactions from those with strong Biblical views. As Marilynne Robinsonsuggests in discussing this apparent conflict between science and religion, “somehow itseems to have been accepted by people on both sides of the question that religion standsor falls on the literal truth of one reading of Genesis I.” This is the case even in the face55

of an extensive literature showing that such a conflict is largely fabricated, or wheregenuine tensions do exist within mainline Christianity, they are not irreconcilable. 56

Unlike some other scientific fields, astrobiology and its search for extraterrestrial lifestarts with certain basic assumptions that are inherently problematic for creationists.These include the possibility of alien life, the view that humans are not exceptional, theEarth not being the center of the universe, and most importantly a belief that theuniverse is billions of years old and was formed through naturalistic evolution--particlesto people. One of these claims would be enough for creationists to object to, but togetherthey form a perfect storm of opposition. So what sort of comments are particularlydrawing the ire of young earth creationists?

One of the main examples can be found in the claim that aliens must have evolvedbeyond primitive organized religions, a claim advanced by SETI’s Project Phoenixfounding director Jill Tarter. She argues that alien life must necessarily have moreadvanced technology than ours in order to make contact, and this would only be possiblewith a more advanced and much older civilization than our own. “At a minimum, thisinferred result (their longevity) is likely to have a great deal to say about religionsthroughout the universe. In my opinion, it will mean that the detected, long-livedextraterrestrials either never had, or have outgrown, organized religion.”57

She argues that based on the (largely negative in her view) past experience of organizedreligions on Earth, it is impossible to imagine a stable and advanced civilization emergingfrom such a messy pluralist religious milieu. “Based on our poor human example withreligious intolerance, the existence of an old (tens of millions of years!), stable,technological civilization therefore implies a single religion, devoid of factions anddisputes, or no religion at all. If God(s) exist, then a single, universal religion is the

55 Robinson, Marilynne. “Scientific fundamentalism goes off the rails.” Globe and Mail. 5.21.2010.<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books­and­media/scientific­fundamentalism­goes­off­the­rails/article4320019/>.56 cf. Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. San Francisco:Harper. 1997.;Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion. San Francisco:Harper. 2000.; Brooke, John H. Science andReligion: Some Historical Perspectives. New York:Cambridge University Press. 1991.; Clayton, Philip (Ed.).The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 2008.57 Tarter, Jill Cornell. “SETI and the Religions of the Universe” in Many Worlds: The New Universe,Extraterrestrial Life & The Theological Implications. Radnor:Templeton Foundation Press. 2000. pg. 145.

21

obvious possibility. For old technologies to exist, this universal religion would have to becompatible with scientific inquiry...it is hard to reconcile the existence of an oldtechnology with organized religion.”58

Wearing my skeptic hat for a moment, it seems quite easy to reconcile an advanced alienrace that has technology and religious fundamentalism existing side-by-side, so Tarter’slogic is certainly questionable here. A creationist response to Tarter would likely gosomething like this. UFO advocates, people involved with astrobiology and others whoadvance the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) like Tarter often “regard the modernhuman race as a more enlightened species that should reject the “primitive” religiousnotions of our ancestors. Many claim that the increased number of sightings, visitations,and abductions today is because the “space brothers” have come to help us ascend to ournext stage of enlightenment, or “spiritual” evolution.” This is utter nonsense to the59

creationist, who flatly reject any notion of converting to some cosmic alien religion. Yet tomany in the scientific community, it seems that it is creationism that has the realproblem with natural science, rather than the other way around. This view is notentirely without merit. For example, Robert Russell offers a good example of anamicable relationship between the two domains in his book Bridging Science andReligion.

Over the past two or three decades, I have seen an ever-widening ripple spreadthrough my discipline--Christian theology--as it has been increasingly influenced,at least in some communities, by the discoveries and methods of science and theirphilosophical interpretations. Big Bang and inflationary cosmology, relativity,quantum physics, irreversible thermodynamics, chaos and complexity theory,molecular and evolutionary biology, human genetics, the cognitive sciences, theneurosciences, computer science and many other scientific fields have beencarefully and systematically brought across the bridge [between religion andscience] and introduced into discussions of God as creator, as an actor in historyand nature who does not “break” the laws of nature but acts through and withthem, of theodicy in nature, the imago dei, human sin and even the meaning ofand scope of redemption.60

Although it might be easy to miss, Russell offers an important caveat in his statement

58 Tarter, Jill Cornell. “SETI and the Religions of the Universe” in Many Worlds: The New Universe,Extraterrestrial Life & The Theological Implications. Radnor:Templeton Foundation Press. 2000. pg. 146.59 Bates, Gary. Alien Intrusion. Powder Springs:Creation Ministries International. 2010. (Kindle Locations637­639).60 Russell, Robert John quoted in Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennett. Bridging Science and Religion. London:SCM Press. 2002. pg. x.

22

above--“at least in some communities, by the discoveries and methods of science andtheir philosophical interpretations”--which ties in with our discussion. It is primarily thecreationist community, and especially young earth creationists, which represent theexcluded “some communities” that Russell alludes to here. We should not be surprisedthen that find that creationists are at the forefront of fundamentalist politicalmovements opposing this bridging activity between “discoveries and methods of scienceand their philosophical interpretations” that Russell is celebrating.

So it’s easy to see why such such arguments have met with obvious hostility fromfundamentalists and creationists. In addition, Tarter makes some religious claims thatare highly suspect and occasionally ridiculous, yet her views are not outside the scientificnorm. One need only read comments by public luminaries like Carl Sagan, StephenHawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Paul Davies to sense the religious skepticism of thosefigures commonly associated with astronomy and the various space sciences.It doesn’t help that there is a tendency in some astrobiology circles to assume a ratherstatic image of Christianity, one which ironically plays into the hands of creationists, andis further reinforced by both the New Atheists and Gouldian type non-overlappingmagisteria (NOMA) arguments against religion having anything to say about science.The theological criticisms offered by creationists in response to such claims, whencombined with their militant adherence to the veracity of Biblical literalism, leads manysecular critics to say ‘see I told you they are crazy’ and dismiss creationists out of hand.It is thus an ironic and self-fulfilling prophecy, as this scientific caricature of an inflexiblefundamentalist Christianity unable to adapt to the assumed shock of an ETI encountermay capture the likely creationist response to this issue, but this view then falselybecomes a straw man argument justifying the irrelevance of Christianity as a whole. Byconflating creationism with Christianity, unnecessary enemies are made.

Furthermore, this conflict frame serves the YEC community quite well as a recruitingtool, and helps to maintain the myth of a “war” between science and religion, despite thenumerous examples outside of creationist circles where these conflicts are minimal. Sincethe Bible represents the universal and unchanging truth about our universe, it requiresno modifications, even in light of a potential contact with extraterrestrial life. These kindof uncompromising creationist positions help fuel a theologically-driven us versus themdiscourse, especially towards fields like astrobiology with an obvious underlyingevolutionary framework, which is seen as antithetical to creationism. As Ken Ham andCarl Kerby argue: “Christians who are fighting for a return to biblical morality cannothope to win the “war of the worldviews” and will only continue to see the erosion of thisonce-Christian culture unless they understand the real foundational nature of the battle:biblical authority, beginning with God’s Word in Genesis, must be upheld without

23

compromise.” Such arguments complicate the debates over origins, since claiming the61

real debate is not about science but rather about faith is a calculated move that attemptsto shift the grounds of the science debates in favor of creationism. Here again, anastrobiology apologetics approach would suggest the astrobiology community shoulddevelop positive religious arguments to actively challenge and refute such claims whilesimultaneously shifting the discussion back onto the actual scientific issues.

Besides the claim that aliens will obviate the need for organized religions, another issueoften reacted negatively to is that of extraterrestrials. Here creationist responsessometimes go in a different direction than what one would expect. Some creationistsactually agree that extraterrestrial beings do exist, but they are really angels or demons.In most cases they appear to be evil. This is precisely the argument advanced by one ofthe leading old earth creationists, Hugh Ross, in his co-authored book Lights in the Skyand Little Green Men. Ross argues that most scientists don’t consider a link betweendemons and ETI “because such an answer points too directly to a Christianinterpretation of the problem.” The arguments by Ross and his co-authors is unique62

among much of the creationist literature I have seen on this topic, as it attempts to dealwith the issue scientifically and theologically, while adhering to a creationist ontology thatposits a hybrid natural-supernatural interdimensional origin for extraterrestrial demons.“Given the extradimensional hypothesis represents a scientifically and biblically credibleview of reality, some connection can be seen between these scriptural accounts [Ezekiel,2 Kings, Daniel, Revelation] and residual UFOs (RUFOs).” After considering all the63

evidence Ross and Kenneth Samples ultimately reject the possibility of alien ETI fromspace, arguing that “from a scientific standpoint...it [extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH)]does not stand up.” So “alien” life is accepted in reality, but the common SETI view of64

ETI from outer space is rejected.

A similar claim is made by Gary Bates in his book Alien Intrusion, where he suggeststhat “the evolutionary world view, coupled with a diet of science fiction and a decline oftraditional religious beliefs, has prepared the world for the arrival of the space brothersand their new religion..this new religious order is supposed to embrace all faiths, but it is

61 Ham, Ken and Carl Kerby. “The “Evolutionizing of a Culture,” in War of the Worldviews: Powerful Answersfor an “Evolutionized” Culture. Gary Vaterlaus, Ed. Hebron:Answers in Genesis. 2008. pg.14.62 Ross, Hugh et al. Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs andExtraterrestrials. Colorado Springs:Navpress. 2002. pg. 125.63 Ross, Hugh et al. Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs andExtraterrestrials. Colorado Springs:Navpress. 2002. pg. 159.64 Ross, Hugh et al. Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs andExtraterrestrials. Colorado Springs:Navpress. 2002. pg. 167.

24

noticeably intolerant of biblical Christianity.” Here Bates is more focused on what he65

sees as the danger of New Age alien cults, but he also accepts the possibility of demonsand angels as some kind of Biblical ETI. As Bates notes, most alien abduction cases “alsodemonstrated that their deceptions seem to be centered on destroying every majortenet of the Bible and the divine personhood of Jesus Christ. Such deceptive fruit is inkeeping with predictions made in the Bible—that is, there is a master plan by theenemies of the Creator God to deceive people away from the truth of the Bible and theirneed for salvation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.” This is certainly a twist to66

what we normally hear coming from various creationist circles about space aliens, but itreflects the continual cultural adaptation process we have already discussed bycreationists.

Astrobiology and Pop Culture

Is there extraterrestrial life in space? Could an advanced alien civilization exist justbeyond the next nebula? What are the optimal conditions for life on another planet? Howwould we respond to an alien encounter? These are just a few of the many questions thatastrobiologists are seeking answers for in the darkness of space. Although astrobiologyitself is a relatively new field of scientific investigation, the central question drivingastrobiology--are there other worlds with life beyond ours--is not. One might even say itis a timeless question, tracing its origins through the ‘plurality of worlds’ debates back tothe early Greek atomists. From NASA’s exobiology program, which was set up in the67

1960’s, to the current astrobiology program starting in the 1990’s, the past half-centuryhas seen a growing fascination with extraterrestrial life and space.

Writing in 2003, the National Research Council’s Committee on the Origins andEvolution of Life discussed some of the scientific trends driving NASA’s emergingastrobiology program. The report suggests some of the important factors included: “thediscovery of planets around other stars; strong circumstantial evidence for aliquid-water ocean beneath the surface of Jupiter’s moons Europa, Ganymede, andCallisto; controversial claims for biological activity in a martian meteorite; the discoveryof life in extreme terrestrial environments; and a genuine revolution in ourunderstanding and manipulation of the genetic mechanisms of the living cell. In responseto the public and scientific excitement generated by these discoveries, NASA initiated a

65 Bates, Gary. Alien Intrusion. Powder Springs:Creation Ministries International. 2010. (Kindle Locations5899­5901).66 Bates, Gary. Alien Intrusion. Powder Springs:Creation Ministries International. 2010. (Kindle Locations7537­7540).67 Dick, Steven. Plurality of Worlds: The Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant. NewYork:Cambridge University Press. 1984.

25

major new thrust in cross-disciplinary research activities among the biological, geological,astronomical, and planetological sciences.” But this is only one piece of the astrobiology68

story, and one which is largely internal to the sciences.

Behind these developments important shifts were taking place in American popularculture in relation to the question of alien life. 1953 saw the first big-screen adaptation ofH.G. Wells’ science fiction thriller, War of the Worlds, which had sparked public panicyears earlier as a radio broadcast. Just over a decade later, in 1962, the time traveling69

Doctor Who and his TARDIS materialized onto celluloid, albeit less in the US than theUK. This growing science fiction cultural obsession would literally explode over the70

next two decades. Some of the many titles from this period include: Flash Gordon(1954), Dune (1965), Lost in Space (1965), Star Trek (1966), 2001: A Space Odyssey(1968), The Andromeda Strain (1971), Silent Ruins (1972), Star Wars (1977), and Alien(1979), to name just a few of the many famous movies and TV series.

By the 1970’s, sci-fi was firmly embedded within the American psyche, and with itwidespread belief in extraterrestrials. As Nancy Reagin notes in her study of Star Trek’simpacts on popular culture, “Star Trek helped us to envision our own future. Star Trekcreated a vocabulary for the future that was absorbed into everyday life— almosteveryone knows what “warp speed” is nowadays, or “beaming up.” Indeed, it’s hard forus to envision a future that doesn’t incorporate some of the assumptions, technologies,and settings that originated in Star Trek...from plasma screens to Bluetooth, we oftensaw it on Star Trek first.” While she doesn’t mention it, the extraterrestrial figure is71

central to all of these films, from Vulcans and Ewoks to Daleks and Arrakians.

In fact, it is extremely hard to imagine science fiction without alien life of some kind. AsMark Brake notes concerning the history and influence of imagining alien worlds on thefield of astrobiology, “a stunning array of scholars, scientists, philosophers, film-makers,and writers have devoted their energies to imagining life beyond this Earth...A mode ofthinking has emerged. One in which astrobiology has been fused.” As proof of this,72

consider the following thought experiment: count how many sci-fi movies you can list

68 Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council. Life in the Universe: AnAssessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology. 2003.<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10454.html>.69 Wikipedia contributors. "The War of the Worlds (1953 film)." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 4 Jul.2013. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.70 Wikipedia contributors. "Doctor Who." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 6 Oct. 2013. Web. 6 Oct.2013.71 Reagin, Nancy. Star Trek and History. (Kindle Locations 317­322). Hoboken:John Wiley and Sons. 2013.72 Brake, Mark. Alien Life Imagined: Communicating the Science and Culture of Astrobiology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 2013. pg. 269.

26

without any kind of alien life, intelligent or otherwise. Therefore we should not besurprised that recent polls suggest that anywhere from one third to fifty percent of theUS public--about 80 million people--believe in UFOs and paranormal phenomenon.73

A good case then seems to exist for the claim that astrobiology, aliens and pop cultureexist in a sort of symbiotic relationship, similar to Brake’s suggestion of alienimaginations and astrobiology being fused. By imagining alien worlds, pop culture laysthe metaphysical foundations of support for the science of astrobiology. In exchange,astrobiology unlocks new alien frontiers for pop culture to explore and visualize. Anexample of this is the National Academy of Sciences’ Science and EntertainmentExchange, which brings scientists and the entertainment industry together for thispurpose. Filmmaker and Exchange member Jeff Silver highlighted these connections:

The real interesting stuff in science happens where the disciplines cross –astrobiology, biomimetics, bioinformatics, nanotech – where people fromdisparate fields bring a different way of thinking to a problem. When thathappens, sparks fly! So, my advice to filmmakers would be to go beyondreferences to earlier films and works of art, and reflect on other fields, includingscience...Think about immersive experiences – think holodecks!74

Continuing this popular trend, the last decade of the 20th century witnessed the birth ofhundreds of sci-fi-themed series and movies, including the extremely popularextraterrestrial TV drama The X-Files, which captured public imagination with its claimthat “The Truth is Out There.” For our purposes, what matters is that since the 1950’s75

a growing number of books, comics, TV shows and movies have excited popularimagination and filled pop culture with dreams of alien races and far-off worlds. What allof these examples have in common is the creation within the public imagination-- andespecially in pop culture--of not only the possibility of extraterrestrial life, but theseeming inevitability of alien encounters one day. This alien xenophilia in pop culture haslikely been an important driver of public support for space exploration and the search forextraterrestrial life, with NASA and the field of astrobiology reaping direct benefits frommore public support and interest in the search for extraterrestrial life.

Steven Dick makes a related claim in discussing the cultural impacts of astrobiology

73 cf: DiBlasio, Natalie. "A third of Earthlings believe in UFOs, would befriend aliens." USA Today. 6.26.2012.<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012­06­26/ufo­survey/55843742/1/>; Speigel, Lee. "48Percent Of Americans Believe UFOs Could Be ET Visitations." Huffington Post. 9/11/2013.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/48­percent­of­americans­believe­in­ufos_n_3900669.html>.74 Silver, Jeff. “Featured Entertainer: Jeff Silver.” The Exchange. National Academy of Sciences. 2011.<http://www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/article/featured­entertainer­jeff­silver>.75 Wikipedia contributors. "The X­Files." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 5 Oct. 2013. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

27

when he suggested that the “idea of “life beyond Earth,” whether termed exobiology,astrobiology, or bioastronomy, has exercised a peculiarly strong lure in Americanculture, a phenomenon that should itself be studied.” Even NASA acknowledges the76

link between astrobiology and science fiction: “Over the years, as the search for life hasbecome a central theme of NASA’s mission, Astrobiology Magazine has developed into amulti-faceted journal that investigates many areas of interest, including planetarysciences, Earth exploration, astrophysics, popular culture, and even science fiction.”77

Astrobiology: Show Me The Goods!

But not everyone is excited about this growing interest in extraterrestrial life, or itsdalliances with pop culture and science fiction. Jason Lisle, now the Director of Researchat the ICR, has a few choice words for those peddling ET’s and sci-fi.

When we consider how the salvation plan might apply to any hypotheticalextraterrestrial (but otherwise human-like) beings, we are presented with aproblem. If there were Vulcans or Klingons out there, how would they be saved?They are not blood relatives of Jesus, and so Christ’s shed blood cannot pay fortheir sin. One might at first suppose that Christ also visited their world, livedthere, and died there as well, but this is antibiblical. Christ died once for all (1Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:27–28, Hebrews 10:10). Jesus is now and forever bothGod and man; but He is not an alien.78

In a similar vein, Brian Thomas, a science writer for ICR, argues in “The Incredible HulkTheory of Life in Space” that the search for extraterrestrial life “has failed to yield anysupportive evidence that life exists outside the earth,” which he believes has led theastrobiology community to advance some rather absurd theories, including being “willingto settle for science fiction” scenarios and advancing “comic book-like hypotheses” forthe origins of extraterrestrial life Luckily for NASA, their graphic novel series,79

“Astrobiology: The Story of our Search for Life in the Universe,” didn’t come out until2010, or I’d wager Thomas would have had a field day with those comics too! In thecontext of discussing the Big Bang and extraterrestrial life, Gary Bates argues:

76 Dick, Steven J. “Cultural Aspects of Astrobiology” in If SETI Succeeds: The Impact of High InformationContact, Allen Tough (Ed). Bellevue:Foundation for the Future. 2000. pg. 149.77 Astrobiology Magazine. “About Us.” web. October 6, 2013. <http://www.astrobio.net/aboutus.php>.78 Lisle, Jason. Answers in Genesis. “Are ETs & UFOs Real?” 12.6.2007.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are­ets­and­ufos­real>.79 Thomas, Brian. “The Incredible Hulk Theory of Life in Space.” Institute for Creation Research. web. August19, 2009. <http://www.icr.org/article/incredible­hulk­theory­life­space/>.

28

The evolutionary origin of life in the universe is supposed to have been started bythe big bang — an event that most people, including scientists, believe justhappened. It is central to the ETH [Extraterrestrial Hypothesis] for the evolutionof extraterrestrial life to have occurred on other planets. This is why we havespent considerable time on the big bang, demonstrating the philosophical natureof the unverifiable ideas involved.80

As we can see, there are several different biblical objection that originate from slightlydifferent angles, but all reach the same conclusion--only the Bible explains the originsand creation of the universe in a correct manner. And as prominent creation astronomerDanny Faulkner argues in his book Universe By Design, one of the fears of young earthcreationists is that “Christians have wedded the creation account of the Bible to thebig-bang theory, the current scientific myth of the world’s creation.” This claim is81

usually linked to the changing nature of scientific truth claims, since for most creationiststhe problem with making the Bible fit science is that science can be disproven, whichwould create doubt if these claims were linked to the Bible. It may be helpful todistinguish two main lines of criticism against astrobiology that are common increationist circles beyond the basic claims that the universe is not billions of years oldand that it was created by God.

The first claim is also more commonly found in the scientific community, and focuses onthe problems of a field of science without an object of study or questions the allocation ofscarce grant resources. Both of these were raised by Antonio Lazcano in a 2012 Naturearticle on astrobiology. Lazcano argues that due to “the absence of unambiguous prooffor its existence, almost nothing can be said about extraterrestrial life about which theopposite is not also true. The scarcity of evidence gives considerable latitude, and, incertain circles, astrobiology has become a resounding but meaningless catchword in thecompetition for grant money.”82

Another example from the creationist end is the Creation-Evolution Headlines (CEH), acreationist news site dedicated to tracking science news and “exposing evolutionism,”which ran an article titled “Science Without an Object: Astrobiology, Alien Science,”which drew on a recently published article regarding cell biology by Bruce Alberts in

80 Bates, Gary. Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. Powder Springs:Creation BookPublishers. 2010. (Kindle Locations 2004­2007).81 Faulkner, Danny. Universe By Design: An Explanation of Cosmology and Creation. Green Forest:MasterBooks. 2004. pg. 5.82 Lazcano, Antonio. “Maintaining the Plausible.” Nature. Vol. 488. August, 2012. pg. 160.<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7410/pdf/488160a.pdf>.

29

Science. CEH questioned whether science can exist “without an observable object? In83

recent years we have seen serious scientists ponder alternate universes and paralleluniverses, dark matter, dark energy and other imponderable entities...Sooner or later,these theories need to detect their subjects or lose credibility in the science club. Perhapsnowhere else has the disconnect between hype and observation reached the absurdlimits of astrobiology and alien science.” CEH’s main point is that much of astrobiology84

is fanciful speculation dressed up as hard science, but without any evidence of itsrelevance or its object of study.

Mike Deubig, another YEC writing at The Bible is the Other Side, offers a similarcriticism of astrobiology in his article “Astrobiology: Is it Relevant for Science?” Deubigasks then answers his own question. “So is astrobiology relevant for science? The answeris no! American taxpayer money is being wasted. It should be abolished and the fundingshifted elsewhere that is more important in the peaking [sic] order...There is so much innature that can improve human lives unlike astrobiology were Americans are payingscientists to speculate which is another reason why it’s not relevant for science!” In85

another example, David Coppedge writes in the ICR’s Acts and Facts magazine’s “Backto Genesis” section that astrobiology is “a curious science...where is the biology inastronomy? So far, it’s only in the imaginations of evolutionists, who think the recipe forlife is as simple as “just add water.’” Needless to say, Coppedge is no astrobiology fan,86

and we can find other similar versions of this argument from various places.

But more relevant for our interests is a second line of criticism, which is more commonoutside the scientific community, and has to do with how some of the issues thatastrobiology deals with are received by the general public, such as extraterrestrial lifeand cosmic evolution. This is the area where the YEC community raises objections to theidea of sentient life in the universe and the claims of cosmic evolution, and also wherethey have spent the most time and energy battling mainstream scientific views.

And as one reads on further in the previous CEH article, it becomes clear that thisdistrust of astrobiology is linked to its perceived evolutionary agenda, although the CEHfolks aren’t happy about the science fiction influences on astrobiology either. They even

83 Alberts, Bruce. “A Grand Challenge to Biology.” Science. September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6047 pg. 1200.84 Creation Evolution Headlines. “Science Without an Object: Astrobiology, Alien Science.” 2011.<http://crev.info/2011/09/science_without_an_object_astrobiology_alien_science/>.85 Deubig, Mike. “Astrobiology: Is it Relevant for Science?.” New Discoveries & Comments AboutCreationism. May 28, 2013.<http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/astrobiology­is­it­relevant­for­science/>.86 Coppedge, David F. “Astrobiology: Follow the ..“ Acts & Facts. 35:7. 2006.<http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/btg/btg­211.pdf>.

30

go out of their way to attack discussions about desert planets without water as a newastrobiology interest (in the context of extremophile life), which they deride as scientific“Duney tunes” that lead astrobiologists to propose ridiculously ideas like “lettingdolphins substitute for space aliens,” a reference to an article by Keith Cooper inAstrobiology Magazine. Focusing on Astrobiology Magazine in particular, they87

suggest that part of the problem with astrobiology is that without “observations,speculation can run rampant,” which in their mind leads to the snarky comment that“astrobiologists apparently like Dune more than Waterworld.” Their two main88

criticisms of astrobiology are 1) their amazement with “how much science can be writtenwithout any data,” and 2) their view that astrobiologists should first get “a handle on thelife under their noses before they can make any credible claims about unobservableentities out in space.” These are easy arguments to repeat, since they are already89

being advanced by other scientists.

In a Creation Ministries International (CMI) talk by Gary Bates called “Aliens, UFOsand the Bible,” Bates refers to this growing association between UFO’s and aliens asevidence of a deeper “science fiction culture” that believes in aliens, largely thanks tosci-fi. It is interestingly to note, however, that the YEC is not alone in criticizing links to90

science fiction, as Antonio Lazcano also raised this issue in some of his comments, inaddition to noting his distaste at discovering “theological musings” within astrobiology.

The search for life beyond Earth is a legitimate scientific question and an alluringintellectual endeavour that can best be served by keeping a healthy distance fromscience-fiction scenarios and from the theological musings that somewhatsurprisingly find their way into astrobiology meetings. Depending on who youspeak to, astrobiology seems to include everything from the chemical compositionof the interstellar medium to the origin and evolution of intelligence, society andtechnology — as if the Universe is following an inevitable upward linear pathleading from the Big Bang to the appearance of life and civilizations capable ofcommunication.91

Such criticisms are not entirely without merit. As we saw earlier, there is some implicit

87Creation Evolution Headlines. “Science Without an Object: Astrobiology, Alien Science.” 2011.<http://crev.info/2011/09/science_without_an_object_astrobiology_alien_science/>.88 Creation Evolution Headlines. “Science Without an Object: Astrobiology, Alien Science.” 2011.<http://crev.info/2011/09/science_without_an_object_astrobiology_alien_science/>.89 Creation Evolution Headlines. “Science Without an Object: Astrobiology, Alien Science.” 2011.<http://crev.info/2011/09/science_without_an_object_astrobiology_alien_science/>.90 Bates, Gary. “Aliens, UFOs and the Bible.” DVD. Creation Book Publishers. 2009.91 Lazcano, Antonio. “Maintaining the Plausible.” Nature. August 2012. Vol. 488. pg. 160.<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7410/pdf/488160a.pdf>.

31

evolutionary techno-teleology logic at work among some in the astrobiology community,especially those involved with the SETI program. In a column on AstroTheology, Dr. TedPeters, professor of Systematic Theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary,suggests that the relationship between religion and astrobiology is not simply a matter ofdeciding how a particular religious worldview might respond to the discovery of life, butinstead involves a deeper question about our basic assumptions about alien life.

The matter before exotheology is not a simple one of reflecting directly on whatscientists know or say. What we consider to be scientific knowledge is all mixed upwith myth. The line between science and myth is blurred, at least in the field ofastrobiology. This is because astrobiology relies upon a number of assumptionsregarding the theory of evolution, assumptions which are unproven yet decisivelyimportant. The employment of assumptions in itself belongs within the sphere ofscience, to be sure. But when assumptions begin to take on the structure of aworldview and elicit a passionate hope for a scientific savior, we have entered thedomain of myth.92

The “scientific savior” that Dr. Peters is referring to here is the discovery of life in space,especially intelligent life, which would prove once and for all there is an alien “subject”which can serve as the “object” vindicating the entire astrobiological project. Andembedded in this claim is a further reference to a particular naturalistic “worldview,”one which Dr. Peters suggests problematically assumes that such an extraterrestrial findautomatically confirms the underlying “theory of evolution” which astrobiology assumes,rightly or wrongly, to be a presupposition requiring no critical discussion. This belief isone of the major points of criticism from creation scientists who are also involved invarious space science fields, including astronomy and astrophysics. It will be useful then,to look at what some of these figures have to say about these issues.

Creation Astronomy 101

So far we have been primarily looking at peripheral arguments against astrobiology fromminor actors and writers, rather than the large para-church organizations and theircreation science advocates. It is to these actors that I now want to turn, since they havethe resources, networks and funding to spread their creation science across the world.Rather than a blog with several hundred readers, organizations like Answers in Genesis(AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society(CRS) literally reach tens of millions of people all over the world, not just in the US, with

92 Peters, Ted. “AstroTheology: Religious Reflections on Extraterrestrial Life Forms.”<http://www.counterbalance.org/astrotheo/>.

32

their creationist messages and Biblical apologetics. They produce DVD’s, books, radioshows, promotional pamphlets, magazines, textbooks and run museums and colleges.Their ideas influence school boards and political decision makers, from the local to theglobal, and their influence seems to be steady or growing here and abroad. So what dothese young earth creationists have to say about astrobiology?

In some ways, the answer is not much, at least yet. The relative newness of astrobiologyas a scientific field has meant that there has not been as much focus on it fromcreationists, as compared to the larger field of astronomy. But in many cases the attackson astronomy from creationists is a proxy for their attacks on astrobiology, since thearguments they make are similar in both cases, and often cover the same materials. Afew of the more common claims of creation astronomers are provided below as anexample, which I compiled from a review of dozens of different creationist sources. Whilenot all of these relate directly to astrobiology, many could easily be extended.

Bible is the history book of the universe Earth is the center of a young universe (6,000 years old) Big Bang has weak or no observational evidence to support it No explanation for singularity that caused Big Bang Universe does not have an equal amount of anti-matter from Big Bang Inflationary theory an ad-hoc attempt to rescue the Big Bang Dark matter and dark energy ad-hoc theories with no proof No explanation for stellar evolution prior to first stars being formed Time operated differently during the Creation Week (distant starlight theories) God “stretched out the heavens” during Creation Week (expansion of universe) Stellar evolution from collapsing nebula not possible Spiral galaxy like the Milky Way should have wound up long ago Old spiral galaxies contain young blue stars that should not exist together Tidal recession suggests the moon and Earth would have touched in recent past Magnetic field decay is not consistent with an old earth, would not support life Comets can’t exist for billions of years, yet we see them today Large extra-solar “hot Jupiter” planets formed near gas giant parent stars No possibility of extraterrestrial life in universe Belief in ETI is a result of secular evolutionism, attempts to replace God Jesus only died for human sin (children of Adam), no alien redemption

As we can see, some are more clearly related to scientific issues within astronomy andastrophysics, such as debates over possible problems with current solar nebula theory,while others are more about religious implications of different views on origins, such as

33

issues of alien redemption. However there is no clear line dividing the two sets ofobjections, scientific and theological, as they are all subsumed under creationism.

The first set of objections have to do with questions rooted in their Biblical worldview, forexample that God created the universe during the six days of Genesis; that the Earth isthe center of creation because God so ordained it; or that we have a unique status in thecosmos because we alone are made in God’s image. These sort of claims are not open toscientific debate, since their premise are theological rather than scientific in nature. Theycould certainly be debated on alternate theological grounds, but those discussions wouldtake place apart from the more general questions of interest to science. For our purposesin this paper those questions are of less importance, so I won’t dwell on them.

The second set of objections are more scientific in nature, and therefore are important toconsider for astrobiology. These objections are more metaphysical in nature, and are adirect result of a young universe ontology. These include the claim that time moved at adifferent speed in the past and attempts to develop a “new physics” to address this andother problems, such as the issue of distant starlight. On the surface these debates canappear to be legitimate, as they are engaging with acknowledged gaps in moderncosmological theories. Creationists take advantage of apparent gaps in our astronomicalknowledge to claim that secular astronomy cannot explain what it purports to believe. Agreat example of this is found at the end of one of the sections of the DVD series“Astronomy: What You Aren’t Being Told About” by Spike Psarris, the founder andperson behind the Creation Astronomy website and video series.

In disc one of this series, titled “Our Created Universe,” Psarris goes through a litany ofsupposed evidence that proves a young universe and disproves what he calls“evolutionary astronomy.” In one of the more telling moments towards the end of thevideo, he quotes a passage by “evolutionary astronomer” Sir Harold Jeffreys from hisbook The Earth: Its Origins, History and Physical Constitution where Jeffreys suggeststhat current models of planetary formation are inadequate and then features this quoteon the screen from his book: “To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the originof the solar system are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present stateof the subject would be that the system cannot exist.” Psaris then uses this quote to93

support the following concluding remarks to the video:

This is the best that evolutionary theory can come up with, our solar systemcannot exist. So the next time you hear about some amazing new discovery that

93 Psarris, Spike. “Astronomy: What You Aren’t Being Told About.” Disc 1. Creation Astronomy Media.2012.

34

confirms evolution again, remember what you have learned in this video.Remember that you’re never told the entire story about these models.Remember that they tell you that they have it all figured out, when in reality thesystem cannot exist. The more we learn about our solar system, the more werealize how bankrupt evolutionary theory is. One the other hand, the Bible hasstood firm the entire time. The more we learn about astronomy, the more wewonder at the beauty and majesty of God’s creation.94

This would appear to be a devastating critique from an astronomer about the wholesecular project if it were accurate. But when we look at what Jeffreys actually wrote, twothings become immediately evident. First, Jeffreys is not discounting the work ofastronomers studying the universe, but rather pointing out that there are still manyunanswered questions about existing origin models, such that the current state ofknowledge does not allow us to satisfactorily explain how our solar system was formed.Elsewhere in his book Jeffers makes it quite clear that the earth is quite old, not young,invalidating the entire position Psarris is advocating. As Jeffers notes at the end of thechapter cited by Psarris, “the age of the universe is now believed to be about 5 x 109

years.” So even though Jeffers may have been critical of the state of cosmological95

science in the 1970s, he nonetheless had no illusions that we lived in a young universe.

We should also point out that Jeffreys first published this book in 1924, and continued torevise it until his death in 1989. The version that Psarris quotes from appears to be thesixth edition from 1976, although the page numbers he lists are different from the copy Ireviewed. The year that Jeffreys first published his book (1924) was also the same yearthat Edwin Hubble proved that the Milky Way was not our entire universe, the first ofmany radical breaks which have take place in our understanding of astronomy. So forPsarris to produce a video in 2012, almost 40 years (or perhaps longer) after Jeffreyswrote those words, is disingenuous at best. It is sadly a typical tactic within creationcircles to use such outright deceptions, such as outdated scientific claim, in rapidlychanging science fields to suggest that the same views still hold true today. Clearly thefields of astronomy and astrophysics have advanced considerably since the 1970s,especially around issues of stellar evolution, as Psarris is more than aware.

Psarris’ videos repeat the common creationist trope that things should not look orfunction the way they do according to secular models, but magically the universe dies fit

94 Psarris, Spike. “Astronomy: What You Aren’t Being Told About.” Disc 1. Creation Astronomy Media.2012.95 Jeffreys, Sir Harold. The Earth: Its Origins, History and Physical Constitution. 6th Ed.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 1976. pg. 383.

35

perfectly with a creationist cosmology. Examples commonly presented to make thisclaim include stellar evolution, spiral galaxies, spacetime expansion and other gaps incurrent astrophysical knowledge--essentially most of the ideas already listed above. Theabsence of scientific evidence is then taken as evidence of scientific absence, a claim MikeRiddle loves to make in his talks on astronomy and the Bible. Creationists claim they caneasily fill those secular holes by inserting God into the explanatory gap, although theywould not explicitly state it in quite that way.

One of the best places to see these arguments in the context of creationist outreach isthe “All-In-One Astronomy Kit” which is sold by AIG (Figure 1). This package includesJason Lisle’s Taking Back Astronomy book, one of the most advanced creationist effortto undermine contemporary astronomy to date that I have seen. The book itself is verybeautiful and high quality, and includes dozens of deep space images embedded within acreation astronomy narrative. The two other main text in this package are an astronomystudy guide for educators called The Heavens Declare God’s Glory by Roger Pattersonand Danny Faulkner’s Universe by Design, who is a well-known creationist astronomeralso affiliated with AIG. Faulkner has written a number of creation astronomy articles,including a paper titled “The Current State of Creation Astronomy,” which he presentedat the 4th International Conference on Creationism that took place in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania in 1998.96

96 Faulkner, Danny. “The Current State of Creation Astronomy.” 4th International Conference on Creationism.Pittsburgh:Creation Science Fellowship. 1998. <http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4507/256/>.

36

(Figure 1: Astronomy All-In-One kit from Answers in Genesis.)

In addition to these texts, there are a number of creation astronomy videos, includingseveral featuring AIG turned ICR scientist Jason Lisle, among the Created Cosmos DVD.Lisle is a trained astrophysicist, and also a leading (and very militant) advocate forcreation astronomy. He is at the vanguard of the creation astronomy movement, as wellas helping to shape creationist science outreach to other fundamentalists. Other familiarcreationist names in the kit include Mike Riddle and Donald DeYoung. Riddle has beenaffiliated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) through their Creation Researchgraduate school, and DeYoung is the president of the Creation Research Society (CRS).Both are very active in creation science circles.

Lisle helped produce and design the “Created Cosmos” DVD included in the kit, and it isalso used by AIG in their 23 minute Stargazer’s Room planetarium show at the CreationMuseum. The promotional material for the show describes it as “an awe-inspiring tourthrough our own solar system plus nebulae, galaxies, and more.” In the intro to his97

Creation Astronomy book, Lisle states that he wrote it “to provide a starting point in thefield of creation astronomy,” which he notes is a weakness for creation science.

97 Lisle, Jason. “Created Cosmos” DVD. Answers in Genesis. Hebron:Answers in Genesis. 2012.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/created­cosmos/?sku=30­9­216>.

37

It is true that creationists have tended to go into other scientific fields like geology orbiology, and because of that we see a much less developed body of creation astronomyideas as compared to flood geology or biological evolution. Danny Faulkner pointed outthis same problem in his 1998 ICC paper addressing the state of creation astronomy. Inthis regard, Faulkner’s work provides some interesting insights into the development ofcreation astronomy at the end of the twentieth century.

Unfortunately the situation in astronomy is not as good. As with biology andgeology, astronomy has become permeated with evolutionary assumptions andconclusions. Unlike those other disciplines, there is no overall theory or, if you will,paradigm, of astronomy from a creationist perspective. Part of the problem hasbeen the lack of researchers in the field. Most people see the obvious effect thatevolution and long time scales have had on geology and biology, and this hasattracted Christian young people to pursue these sciences. The result has beenthat while evolutionary thinking has come to dominate much of astronomy, thishas escaped the notice of most creationists…[but] creationists have proceededwith some ideas. These ideas have generally fallen into three categories:

1. Criticisms of the big bang2. Arguments of design in the universe3. Arguments for a recent creation.98

These same issues are still front and center in the list we outlined above, and which areall reiterated by writers like Lisle, Faulkner and DeYoung. Lisle, like many at AIG,advocates for a strong young earth creationist apologetics, a point he makes quiteexplicitly in the opening pages of Taking Back Astronomy. It is here that we also see astrong and direct tie-in with our interest in astrobiology and ETI.

When we understand the evidence, we will see that it makes sense in light ofScripture. The observations in astronomy are consistent with what the Bibleteaches...We will also explore the idea of extra-terrestrial life. The prevailingevolutionary view accepts alien life as more or less a given, but what does theBible teach? When the evidence is interpreted properly, we will find that it fitswith God’s Word...we will see that the Bible is accurate when it touches onastronomy. The Bible provides a logical foundation for the interpretation ofscientific evidence in the field of astrophysics, as it does for other fields of science.

98 Faulkner, Danny. “The Current State of Creation Astronomy.” 4th International Conference on Creationism.Pittsburgh:Creation Science Fellowship. 1998. <http://icr.org/articles/view/4507/256/> pg. 3.

38

We will see that the evidence makes sense when we view the universe throughbiblical glasses. We are “taking back” the field of astronomy; we are giving theuniverse back to the Lord who created it.99

This idea of “biblical glasses” is a favorite metaphor of Lisle, and is another way of talkingabout the proper creationist worldview. Or as he puts it, “ a world view is like having“mental glasses”...Glasses can either distort or make clear, and so can a world view.”100

The young earth creationist worldview does not just doubt so-called “secularastronomy,” it is actively working to undermine and challenge it, a point I want toemphasize to those in the astrobiology and astronomy community who might otherwisebe inclined to simple wave their hands and ignore creationists.

To make this point more clear, consider the publication Astronomy: The Heaven’sDeclare God’s Glory, which is marketed as an “in-depth curriculum plan” for creationiststhat uses the various books and DVD’s in the AIG kit to construct a 12-week creationastronomy curriculum. The provided “extension activities” include a series of studentexercise, one of which reads as follows: “Research the SETI program or other programssearching for life outside our planet. Write a biblical critique of the thinking behind suchprograms. (Lesson 1). ” If you flip back a page, you learn Lesson 1 is titled “Creation101

Astronomy,” and includes Lisle’s Creation Astronomy DVD, a link to an AIG webpageexplaining the Biblical evidence for a “finely tuned” universe, and two articles bycreationist Donald DeYoung. One discusses the anthropic principle, and the other howgravity remains a “profound mystery” but it also “one of the manifestations of thisawesome divine upholding [of physics by God].”102

Another creationist science textbook titled Exploring Creation with Astronomy byJeannie Fulbright offers a similar young creation view of the universe. For example,chapter two deals with the sun, and in the section on thermonuclear fusion studentslearn that “thermonuclear fusion tells us that there could not have been life on earthbillions, or even millions, of years ago” because “the sun would have been so dim, orfaint, that it could not have provided enough warmth for life on earth.” Other places103

the explanations are even less scientific in appearance, such as discussing Mercury.

99 Lisle, Jason. Taking Back Astronomy. Green Forest:Master Books. 2011. pgs 10­11.100 Lisle, Jason. Taking Back Astronomy. Green Forest:Master Books. 2011. pg 7.101 Patterson, Roger. Astronomy: The Heaven’s Declare God’s Glory. An In­Depth Curriculum Plan forCreation Resources on Astronomy and the Bible. Petersburg:Answers in Genesis. 2009. pg. 7.102 DeYoung, Don. “Gravity: The Mystery Force.” Answers in Genesis. 2000.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n3/gravity>.103 Fulbright, Jeannie K. Exploring Creation with Astronomy. Anderson:Apologia Educational Ministries.2001. pg. 20.

39

Here Fulbright argues that the craterless portions of Mercury disproves an old universe.She suggest that claims about “new” portions of Mercury with minimal cratering createdby volcanic activity has no basis in evidence. What is the argument she makes to supportthis claim? “Of course, we know that God created the whole planet of Mercuryinstantaneously, with only a Word. I also believe that the whole planet is not nearly thatold, because I think the Bible tells us that God spoke it into existence only a fewthousand years ago.” There you have it, creation astronomy at its homeschool finest,104

where every student learns that evolutionary astronomers are trying to deceive trueBible believers, and the secular belief in an old universe reminds us that “Satan is alwaystrying to turn mankind from the one true God and trick us into worshipping idols,” whichin this case happen by studying and “worshipping” the stars in an old universe.105

So what we find in these various apologetic texts and videos is that students exposed tothese young creation ideas are not only being taught that astrobiology or astronomy isagainst the Bible as commonly taught, but that they must also actively oppose theseideas. This attempt to confront secular science is a hallmark of AIG and ICR’s style ofcreation apologetics, and it is this approach to fundamentalist apologetics and evangelismthat is on the rise in the US. This is part of what makes these ideas and movements sodangerous and so effective.

Here it is worth stepping back in time a moment, towards the end of the 20th centuryand the activity of creationists at that time. In his concluding remarks about the state ofcreation astronomy in 1989, Professor Danny Faulkner had this to say:

So what is the state of creationist astronomy? We have seen that it has some goodpoints to make. We have also seen that there have been some false starts andsome problems. We must go beyond arguing what is wrong with evolutionarymodels. What is needed is an overall model or paradigm to describe the universe.A formation and history of the solar system must be explored. A particularlyimportant question to address here is when and how the cratering that we see inthe solar system occurred. Did the cratering occur during creation, at the fall,during the flood, or at some other time? A few authors have begun work on thisquestion. If we are not satisfied with stellar evolution, then we must providephysical arguments against it and supply our alternative. For the universe as a

104 Fulbright, Jeannie K. Exploring Creation with Astronomy. Anderson:Apologia Educational Ministries.2001. pg. 34.105 Fulbright, Jeannie K. Exploring Creation with Astronomy. Anderson:Apologia Educational Ministries.2001. pg. 154.

40

whole we must explain the light travel time in a plausible way. Some progress hasbeen made in creationist astronomy, but there is much work to be done. Olderarguments must be continually reevaluated and expanded...It is hoped that thisdiscussion has inspired some who are already competent in the field to pursuethese matters or encouraged bright young people to enter the field for thispurpose.106

We can compare this to a later statement made by Faulkner in his Universe By Design

book, which was published in 2004. Again commenting on the state of creationastronomy he notes that “it is important that creationists go beyond criticizingnon-biblical or evolutionary cosmologies and develop our own positive models.Unfortunately, only meager progress to this end can be reported at this time, butavenues of possible research will be suggested.” So it does not appear that much107

progress was made on the creation astronomy front in the intervening years from 1998to 2004. But it is clear that nearly a decade later, creationist astronomy has finally madeconsiderable advances. Jason Lisle is precisely one of those “bright young people” whowas on his way to becoming a creation astronomer at the end of the twentieth century,just as Faulkner had hoped would happen. Lisle is now part of the core group of youngearth apologists training the future generation of creation scientists to take on fields likeastronomy and astrobiology and re-write these field in line with a biblical worldview. Thefact that we have seen a significant growth in these ideas in under a decade should be awake up call to anyone who feels they can simply write off creationism.

A Question of Time

One final observation is necessary here in relation to the most intense area of focuswithin creation astronomy today, which is the distant starlight problem. The creationastronomy community has been dedicated to this one specific problem above all othersfor the last decade, as witnessed in their journals and apologetics. Put simply, theproblem is that if our universe is billions of light years across, a point most creationistsdo accept, but the universe is only 6,000 years old, this appears to be a contradiction.There should not be light millions or billions of light years away from Earth if there hasonly been thousands of years for light to exist. Under current time conceptions, thisobservable fact requires billions of years of time to have already elapsed in the universe.Surely this is a clear refutation of the young universe theory, scientists argue. Whilethere is not an agreed-upon final answer yet among young earth creationists, the most

106 Faulkner, Danny. “The Current State of Creation Astronomy.” 4th International Conference onCreationism. Pittsburgh:Creation Science Fellowship. 1998. <http://icr.org/articles/view/4507/256/> pg. 15.107 Faulkner, Danny. Universe By Design: An Explanation of Cosmology and Creation. Green Forest:MasterBooks. 2004. pg. 7.

41

prominent view is that some variation of spacetime dilation can solve the problem.

So what is spacetime dilation? This topic was the focus of Russell Humphreys’ 1994 bookStarlight and Time, John Hartnett’s 2007 book Starlight, Time and the New Physics,which built on Hartnett’s earlier book, and several articles by Jason Lisle, including hismuch hyped 2010 "Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the DistantStarlight Problem" paper published in the Answers Research Journal, which built onboth earlier theories. This question is also the topic of at least half a dozen videos by all108

three authors, and appears in virtually every book, video or article I have come acrossfrom the young earth creation community. Yet it is also a topic I do not address at lengthin this paper, which may seem quite illogical, given that my focus is on young earthcreation astronomy. I believe there are two good reasons for this.

First, the question of distant starlight touches peripherally on the issue of astrobiology inthat they both rely on certain notions of the past for their theories. Astrobiology assumesbillions of years of natural cosmic evolution, whereas creation astronomy assumes sixdays of instant and supernatural creation. But the question of light time travel as framedby creationists has not been a concern for astronomers as far as I am aware. This ideawas developed to justify the young earth cosmology, and hence is not given muchattention in actual astrophysics or astronomy circles. However time dilation itself is ofinterest to physicists and others as it relates Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Itmay be worth recalling how Einstein framed the question of time in physics: “Eventswhich are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous withrespect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body(co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-bodyto which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time ofan event.” Beyond a general interest in time, the distant starlight problem has little to109

do with questions of ETI, nor are extraterrestrial issues linked in any of the variouscreationist discussions about distant starlight that I have seen.

Second, and more relevant, is the issue of scientific competency. While questions ofspacetime, relative simultaneity and cosmological constants are fascinating, the actualscience underlying the distant starlight debate is mostly advanced physics, which isbeyond my level of expertise. This becomes especially clear when looking at the work of

108 Humphreys, D. Russell. Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe.Green Forest:Master Books. 1994; Hartnett, John. Starlight, Time and the New Physics. Atlanta:CreationMinistries International. 2007.; Lisle, Jason. “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the DistantStarlight Problem.” Answers Research Journal. Vol. 3. 2010. pgs. 191­207.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic­synchrony­convention>.109 Einstein, Albert. Relativity:The Special and General Theory. New York:Crown Publishers. 1961. pg. 26.

42

Hartnett in relation to Moshe Carmeli and his proposal for a 5D physics model he callsCosmological Special Relativity (CSR), where he introduces the idea of spacevelocity toreplace Einstein’s spacetime as an expression of the expanding velocity of the fabric ofspace itself. This model has been adapted and expanded by Hartnett and others, and110

forms part of the core of the new creation astronomy work by figures like Jason Lisle.

But without a deep understanding of relativistic and general physics and advancedmathematics, evaluating these debates is beyond the scope of the average layperson.Therefore I have not included a more detailed analysis here. However this should not beseen as evidence of its unimportance, especially for those in the field of astronomy orastrophysics, since the proposal seeks to create a “new physics” model for the universethat is entirely compatible with a creationist worldview while still defensible within thetheoretical limits of what we view as the known laws of physics. It has also becomeincreasingly central to the creation astronomy package, and even shows up inhomeschool science text and popular apologetics talks. As a final anecdote, someone evengave a talk in a small Polish Baptist church in Greenpoint next door to where I liverecently, and the speaker used Hartnett and Humphrey’s ideas to argue against the bigbang and for a young earth, so it’s not just in big creation organizations that we find thesearguments. The very fact that a traveling evangelist based in Maryland would come to asmall Polish Baptist church in North Brooklyn to talk about the big bang and distantstarlight is itself telling, and suggests these ideas are gaining more attention.

Like the above church example, we should expect to see these creationist ideas slowlyfiltering out from the central creationist groups into their affiliated church networks andaffiliated followers. If all of these creationist arguments and ideas are really growing andbecoming more influential in popular culture, where else can we look for evidence? Wehave already examined public polls and some survey data, as well as a number oftextbooks, videos and creationist publicity materials. But in many ways these lastmaterials are self-referential, they are already within a biblical frame of referencesomewhat removed from the heart of popular culture. To gain more insights into thisastrobiology-creationism nexus, I look at a recent effort to solicit public feedback on theissue of extraterrestrial life in space and see how much, if any, these creationist ideas arevisible. If in fact they are having an impact on the public, we should expect to see thisreflected in what the public is saying in their comments.

110 Hartnett, John. Starlight, Time and the New Physics. Atlanta:Creation Ministries International. 2007. pg.41.

43

Hello from Earth Case Study

One of the most potentially interesting popular astrobiology phenomenon of recent yearstook place in 2009 in Australia under the name “Hello from Earth.” The event was111

organized by Cosmos Magazine, an Australian science publication, as part of theNational Science Week in Australia and the International Year of Astronomy. Jumping112

on the popularity of the work that NASA and others in the astrobiology community hadbeen doing, they decided to send a message to possible life on Gliese 581d, an exoplanetlinked to the red dwarf star Gliese 581 in the constellation Libra, about twenty lightyears from Earth. Cosmos held a public contest to collect short text messages from113

across the globe, which they would then beam into space towards the direction of Gliese581d in the hopes of making contact with some extraterrestrial life. As the website114

state, “Of the eight planets in our Solar System, only one - Earth - has life, as far as weknow. But there are 400 million other suns in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in theuniverse - so the chances are high that life exists elsewhere, and that intelligence andcivilisation will have arisen more than once.”115

Cosmos received over 40,000 short messages, with close to 29,000 of those messagesbeing “verified” as legitimate e-mails. Those messages were then translated into116

binary code (01101), compressed, and beamed at Gliese 581d from the Canberra DeepSpace Communication Complex in Tidbinbilla, Australia on August 28, 2009, accordingto the website. The message should reach Gliese 581d in a little over 16 years, or117

around 2029, which is not long after the “A Message From Earth” broadcast is slated toalso makes contact. For the curious public the Cosmos website also has a real timecountdown clock which lets the public know exactly how far and long until the messagereaches its destination. Pictured below is an artists rendering of what Gliese 581 and118

its planetary neighbors could hypothetically look like (Image 1). It is worth noting thatexoplanets g and f in the image below were both discovered after the 2009 Hello fromEarth project was already completed. At least in theory, Gliese 581g is an even more

111 Interestingly, this was actually the second such effort involving Gliese 581. The first took place in 2008under the name “A Message from Earth,” where messages were collected and 501 select messages werebeamed at Gliese 581c. However, due to both the project website being offline and Bebo being underconstruction, not enough data was available to construct a useful case study. Some materials are stillaccessible on a Bebo profile page here: http://archive.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6864550350.112 Cosmos Magazine. “What is Hello From Earth.” 2009.<http://www.hellofromearth.net/gliese581d/whatis/>.113 Wikipedia contributors. "Gliese 581." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2013.114 Cosmos Magazine. “Hello From Earth.” 2009. <http://www.hellofromearth.net>.115 Cosmos Magazine. “Hello From Earth.” 2009. <http://www.hellofromearth.net/gliese581d/whatis/>.116 Personal communication with Cosmos Magazine.117 Cosmos Magazine. “Hello From Earth.” 2009. <http://www.hellofromearth.net>.118 Cosmos Magazine. “Hello From Earth.” 2009. <http://www.hellofromearth.net/>.

44

ideal exoplanet than 581d.

(Image 1: Artist rendering of Gliese 581 red dwarf star and associated exoplanets.)

After several rounds of back and forth communication with the publishers at CosmosMagazine, I was finally sent an excel file with all of their reviewed final text messagesthat were ultimately sent into space, giving me a sample size of N=29,000 messages. Tolook for possible creationist messages from this huge data set, I started with a roughfilter using religious keywords, including: God, Jesus, Christianity, Christ, Bible, heaven,hell, faith, savior, saved, blessing and religion. From this first rough filtering I then readthrough the messages, removing those that were clearly not related, such as messagesincluding people named Godlin or Jesus, which were false positive keyword hits. Thesetwo round of filtering narrowed down the relevant messages considerably, leaving a finalsample of N=647. From this sample I then coded the messages into a number ofsubcategories based on message content. These subcategories were: Explicit, OtherFaith, Incidental, God Question, Alien Focused, Reject God, Bible Quoted andCreationism. The following (Figure 2) shows the breakdown of the 647 messages.119

119 Two methodological caveats should be noted here. First, these subcategories could have beenconstructed differently, so it could be argued my choice of thematic groups is somewhat arbitrary.

45

(Figure 2: Hello from Earth religious message content.)

One example of an explicitly Christian messages reads as follows from someone inBogota, Columbia. “Hi: I share with John 3:16 which says: For God so loved in this worldthat He gave His Son, that whosoever believes in Him is not lost but have life. Blessings.”

While it is impossible to tell the writer’s religious view from just this short message, it120

is clear that there is a strong Biblical influence that shares a family resemblance toevangelical views and messages common to creationists.

Another example, this one from Genesis 1:1, invokes the original creation moment asdescribed in the first line of the Old Testament. “In the beginning God created theheaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon

Secondly, as I did not conduct a systematic content analysis with independent coders, the classification ofthese messages is open to re­interpretation. A more systematic coding might have arrived at different totalsor even subcategory. But since my main focus is not a detailed statistical analysis, I believe thesemethodological issue are not significant enough to impact the analysis presented here.120 Hello from Earth Database.

46

the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” These121

messages would seem to be one of the best places to look for creationist messages, asyoung earth texts are generally quite rich in their use of supporting biblical passages. Inreviewing these messages, however, only 28 of the messages I reviewed appear to haveany explicit Biblical content, either in the form of direct Bible passages or specific versesbeing cited, as shown below (Figure 3).

(Figure 3: Hello from Earth Biblical references in public comments.)

It is telling that not only the Bible passages cited, but also the majority of the explicitlyreligious messages submitted by the public, have to do with Jesus Christ and aregenerally framed with strong evangelical language. A few examples will illustrate this.

If your planet really exists, has the Creator revealed Himself to you? He has to ushere on Earth. His Name is Jesus Christ.

HELLO! I am glad to know that the Lord Jesuchrist is Lord in the wholeplanetary system. The Holy Spirit confirmed to my spirit that Jesuchrist is LORDEVERYWHERE. [sic]

Hi, Jesus died for us. Did he die for you too? Lets talk about the maker of theuniverse! Hows YOUR planet? I want to share technology with you!

121 Hello from Earth Database. The original message ran together without any spaces. I have added spacesand punctuation for the sake of readability.

47

God exist. Jesus Christ is our Lord.

Jesus is lord of the universe, also died and rose for you.

Only Jesus Christ saves, heals, liberates and baptizes with the Holy Spirit. He'sthe Way, the Truth and the Life. (Mãnica Sampaio - Rio de Janeiro - Brasil)

Hello my friend, do you believe in God? I just want to tell you Jesus, God's Son,loves you and died for your sin. May God bless you and your planet.

Aliens are demon angels who rebelled against God & were ousted from heaven &disguise themselves as aliens to deceive mankind. Mankind, accept Jesus & besaved!

In this universe, Jesus Christ is the Lord and all creation to worship!122

The clear majority of religious messages are either evangelizing in focus or explicitlyreferring to Jesus, and often both. The problem here for us, however, is that it isextremely difficult to say with any certainty if these evangelical messages are alsocreationist, since there are no explicit references to a young earth or universe or othercreationist markers as we find in other text and materials. Therefore it would seem thatthe best we can do is to say that the majority of explicitly religious messages from aChristian perspective present an evangelical worldview with special emphasis on sharingthe Gospel of Jesus with any potential extraterrestrial contact in Gliese 581d.

While these explicit religious messages make up the bulk of all religious messages, it isworth looking briefly at these less explicitly religious messages as well. An example ofthe less common and less explicit religious messages reads as follows from K in Poland:“MY God it is full of stars... ;-).” Another example came from Tejaswini in India, whowrote “Hi Friend! How do you do? I like to invite you and your friends to my beautifulearth. Be friend to us. I hope you will visit my earth."Love Is God".” These type of123

messages were the third most common, and varied in content. In general, they areimplicitly religious in their references to God but carried no explicit theological contentbeyond that. Many of these messages appeared with a reference to God in a closinggreeting, such as this one from someone in Miami, Florida: “Greetings, We come in peaceand send our best intentions through the galaxy. God bless us all!”124

122 Hello from Earth Database.123 Hello from Earth Database.124 Hello from Earth Database.

48

Although not my focus here, I also ran across religious messages from other faithtraditions, with the biggest majority being Islamic messages. One noteworthy messagesfrom this subcategory was by someone named “Muslim Man” in Egypt who wrote: “NoGod but ALLAH and Muhammad is the messenger of ALLAH, i'm Muslim Man fromEarth, and i invite you to islam.” It would appear that Christian fundamentalists aren’t125

the only ones interested in alien conversion.

So while it seems nearly impossible to address the specific issue of young earthcreationism in these messages, there are several that dealt with the topics of science andreligion more broadly that are worth exploring. One example comes from someone inArgentina who posit the possible existence of multiple worlds, and Gardens of Eden, allunder God’s domain. “If you are still in paradise, and someone called God told them notto eat the forbidden fruit ... please do not eat.”126

While the idea that there could be parallel worlds in which humans exist differently issomething which has been debated in the past, it is not a claim that seems easy toreconcile with a literal interpretation of the Bible. The possibility of another Adam andEve making a different set of choices in the Garden of Eden calls into question thefundamental uniqueness of humans on Earth, problematizes the idea of Sin linked to thefall, and negates the need for Jesus to be crucified and resurrected. If there were otherworlds with a Garden of Eden, and Eve had not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge ofGood and Evil, then there might not be Original Sin or death, and thus no need for Jesusto forgive (much less die for) our sins. Furthermore, God would not have needed to wipeout all life--save Noah and his kin in the Flood--a concession which problematizes anycreation science argument about the Flood forming our present-day geology or the decayof the universe being a function of this original human sin.

Although extremely rare in the sample examined here, there were a few directreferences to this so-called conflict between religion and science. “I have so manyquestions to ask: Do you believe in God & creationism or evolution? Is the answer to life,universe & everything really 42? Why won't you answer?” This and two other127

messages asking about belief in a 6000 year old earth were the only messages thataddressed any creationist ideas, and none were advanced as support for the idea.

But not every message about religion was positive. As noted in the chart of the major

125 Hello from Earth Database.126 Hello from Earth Database.127 Hello from Earth Database.

49

themes, about 10 percent of the messages suggested either that there is no such thing asGod, at least in the traditional Christian context. A good example of a scientific andexplicitly anti-religious messages sent to Gliese 581d is the following: “Hello from ourplanet called earth. Please return communication to disprove the existance [sic] of godand advance our desire to explore space. Thanks.” This view seems to reflect the128

arguments of scientists like Jill Tarter who viewed extraterrestrial contact as a deathblow to organized religious views dependent on a literal understanding of Biblicalcreation. Another public message, this one from Australia, links the religiousdestabilization--here specifically Catholicism--with the notion of a natural, teleologicalevolution that views religion as something of the past to “evolve” beyond. “Yourexistence kills the catholic idea of God. Thank you for help us to evolve.” A similar129

message came from someone in Slovakia: “Hello, creatures of the distant world. If youhave advanced technology that enables you to travel to our planet, please use it. Comeand tell us there is no god!”130

In Tarter’s article we looked at earlier from Dick’s Many Worlds book, we can see twoimportant presuppositions reflected in her thinking about religions and ETI that seem toalso appear in some public comments. First, there is the explicit assumption that historyis a linear progression from the “primitive” religious past to an advanced industrialtechno-future. “We can imagine that elsewhere long-lived technologies may have beendeveloped by intelligent creatures who never had the need to invent God(s) or religions,or who did so in their youth, but later replaced them with a more scientific world view.”

So in a comment from Melbourne we find the following view. “Please ignore "God",131

"Allah" or other religious references in these messages. We have not yet evolved pastreligion, but I hope you have.” Another messages argues “Hello Glieseians. Just so you132

know there is no point in worshiping a god. That fact alone should save your world 2000years of warfare AT LEAST!!”

Such messages from the public appear to mirror arguments from SETI and other secularspace science advocates we have been examining. “Hello, creatures of the distant world,”writes another message submitter, who goes on to request that if ETIs have “advancedtechnology that enables you to travel to our planet, please use it. Come and tell us thereis no god!” Another person writes in their message “Religions impede Earthling brain133

128 Hello from Earth Database.129 Hello from Earth Database.130 Hello from Earth Database.131 Tarter, Jill Cornell. “SETI and the Religions of the Universe” in Many Worlds: The New Universe,Extraterrestrial Life & The Theological Implications. Radnor:Templeton Foundation Press. 2000. pg. 147.132 Hello from Earth Database.133 Hello from Earth Database.

50

evolution. Forgive us.” Theologian Ted Peters, who we looked at briefly before, raised134

similar criticism of these assumption that somehow extraterrestrial life or alien contactwill jump start a new and more advanced era of humankind, one which will displace ordisprove religion. “The model of the celestial saviour is the key for understanding boththe unidentified flying object (UFO) phenomenon and the assumptions at work in thefield of astrobiology, especially the assumptions made at SETI,” says Peters.135

In a similar vein to the cosmological savior idea that Peters and others discuss, notedcosmologist Lawrence Krauss argued for a stardust origins story and against anytheological basis or relevance for our place in the universe.

You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because theelements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter forevolution – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in thenuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is ifthose stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so thatyou could be here today.136

As one can imagine, this is hardly a message sympathetic to Christians of any stripe, andis precisely the type of argument from those involved in discussing origin science thatcreationists often point out to support their claims of a theologically hostile scientificcommunity. A recent survey of astrobiology and Christian responses in Astrobiology,History and Society by Constance M. Bertka suggests that these skeptical religiousviews may in fact be quite common in the astrobiological community, citing prominentfigures such as Steven Dick, Jill Tarter, and Paul Davies. “Just how widely this view [ofETI contact challenging religion] may be representative of the SETI or astrobiologycommunity at large is by no means certain, but it is a view that has elicited the responseof contemporary Christian theologians.”137

These comments also needs to be seen in the wider context of American religiosity andbeliefs about ETI. George Pettinico notes in his study of religious beliefs andextraterrestrials that “More religious Americans (as measured by frequency of religious

134 Hello from Earth Database.135 Peters, Ted. “The Implications of the Discovery of Extra­Terrestrial Life for Religion.” PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society A. 2011. 369:1936. pg 654.136 Krauss, Lawrence M. "A Universe From Nothing." Atheist Alliance International. 2009.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo>.137 Bertka, Constance M. “Christianity’s Response to the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life: Insightsfrom Science and Religion and the Sociology of Religion” in D.A. Vakoch (Ed.) Astrobiology, History andSociety:Life Beyond Earth and the Impact of Discovery. Berlin:Springer­Verlag. 2013. pg. 332.

51

service attendance) are twice as likely to reject the notion of life on other planets. Simplyput, the more religious a person is in America today, the less likely he/ she is to believein life beyond Earth.” So we need to also keep this in mind, since there may be some138

predispositions for or against ETI simply based on our philosophical worldview andirrespective of how the actual evidence or arguments are framed. This idea certainly fitswith the theme of competing worldviews I have been arguing for here in this context ofyoung earth creationism versus cosmological or biophysical evolution in astrobiology.

In this last regard we could imagine some middle ground, which one of our publiccommenters actually offers, perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Someone from Tampa,Florida writes that “The Earth is forever but we have really messed it up by humanprocesses. Please come and save us if you get this God. In fact send Jesus with a largeU.F.O.” One can only imagine the bizarre chaos that would be unleashed if an alien139

Jesus would arrive in a spaceship from outerspace! While I have not seen anything in theChristian literature--literalist or otherwise--that addresses this possibility, it does raiseone interesting religious question for the literalists. While the Bible speaks of the SecondComing of Jesus and the Final Judgement, it doesn’t actually specify how he wouldreturn, other than various portends and signs. Therefore it would seem at least plausiblethat Jesus could return to Earth in any form he pleased, so why not an alien spaceship?There’s no theological argument I am aware of that would completely foreclose thispossibility, even if it seems farfetched. All we really know about the Second Coming ofJesus is that he will supposedly descend from Heaven with a host of angels, and possiblelighting and fire, and as Matthew 24 reminds us, it will be “in an hour that ye think notthe Son of man cometh.”140

But any alien savior idea itself is problematic for most creationists. This is due in part tothe fact that alien life, for most creationists, is a prior premised on a belief in evolution,which as we have seen is a non starter for them. Our friend Jason Lisle actuallyaddresses this point in some length in his book on ETs, UFOs and the Bible. He writes:

The idea of extraterrestrial life stems largely from a belief in evolution. Recall thatin the evolutionary view, the earth is “just another planet”—one where theconditions just happened to be right for life to form and evolve. If there arecountless billions of other planets in our galaxy, then surely at least a handful of

138 Pettinico, George. “American Attitudes About Life Beyond Earth: Beliefs, Concerns, and the Role ofEducation and Religion in Shaping Public Perceptions” in Civilizations Beyond Earth: Extraterrestrial Lifeand Society. New York:Berghahn Books. Kindle Edition. 2013. (Kindle Locations 2094­2096)139 Hello from Earth Database.140 American Standard Version Bible. New York:Thomas Nelson & Sons. 1901. pg. 25.

52

these worlds have also had the right conditions. Extraterrestrial life is almostinevitable in an evolutionary worldview.

However, the notion of alien life does not square well with Scripture. The earth isunique. God designed the earth for life (Isaiah 45:18). The other planets have anentirely different purpose than does the earth, and thus, they are designeddifferently...From a biblical perspective, extraterrestrial life does not seemreasonable...Although very entertaining, such alien races are theologicallyproblematic. Intelligent alien beings cannot be redeemed. God’s plan ofredemption is for human beings: those descended from Adam.141

Here we see the two main issues we have been tracing in various forms, a critique ofevolution and a defense of the Biblical concept of salvation and redemption throughJesus. Both views are called into question by astrobiology on Lisle’s reading of the issue,since both require core Biblical assumptions to be rethought or at least reconsidered.Neither is possible from the YEC perspective, as numerous creationist authors makequite clear over and over again in their writings. As Ken Ham writes about NASA'sExobiology Program and their work with SETI to find “little green men” in space:

They refuse to accept the possibility that the God of creation as spoken of in theHoly Scriptures is that intelligence—the infinitely intelligent Creator. Why? Itwould mean that this Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, is Lord over them, and theymust kneel and worship Him, and accept their sinfulness and the need forsalvation. As those scientists look into outer space, it is as if they are shaking theirfists at Jesus Christ, defiantly saying ‘we refuse to accept you as Lord over us.’142

From these various examples, it seems clear that any middle ground with individualslike Ham, Lisle and other YEC advocates will be hard to find for many astrobiologists,and likely impossible for those either committed explicitly to atheism or generallyskeptical of a Biblical Christian worldviews in general. Yet as we saw in the case of theHello from Earth messages, it is not evident that these young earth creationist ideas arehaving much impact at present on popular discourse around issues like astrobiology andextraterrestrial life. If they are evident, better measures need to be constructed toseparate them from overall evangelical or fundamentalist views. It is clear that religiousmessages are present, but they represent a small minority of the total publiccomments-- approximately 2% (N=647) in the case of our sample (N=29,000). And

141 Lisle, Jason. Answers in Genesis. “Are ETs & UFOs Real?” 12.6.2007.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are­ets­and­ufos­real>.142 Ham, Ken. “Calling Little Green Men” in Acts & Facts. 21 (11). 1992.

53

those more explicitly evangelical messages are even smaller, representing just over 200messages, or about 0.69% of total public comments, hardly a significant number.

Two things may account for these low numbers. First, since this program was organizedthrough an Australian science magazine, and was tied in to national and internationalscience promotions, it is likely that a certain amount of selection bias is already present,compared to is something like this had been done in the US in a different context.However, it is worth nothing in this regard that US contributed the second largest blockof messages (4,215 messages or 14.5%) after Australia (7,257 message or 25%). If theUS portion had been more, perhaps we would have seen more fundamentalist orevangelical messages, as overall support is highest for these views in the US. Secondly,the fact that surveys such as the one undertaken by George Pettinico suggest that morereligious individuals are less likely to believe in extraterrestrials suggests they wouldalso be less likely to take part in a “secular” science effort with the explicit goal ofsending messages in space with the hopes of extraterrestrial life hearing them andresponding. So both of these factors should be taken into consideration when looking atthe small results in the Hello from Earth example.

From this limited case, we can suggest the impact of young earth creationist ideas onastrobiology and extraterrestrial life debates appears hard to discern, at least in thistype of public discourse. However, we do see clear evidence of general evangelical andfundamentalist views promoting the Bible and the message of salvation and redemptionthrough Jesus Christ in the explicitly religious messages. In fact, this was the dominanttheme of the messages, which was true regardless of where the message came from. Amore detailed analysis might reveal state or country-level convergences, but such ananalysis was not undertaken in this paper. However, the dataset would allow this deeperlevel of analysis, and a gps mapping of thematic messages overlaid with religiousdemographic maps could yield additional patterns not observable at the level of text.

54

Conclusion

In looking back at this extended discussion on astrobiology and young earth creationism,several points are worth reiterating here. As we have seen, the young earth creationistworldview does have a visible impact on popular culture, although the impact andvisibility is not uniform. Going back to the late 1980s, efforts have been made within thecreation science community to develop a positive creation astronomy program thatwould allow existing creationist ideas to be extended to debates over origins,extraterrestrial life and even spacetime itself. While still in its early stages, thismovement has grown under the guidance of various creation scientists and theiraffiliated para-church organizations.

Based on a limited examination of public opinion polls and other popular survey data,there appears to be a sizeable base of Christian fundamentalist beliefs in the US publicthat young earth creationists can draw upon, and this support appears to be steady forthe moment. If this trend will continue or change is impossible to say, although wecertainly would expect to see either a growth or decrease in support at some point intime based on past historical trends. Other factors, such as a potential contact event withETI, or major advances in space travel, could also play an important role in influencingthis question. How these efforts will impact the future of astrobiology is still unclear, butthe scientific community should not ignore this religious movement and its influences onscience debates in society at large.

In reflecting on the substantive issue at hand, young earth creationist objections toastrobiology and SETI can be grouped into two major themes. One has to do with issuesrooted in theology and Biblical hermeneutics, such as the belief in a young universe and asupernatural origins cosmology as found in Genesis, based on a particular literal readingof Genesis. While not all Christians who hold a literal Biblical worldview agree with ayoung earth creation cosmology, as the old earth creation and progressive creationmovements attest to, they appear to be the majority in defining what a “literal” readingof the Bible appears to entail in terms of beliefs on origin questions. If the astrobiologycommunity wishes to engage with this part of the movement and debate, scientificarguments are insufficient, and instead theological arguments are needed.

The second has to do with the field of astrobiology itself, and includes issues like publicfunding for astrobiology research and the challenges of a field without a confirmed objectof study. Both sets of objections are raised by creationists, but not all of them can beanswered by scientists within a naturalistic framework. However this second set ofobjections is more amenable to scientific arguments and proofs. If we were to someday

55

find some form of ETI, the case for astrobiology as a valid science would be strengthenedconsiderably, while simultaneously undermining any arguments about a science withoutan object or a field unworthy of public funding. At the same time, the likelihood of suchan encounter is out of our hands, so other than continuing to make the case forastrobiology, there is not much of a positive project to recommend here. We can’t speedup or improve the likelihood of contact with an ETI if in fact none exist (or if they areforever beyond our reach), a sensitive issue which astrobiologist need to accept as apossibility.

These two themes raise a question for those interested in, if you will pardon the analogy,spreading the gospel of astrobiology: how to engage with those who oppose the basicpremise of this field on theological grounds, and how or when to separate discussions offaith from discussions of science? Can a positive case for astrobiology be made within atheological framework that is simultaneously faithful to science and a literal belief in theBible, or are the two totally irreconcilable? In other words, is it possible to develop anastrobiology apologetics as a way to bridge the religion-science divide, and is this worthexploring? The answer, I suspect, will partly depend on who you ask. Perhaps there is noroom for a literal Biblical astrobiology, but instead a mainline Biblical astrobiology. Herewe might look for indicators from bodies like The Center for Theology and the NaturalScience or the Zygon Center for Religion and Science to see how successful models forfurther bridging work have already been operating.143

As our knowledge of and reach into the universe slowly expands, the likelihood of anextraterrestrial encounter also increases. But these advances are not likely tofundamentally impact young earth creationist worldviews since they are rooted inmetaphysical presuppositions determined by personal belief, rather than empiricalevidence--although I suspect creation scientists would dispute that characterization. Ifthe astrobiology community does wish to engage with young earth creationists orcreation astronomers, the issues and objections raised in this paper will inevitable comeup in those conversations. In addition, debates over evolution, the age of the earth and ofthe universe will be an inevitable part of these conversations.

Whether or not astrobiology should attempt to engage with creation scientists and thelarger creationism movement is an open question for which I have no answer. It wouldseem prudent to at least consider more intentionally how astrobiology at presentengages with communities of faith, not just creationists, since theological differences willbe an important part of the larger context to negotiate when thinking about public

143 Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. <http://www.ctns.org>.; Zygon Center for Religion andScience. <http://zygoncenter.org>.

56

engagement on the topic of astrobiology. In this sense, continuing to promote a conflictframe between science and religion would not seem useful, despite the seemingly naturaltendency of some SETI advocates to push in this direction. It would also seem that thereare some natural points of entry into a shared dialog around the issue of origins andcosmology stories that could be productively explored as one possible point of commonentry between science and religion. As a number of people have commented in thisregard, the Big Bang singularity is no less miraculous or mysterious than the creationistidea of God creating the universe in six days. Both require a certain faith.

I leave you with this closing thought, penned over three centuries ago by noted Frenchintellectual Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle, reflecting on a similar topic as ours.

Besides, you’ve arrived at the last vault of the heavens, and to tell you if there aremore stars beyond that, one would have to be more able than I am. You may putmore systems there or not, it’s up to you. They’re properly the province of thephilosophers, those great invisible countries may be there or not as one wishes, orbe whatever one wishes. I’m satisfied to have taken your mind as far as your eyescan see.144

###

144 de Fontenelle, Bernard le Bouvier. Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds. H.A. Hargreaves, trans.Berkeley:University of California Press. 1990. pg. 73.

57

Bibliography

Alberts, Bruce. “A Grand Challenge to Biology.” Science. September 2011: Vol. 333 no.6047 pg. 1200.

American Standard Version Bible. New York:Thomas Nelson & Sons. 1901.

Answers in Genesis. “The AiG Statement of Faith.” 12/12/2012.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith>.

Astrobiology Magazine. “About Us.” web. October 6, 2013.<http://www.astrobio.net/aboutus.php>.

Bally, John and Bo Reipurth. The Birth of Stars and Planets. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. 2006.

Bates, Gary. “Did God create life on other planets?” Creation. 29:2. 2007. pgs 12-15.<http://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets>.

Bates, Gary. “Aliens, UFOs and the Bible.” DVD. Creation Book Publishers. 2009.

Bates, Gary. Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. PowderSprings:Creation Ministries International. 2010.

Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. SanFrancisco:Harper. 1997.

Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion. San Francisco:Harper. 2000.

Bertka, Constance M. “Christianity’s Response to the Discovery of ExtraterrestrialIntelligent Life: Insights from Science and Religion and the Sociology of Religion” inD.A. Vakoch (Ed.) Astrobiology, History and Society:Life Beyond Earth and theImpact of Discovery. Berlin:Springer-Verlag. 2013.

Brake, Mark. Alien Life Imagined: Communicating the Science and Culture ofAstrobiology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 2013.

Brooke, John H. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. NewYork:Cambridge University Press. 1991.

Creation Evolution Headlines. “Science Without an Object: Astrobiology, Alien Science.”2011.<http://crev.info/2011/09/science_without_an_object_astrobiology_alien_science/>.

58

Clayton, Philip (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. 2008.

Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council. Life in theUniverse: An Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology.2003. <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10454.html>.

Coppedge, David F. “Astrobiology: Follow the ..“ Acts & Facts. 35:7. 2006.<http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf>.

Cosmos Magazine. “Hello From Earth.” 2009. <http://www.hellofromearth.net>.

Cosmos Magazine. “What is Hello From Earth.” 2009.<http://www.hellofromearth.net/gliese581d/whatis/>.

Dale, Walter. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.Phoenix:The Center for Scientific Creation. 2008.

de Fontenelle, Bernard le Bouvier. Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds. H.A.Hargreaves, trans. Berkeley:University of California Press. 1990.

Des Marais et al. “The NASA Astrobiology Roadmap,” in Astrobiology. 8:4, 2008.

Deubig, Mike. “Astrobiology: Is it Relevant for Science?.” New Discoveries & CommentsAbout Creationism. May 28, 2013.<http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/astrobiology-is-it-relevant-for-science/>.

DeYoung, Don. “Gravity: The Mystery Force.” Answers in Genesis. 2000.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n3/gravity>.

DiBlasio, Natalie. "A third of Earthlings believe in UFOs, would befriend aliens." USAToday. 6.26.2012.<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-26/ufo-survey/55843742/1/>.

Dick, Steven. Plurality of Worlds: The Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus toKant. New York:Cambridge University Press. 1984.

Dick, Steven, Ed. The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life & the TheologicalImplications. Radnor:Templeton Foundation Press. 2000.

Dick, Steven J. “Cultural Aspects of Astrobiology” in If SETI Succeeds: The Impact ofHigh Information Contact, Allen Tough (Ed.). Bellevue:Foundation for the Future.

59

2000.

Duncan, Otis Dudley and Claudia Geist. “The Creationists: How Many, Who, andWhere?” Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 24:5. 2004.<http://ncse.com/rncse/24/5/creationists>.

Einstein, Albert. Relativity:The Special and General Theory. New York:CrownPublishers. 1961.

Faulkner, Danny. “The Current State of Creation Astronomy.” 4th InternationalConference on Creationism. Pittsburgh:Creation Science Fellowship. 1998.<http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4507/256/>.

Faulkner, Danny. Universe By Design: An Explanation of Cosmology and Creation.Green Forest:Master Books. 2004.

Flory, Richard. “American Journalism and religion, 1870-1930" in The OxfordHandbook of Religion and the American News Media. Diane Einston (Ed.).Oxford:Oxford University Press. 2012.

Fulbright, Jeannie K. Exploring Creation with Astronomy. Anderson:ApologiaEducational Ministries. 2001.

Galilei, Galileo. “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany.”1615. <http://www.inters.org/galilei-madame-christina-Lorraine>.

Gallup. “Most Americans Tentative About Origin-of-Life Explanations.” 9.23.2005.<http://www.gallup.com/poll/18748/Most-Americans-Tentative-About-OriginofLife-Explanations.aspx>.

Gallup. “Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism.” 12.17.2010.<http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx>.

Gallup. “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.” 6.1. 2012.<http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx>.

Haarsma, Deborah and Loren. Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution,and Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids:Faith Alive. 2011.

Ham, Ken. “Calling Little Green Men” in Acts & Facts. 21 (11). 1992.

Ham, Ken et al. War of the Worldviews: Powerful Answers for an “Evolutionized”Culture. Gary Vaterlaus (Ed.). Hebron:Answers in Genesis. 2005.

60

Ham, Ken and Carl Kerby. “The “Evolutionizing of a Culture,” in War of the Worldviews:Powerful Answers for an “Evolutionized” Culture. Gary Vaterlaus (Ed.).Hebron:Answers in Genesis. 2008.

Ham, Ken. “Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth?” Answers Magazine. 6:1. 2010.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/gospel-young-earth>.

Hart, Hornell. "Changing Social Attitudes and Interests" in Recent Social Trends in theUnited States: Report of the President's Research Committee on Social Trends.Vol. 1. New York:McGraw-Hill. 1933.

Hartnett, John. Starlight, Time and the New Physics. Atlanta:Creation MinistriesInternational. 2007.

Hello From Earth. Cosmos Magazine. 2009. <http://www.hellofromearth.net/>.

Hello from Earth Database. Compiled by author from Cosmos Magazine submission file.2013.

Hess, Peter M. J. “How Do I Read the Bible? Let Me Count the Ways.” 7.26.2009.<http://ncse.com/religion/how-do-i-read-bible-let-me-count-ways>.

Humphreys, D. Russell. Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in aYoung Universe. Green Forest:Master Books. 1994.

Impey, Chris, Anna Spitz and William Stoeger, Eds. Encountering Life in the Universe:Ethical Foundations and Social Implications of Astrobiology. Tucson:Universityof Arizona Press. 2013.

Jeffreys, Sir Harold. The Earth: Its Origins, History and Physical Constitution. 6th Ed.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 1976.

Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge:MIT Press.1986.

Krauss, Lawrence M. "A Universe From Nothing." Atheist Alliance International. 2009.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo>.

Lazcano, Antonio. “Maintaining the Plausible.” Nature. Vol. 488. August, 2012.<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7410/pdf/488160a.pdf>.

Lisle, Jason. Answers in Genesis. “Are ETs & UFOs Real?” 12.6.2007.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-ets-and-ufos-real>.

61

Lisle, Jason. “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant StarlightProblem.” Answers Research Journal. Vol. 3. 2010. pgs. 191-207.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention>.

Lisle, Jason. Taking Back Astronomy. Green Forest:Master Books. 2011.

Lisle, Jason. “Created Cosmos” DVD. Answers in Genesis. Hebron:Answers in Genesis.2012.<http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/created-cosmos/?sku=30-9-216>.

Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (Eds.). Fundamentalisms and Society:Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education. Chicago:University ofChicago Press. 1993.

Mendelsohn, Everett. “Religious Fundamentalism and the Sciences” inFundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, andEducation. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1993.

Miller, John D. et al. “Public Acceptance of Evolution.” Science. 11 August 2006.313:5788. pgs. 765-766.

Moore, James. “Creationist Cosmos of Protestant Fundamentalism” in Fundamentalismsand Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education.Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1993.

Morris, Henry M. The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth. San Diego:Creation-LifePublishers. 1972.

Morris, Henry M. The Troubled Waters of Evolution. San Diego:Creation LifePublishers. 1974.

Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism (General Edition). El Cajon:Master Books.1985.

Morris, John D. “Creation with the Appearance of Age.” Acts & Facts. 39 (12):15. 2010.<http://www.icr.org/article/creation-with-appearance-age/>.

Mortensen, Timothy. “Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are TheyRelated?” in The Master’s Seminary Journal (TMSJ). 15(1):71–92. Spring 2004.<http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15d.pdf>.

National Academy of Sciences. Science, Evolution, and Creationism.Washington:National Academies Press. 2008.

62

Numbers, Ronald. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design.Cambridge:Harvard University Press. 2006.

Nussbaum, Alexander. “Orthodox Jews & Science: An Empirical Study of their AttitudesToward Evolution, the Fossil Record, and Modern Geology” in Skeptic Magazine.12:3. 2006.<http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/orthodox-jews-and-science/>.

Patterson, Roger. Astronomy: The Heaven’s Declare God’s Glory. An In-DepthCurriculum Plan for Creation Resources on Astronomy and the Bible.Petersburg:Answers in Genesis. 2009.

Osborne, Grant O. The Hermeneutic Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to BiblicalInterpretation. Downers Grove:InterVarsity Press. 2006.

Peters, Ted and Gaymon Bennett. Bridging Science and Religion. London: SCM Press.2002.

Peters, Ted and Martinez Hewlett. Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict,Conversation, and Convergence. Nashville:Abingdon Press. 2003.

Peters, Ted. “AstroTheology: Religious Reflections on Extraterrestrial Life Forms.”<http://www.counterbalance.org/astrotheo/>.

Peters, Ted. “The Implications of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life for Religion.”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 2011. 369:1936. pg 645-655.

Pettinico, George. “American Attitudes About Life Beyond Earth: Beliefs, Concerns, andthe Role of Education and Religion in Shaping Public Perceptions” in CivilizationsBeyond Earth: Extraterrestrial Life and Society. New York:Berghahn Books.Kindle Edition. 2013.

Pew Center. "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media.” Pew ResearchCenter for the People and the Press. 2009.<http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf>.

Pew Research Center. “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.” Pew Forum on Religion andPublic Life. 2008.<http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf>.

Psarris, Spike. “Astronomy: What You Aren’t Being Told About.” Disc 1. CreationAstronomy Media. 2012.

Rau, Gerald. Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything.

63

Nottingham:Inter-Varsity Press. 2012.

Reagin, Nancy. Star Trek and History (Wiley Pop Culture and History Series).Hoboken:John Wiley and Sons. 2013.

Robinson, Marilynne. “Scientific fundamentalism goes off the rails.” Globe and Mail.5.21.2010.<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/scientific-fundamentalism-goes-off-the-rails/article4320019/>.

Ross, Hugh and Samuel Connor. “The Unraveling of Starlight and Time.” Reasons toBelieve. 3.22.1999.<http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time>.

Ross, Hugh et al. Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look atUFOs and Extraterrestrials. Colorado Springs:Navpress. 2002.

Russell, Robert John. Quoted in Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennett. Bridging Science andReligion. London: SCM Press. 2002.

Sayin, Ümit and Aykut Kence. “Islamic Scientific Creationism: A New Challenge inTurkey.” Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 19:6. 1999.

Silver, Jeff. “Featured Entertainer: Jeff Silver.” The Exchange. National Academy ofSciences. 2011.<http://www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/article/featured-entertainer-jeff-silver>.

Sire, James W. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept. DownersGrove:InterVarsity Press. 2004.

Skoog, Gerald. “Legal Issues Involved in Evolution vs. Creationism,” EducationalLeadership. Alexandria:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.38:2, November, 1980.<http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198011_skoog.pdf>.

Speigel, Lee. "48 Percent Of Americans Believe UFOs Could Be ET Visitations."Huffington Post. 9/11/2013.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/48-percent-of-americans-believe-in-ufos_n_3900669.html>.

Tarter, Jill Cornell. “SETI and the Religions of the Universe” in Many Worlds: The NewUniverse, Extraterrestrial Life & The Theological Implications.Radnor:Templeton Foundation Press. 2000.

64

Thomas, Brian. “The Incredible Hulk Theory of Life in Space.” Institute for CreationResearch. August 19, 2009.<http://www.icr.org/article/incredible-hulk-theory-life-space/>.

Vakoch, Douglas, Ed. Astrobiology, History, and Society: Life Beyond Earth and theImpact of Discovery. Berlin:Springer-Verlag. 2013.

Wikipedia contributors. "Doctor Who." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 6 Oct. 2013.Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

Wikipedia contributors. "Gliese 581." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, TheFree Encyclopedia, 2 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

Wikipedia contributors. "The War of the Worlds (1953 film)." Wikipedia, The FreeEncyclopedia. 4 Jul. 2013. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

Wikipedia contributors. "The X-Files." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 5 Oct. 2013.Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

Williams, Alex and John Hartness. Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s UniverseRediscovered. Green Forest:Master Books. 2006.

65