google analytics

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Ken Ham Is not a Scientist

Ken Ham doesn’t believe in the existence of aliens.  He is firmly convinced that there is no life (intelligent or otherwise) anywhere else in the universe.
“You know, so far no one has discovered life on other planets.  Secular scientists can’t even find evidence of radio signals from intelligent aliens.  So if aliens exist, then where are they? Well there isn’t any intelligent life out there; scientists won’t discover evidence of it.  And that’s just what Biblical Creationists expectYou see, scripture is clear that God designed the universe with the Earth as his focus.  We don’t live in an evolutionary universe that’s full of creatures that evolved by chance. The Earth is clearly designed for life with lots of water and just the right distance from the sun. No other planet in the universe is designed for life. And there aren’t any aliens on them. Intelligent life is unique to earth.”
But this is not science. Science begins with observations (something Ham thinks he understands when he repeatedly challenges evolutionists with the question, "were you there?"). Ham has made a conclusion on the basis of his peculiar reading of an ancient text and refuses to change it on the basis of observational evidence.

He says that “no other planet is designed for life,” being just the right distance from a star to provide heat and light, and containing an abundant source of water.  But this is ridiculous statement in light of the fact that astronomers have already located many planets outside of our solar system that are within that “habitable zone” around a star and may contain water and potentially life.

We don’t know yet whether there is life (intelligent or otherwise) on these exoplanets; to determine that will require more observation and more evidence.  But Ken Ham – who is not a scientist – already has made up his mind on the issue and no amount of evidence will ever be enough to make him change.


  1. I am not sure what scientists are saying aliens exist? Seems he is assuming what scientists believe. Its not the first time he has done this and probably wont be the last either unfortunately.

    1. A scientist would allow that observation and evidence may at some point demonstrate life on other planets. Ham has already determined there is none without any need for evidence.

  2. What is your definition of a scientist? What are the credential or criteria that someone must meet in order for you to consider them to be a scientist? This is necessary before you critique whether or not he is a scientist.

    1. generally - a scientist would be one who builds and organizes a body of knowledge through observation and experimentation.

      Ham doesn't need either. He's got "this book" (or rather, his peculiar interpretation of "this book") that tells him all he thinks he needs to know.

    2. Is "this book" irrelevant to the conversation? What then is your hermeneutical principal for interpretation of "this book"?

  3. the quotation marks around "this book" are a reference to Ken Ham's line during his debate with Bill Nye. the book in question is the Bible - or more accurately, the book of Genesis. That's all Ham seems to need.

    My hemeneutical principal is to not interpret the book of Genesis as a science book. It is not a science book and should not be read as one.


Jeff Carter's books on Goodreads
Muted Hosannas Muted Hosannas
reviews: 2
ratings: 3 (avg rating 4.33)

Related Posts with Thumbnails