Answers in Genesis & Life on Mars

So far we’ve written about the reaction of two creationist organizations to the news that the Curiosity rover finds conditions once suited for ancient life on Mars.

First there was the view of the Discovery Institute — Klinghoffer: Life on Mars? No Chance! After that we told you what the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) had to say: ICR’s Jason Lisle: There Was Never Life on Mars. And now, to complete your understanding, we have the opinion of the creation scientists at Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AIG).

AIG’s discussion appears in News to Note, March 16, 2013 — “A weekly feature examining news from the biblical viewpoint.” It’s the first item at their news summary, titled Curiosity finally scratches the surface. First AIG describes the findings of NASA’s Curiosity rover, with which you’re familiar, and then they say, with bold font added by us:

The scientists hasten to point out that no evidence of life, past or present, has actually been found. Furthermore, the equipment on Curiosity is not designed to detect living organisms. So why all the excitement?

Yes, why? It’s not as if they found something worth looking for, like Noah’s Ark. AIG’s news analysis continues:

As we’ve discussed recently [link omitted], it is an article of faith among evolutionists that given liquid water, a few chemicals, and sufficient time, life can evolve through natural processes. Yet even on earth where we can make much more direct and abundant observations, no evidence that life can evolve from non-living substrates through random natural processes has ever been found.

Right — there’s no evidence that life evolved on Earth. Well, there’s the fact that the place is crawling with life, and it had to come from somewhere. But you weren’t there to see it get started, were you? So you don’t know how it happened. Let’s read on:

And the likelihood that the Martian environment may have once been different than it is today does not demonstrate that the solar system formed billions of years ago.

Right again. Everyone knows that planets can go from wet to dry in a very short time. Six thousand years is certainly long enough for that. AIG continues:

If evidence of microbial life — past or present — on Mars is eventually found, evolutionists will of course claim such life as evidence for evolution. But in reality, such a finding would simply be evidence that life is (or once was) there, not proof of that life’s origins.

Another truism. Science can never disprove the possibility that it was a miracle. Here’s more:

The Bible does not say whether God created any life on other planets, but the Bible does tell us God created all life on earth during the first six days of Creation week, the same week in which He created the rest of the universe, about 6,000 years ago.

We can’t argue with that — it’s scriptural. Here’s the conclusion:

Discovery of evidence that a “habitable” environment containing liquid water once existed on Mars or even life itself would neither disprove nor undermine biblical truth.

So there you are — another keen analysis of the news from AIG. Now you know what NASA’s discovery really means. It means nothing. Nothing at all. Read your bible, everything you need to know is there.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “Answers in Genesis & Life on Mars

  1. The Bible does not say whether God created any life on other planets…

    Considering the Bible doesn’t recognise the existence of planets – not even that the Earth is one – this is no revelation.

  2. Pete Moulton

    “Discovery of evidence that a “habitable” environment containing liquid water once existed on Mars or even life itself would neither disprove nor undermine biblical truth.”

    I can’t argue with this, given that there’s no truth in genesis to disprove or undermine.

  3. Glad they’re not reaching or anything.

  4. Interesting that the other major gaggle of creationists, the ICR, comes to exactly the opposite conclusion: that a clear reading of the bible says unequivocally that life is only to be found on the earth. So much for “We don’t interpret, we simply read the plain meaning from the text.”

  5. Until we’re invaded by Klingons, some people just can’t be convinced.

  6. Maybe Mars is only partially complete and God is going to come back and finish up with lots of living things. I don’t think he would be happy to find us messing up the surface with machines or contaminating the soil with our transplanted earth organisms. On the other hand, perhaps he needs some help and would approve of a little terraforming.

  7. I think AiG is just hedging their bets here. They have staked a hard position that if any part of the bible is not true – then the whole bible is brought into question. They cannot allow that to happen, so they are laying out an argument that finding life elsewhere will not contradict the bible. It’s probably a wise move on AiG’s part, and it’s a little surprising that the DI and the ICR did not do likewise.

    So, if remnents of life are discovered on Mars, the AiG will say “it shows the richness of God’s creation”, the DI will probably say “the odds against life arising independently on two planets are so great that life can only be the product of a designer”, and the ICR will deny it.

  8. @Ed. Committed anti-evolution activists, if not the literalists that they have scammed, who claim that “all of the Bible must be true” know that they are playing word games. Otherwise they’d be arguing for Geocentrism, and probably even Flat-Earthism. The Genesis I vs II discrepancy alone forces them to be “creative” with their language, and backpedal when tactically necessary.

    Balancing the futility of that with the need to “save” those who can’t handle the truth, the DI simply ignores the Bible. But if you look hard enough, there are a few admissions. They range from complete agreement with mainstream science that the Bible (Genesis) should be read allegorically not literally, to vague encouragement to take it literally in spite of the lack of evidence. Either way, between the lines, the DI makes it clear that they consider YEC, and most “kinds” of OEC, pure nonsense. But of course they’ll never admit it that bluntly.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but whenever I hear how AiG/ICR and the DI “think alike” (Klinghoffer’s Mars whine was posted here recently) it’s like reading a headline from 1997 and hearing everyone act like it’s news. What do you expect from radical, paranoid authoritarians? Of course they’ll do or say anything to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution, which means often sharing the same long-refuted arguments. What’s infinitely more interesting – to a few of us at least – is where those activists disagree with each other, and often frantically evade and backpedal to cover up those fatal contradictions.

  9. Answer in Genesis and Life on Mars.

    Oh man. look at those cavemen go.
    It’s the freakiest show.

  10. It will depend on what sort of life is discovered. If it’s carbon-based, the creationists will claim that God fine-tuned the universe for carbon-based life to take hold on suitable planets. There’s already an article on fine-tuning on the Discoveroids’ site.