The Atheist Faith In Aliens

The difference between me now and the atheist me of yesteryear is that Jesus encountered me in power and demonstrated to me everything that the scriptures claim about him, shattering my confidence trust in naturalism.

Did the aliens do that? Never so much.

I can certainly relate to the idea of hoping to discover alien life though, as many atheists do. It’s a convenient way to dismiss God and it at least does fit with the naturalist worldview, even though it’s a worldview that can find a real foundation because of perky things like the Law of Biogenesis.

Nonetheless, I too once hung on every reported word of the endless discoveries of “earth-like planets” where we might discover life.

As usual, there has been a lot of stories recently about Kepler-452b, the latest in a long line of “earth-like” planets that has drawn the devoted longing of anyone whose hope is in intelligent life beyond earth.

Gary DeMar sets it straight on the atheist’s desperate and very blind faith in the existence of E.T.;

A planet orbiting distant star Kepler-452 has been identified by the Kepler space telescope. Here’s what one atheist said about the discovery:

“The discovery of Kepler-452b is not likely to see the public swoon with a collective rendition of Kumbaya. But this Earth 2.0 is a huge if under-appreciated discovery, not because Kepler-452b is unique but for just the opposite reason; there are likely thousands or millions or even billions of such earth-like planets in the universe. The discovery of just one such world is good evidence for many more: after all, we know of 100 billion galaxies each with as many as 300 billion stars (big variation per galaxy). Astronomers estimate that there are about 70 billion trillion stars. Math wizardry is not necessary to conclude we did not by chance find the only other possibly habitable planet among that huge population of stars.

“With this discovery, we come ever closer to the idea that life is common in the universe.”

And from this Dr. Jeff Schweitzer speculates that with so many earth-like planets in the cosmos, statistical analysis almost assures us that life like ours has evolved on many of these planets.

Since the Bible does not refer to such life on other worlds, Dr. Schweitzer infers that the Bible must be wrong about the origin of life. I’m simplifying his argument, but that’s pretty much what he’s claiming. I’ll leave it to others to debate whether life can exist on other planets and the Bible still be true (see here, here, and here). So far we don’t have any empirical evidence that earth-like life exists anywhere else in the cosmos.

There’s a great deal we don’t know about the cosmos and much that has not been revealed to us: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29).

C.S. Lewis speculated on extraterrestrial life in his science fiction trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength. In one of his final interviews in 1963, the year of his death, Lewis had this to say when asked about “widespread travel in space”:

“I look forward with horror to contact with the other inhabited planets, if there are such. We would only transport to them all of our sin and our acquisitiveness [excessive interest], and establish a new colonialism. I can’t bear to think of it. But if we on earth were to get right with God, of course, all would be changed. Once we find ourselves spiritually awakened, we can go to outer space and take the good things with us. That is quite a different matter.”

There are a number of problems with the way Dr. Schweitzer formulates his argument. His first problem is with the science regarding the origin of life on earth. Science is science no matter how many suns and planets there are. Dr. Schweitzer assumes that life spontaneously arose and evolved on earth. Given what we know about chemistry and biology, such an evolutionary premise is impossible. Life does not generate from non-life.

There is no science to support spontaneous generation.

Small changes in existing species has never been questioned or doubted. A fly is a fly, a horse is a horse, a dog is a dog, a finch is a finch.

Dr. James. M. Tour, who is a synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology, writes:

“From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. . . . Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution.”

If the origin of life can’t be explained in an evolutionary way on earth, what does this say about finding life on Kepler-452b?

There’s one more thing to consider. Dr. Schweitzer is formulating his thesis based on an image of a planet that is 1,400 light-years away from earth. It would take 1400 years to reach the planet traveling at the speed of light – 186,000 miles per second. At the speed of the New Horizons spacecraft that travels at 37,000 mph, it would take approximately 26 million years to get there.

He has no idea what this or any distant planet is like. How convenient to appeal to so far away that no one will ever be able to test his hypothesis about the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, and the existence of God.

His first simple task is to prove that life can self-generate from non-life and that spark of life evolved into the complex menagerie of life we see on earth. That has never been done, and it will never be done, because it can’t be done.

Interestingly, angels would count as intelligent life beyond earth, not to mention the living creatures described in The Book of The Revelation, so I guess we are all believers in extraterrestrials.


Cursing, Lying And Intollerance: When The Left Doesn’t Get Their Way

The homosexual lobbyists know that they are close to forcing their agenda on everyone but a few small thin are holding them back.

That’s why they are getting really angry and cursing and lying about how marriage should be redefined.

They know that a national vote stands a good chance of denying them for a long time and that’s why the ABC is putting their curses in the headlines, tantrum-style.

Apparently not everyone is bent on destroying the institution of marriage after all, despite the left’s attempts to lie to us otherwise.

So at least we can see the internal bitterness, resentment, Intollerance, and outright deceit pouring out of them as they fail to get exactly what they want – much like small, aggressive  and undisciplined children. 

These are, in my experience, constant qualities of the left and perfectly compatible with their values of murdering children, promoting sexual immorality, and destroying things of beauty in the West and even the world.

Here’s the story:

Labor senator Sam Dastyari has described the Government’s moves to hold a public vote on same-sex marriage after the next election as “bullshit”.

After a prolonged debate in the Coalition party room this week, a clear majority of Government MPs and senators voted to maintain the party’s position against legalising same-sex marriage.

The Prime Minister has suggested a public vote in the next term of parliament, but has not specified whether he favours a referendum or plebiscite.

If successful, the referendum option, which is backed by cabinet minister Scott Morrison, would lead to constitutional change.

“The type of issue that could be canvassed under Section 51 of the constitution — simply at the moment, in Clause 21, it just says ‘marriage’,” Mr Morrison said.

“You could equally put in there ‘opposite- and ‘same-sex marriage’ and clarify very clearly what the meaning of the constitution is on this question, and to reflect [what] some would argue has been a societal change since the constitution was first written.”

But Labor argues that given the difficulty of getting the double majority of state and national support required for constitutional change, the proposal is designed to fail.

Some conservatives and Christian groups that are opposed to gay marriage believe a failed referendum could push the issue off the national agenda for many years.

A plebiscite needs to reach a lower bar, only requiring national support, but the Government would not be not compelled to act on the result.

Speaking to reporters outside Parliament House this morning, Senator Dastyari said the Government’s push for a public vote is designed to stop gay marriage being legalised.

“What we’ve seen happen on the issue of marriage equality in the past couple of days is disgraceful,” Senator Dastyari said.

“It’s a rort, it’s a joke, it’s a false premise and frankly we need to call it for what it is and that is bullshit.

“The Australian public have had their say, they want these laws passed, we can pass them now, frankly we should be passing them now.”

Government MP Warren Entsch has been given approval for a private members bill to legalise gay marriage, but he has acknowledged the outcome of the party room vote this week suggests there would not be enough support in the Lower House even if Coalition MPs had a conscience vote.

Two Coalition backbenchers, WA senator Dean Smith and Queensland MP Wyatt Roy have confirmed they are prepared to cross the floor on the issue.

So Christians, vote Labor back in at our own peril.

Pray for our government because priorities are way out of whack.