Ken Ham Explains the Fermi Paradox

This one caused our irony meter to tremble a bit — bit it didn’t shatter. See if you find it as ironic as we did. It’s from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Hambo’s post is Aliens Killed By Climate Change!, with this subtitle: “New Study: Aliens Are Out There — But They’re Dead!” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

I had to smile when I saw these headlines, “The Aliens Are Silent Because They’re Dead” and “Why Can’t We Find Aliens? Climate Change Killed Them.” [Links in the original.] The absence of any life in outer space has long been a problem for evolutionists. So some researchers from The Australian National University proposed a solution to this major dilemma — there are aliens, but we can’t find them because they’re dead!

The item from Australia is the latest in a vast number of attempts to resolve the Fermi paradox. If the universe is full of life, some of it intelligent, then — as Enrico Fermi is said to have asked — “Where are they?”

We’ve written about it before (see Evolution and the Fermi Paradox). In that post we suggested that intelligent aliens have probably been around far longer than our species, and they’ve made improvements in themselves such that they’d see us — newly evolved with torsos full of guts and bacteria — as physically disgusting. Thus, they’re avoiding us until we grow up a bit.

In a later post — Charles Krauthammer and the Fermi Paradox — we speculated that intelligent aliens are out there, but their civilizations are like ours were until quite recently. They never developed technologically beyond ancient Egypt, or Babylonia, or Rome. The aliens, abundant though they may be, have no serious disciplines like physics, chemistry, etc, or the economies to support them. They’re not sending signals because all they have is torches, trumpets, and their own equivalent of the pony express. So although they exist, we can’t detect any signals from them.

Hambo doesn’t need to worry about the Fermi paradox, because he knows that the universe was created just for us. Here’s what he says about the climate change speculation from Australia:

This is clearly what’s called a “rescuing device.” According to evolutionary ideas, Earth isn’t special. Its just one planet out of millions, and it just happened to have the right conditions for life to form spontaneously. Since there’s nothing special about Earth, there should be hundreds or thousands of other planets that also allow just the right conditions for life. The problem? Well, scientists have found hundreds of other planets orbiting other stars, yet not one is suited for life. And despite years of research and millions of research dollars, not a single shred of solid evidence for life in outer space has been discovered. So, for the evolutionist, the question remains — why are we alone?

Hambo’s disparaging reference to “evolutionists” in this context seems to include everyone who doesn’t adhere to his religious views. Let’s read on:

Well, if you can’t find any evidence of life, just make up a story for why! Here’s how the story goes according to the news sites: life evolved many different times on many different planets, but the climates of these planets weren’t stable enough, so the climate change killed the life off. Life on supposed young planets “rarely evolves quickly enough to survive.” So the overwhelming evidence that we’re alone in the universe is explained: life evolved elsewhere but climate change killed it! That’s as much a fairy tale as is the story of molecules-to-man evolution!

Yes, that’s what the “evolutionists” do — just make up stories. Creationists like Hambo would never do such a thing. He continues:

This explanation of aliens supposedly being killed by climate change is certainly a convenient story. But it’s nothing more than a story. There’s no observational evidence for this explanation at all.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hambo is contemptuous of stories that aren’t supported by observational evidence — but he’s building a “life size” replica of Noah’s Ark! He keeps ranting:

It’s just another rescuing device to save the evolutionary tale from the embarrassing lack of extraterrestrial life. Of course, such evolutionary scientists who propose this nonsense do not get mocked by secularists — but as soon as a scientist states that an infinite Creator God designed life, the secularists mock what is so obviously the correct explanation.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, obviously correct. Then he tells his drooling readers where the real evidence is:

Instead of appealing to climate change and the death of alien life, secularists need to read the biblical account that gives the answer to the origin of all life. Earth isn’t random but was specially designed by God to be inhabited [scripture reference]. We shouldn’t expect the universe to be teeming with life because life didn’t evolve here or anywhere else. God created life and the universe (Genesis 1) only a few thousand years ago. The obvious lack of life in the universe isn’t a problem for the biblical creationist — it’s to be expected.

Here’s one last excerpt:

Sadly, these evolutionary scientists are so blind to the truth of God’s Word that they can’t see the obvious answer: life isn’t found in outer space because it’s not there! They start with a belief in naturalistic evolution, and when the evidence doesn’t fit or isn’t even there, they must come up with an alternate explanation for why the evidence doesn’t match the prediction. The problem isn’t the evidence but the evolution belief!

So there you are, dear reader. Hambo’s answer to the Fermi paradox is quite simple: Fermi was a fool!

Copyright © 2016. 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

13 responses to “Ken Ham Explains the Fermi Paradox

  1. Well, if you can’t find any evidence of life, just make up a story for why! Here’s how the story goes according to the news sites: life evolved many different times on many different planets, but the climates of these planets weren’t stable enough, so the climate change killed the life off. Life on supposed young planets “rarely evolves quickly enough to survive.” So the overwhelming evidence that we’re alone in the universe is explained: life evolved elsewhere but climate change killed it! That’s as much a fairy tale as is the story of molecules-to-man evolution!

    I’ve never encountered this particular “fairy tale” before; personally, I think Klinghoffer made it up himself, stitching together evolution and climate change so he could bash both at the same time, and then forgot he’d done so once he went back on his meds.

  2. Hambo has outdone himself and his entire stable of creation “scientists” with this rant, which is likely the most bizarre and stupid thing I have ever seen ooze out of the AiG slime pit.

  3. waldteufel says: “… the most bizarre and stupid thing I have ever seen ooze out of the AiG slime pit.”

    The real problem is that Hambo has made a flat-out prediction. Creationists and preachers should know better than to do that.

  4. > “these evolutionary scientists are so blind . . .
    > that they can’t see the obvious answer: life isn’t
    > found in outer space because it’s not there!”
    ——————
    This reminds me of the Precambrian fossil record. Folks once thought that the Cambrian Explosion – the sudden appearance of abundant fossils near/at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary represented the creation of life on Earth. The “proof” was the complete lack of fossils in the Precambrian. People stopped looking. Well, if you don’t look, you don’t find. It turns out there are Precambrian fossils, even though they are rare and generally microscopic. Hamster would have us not look for alien life or Precambrian fossils. Well, the latter were found – they showed that the Cambrian Explosion wasn’t the creation of life on Earth. It’d be cool to expect discovery of aliens in my lifetime, but I kinda doubt it. But it likely will happen in the future, maybe the far future.

  5. Kenneth The Ham:
    ” The absence of any life in outer space has long been a problem for evolutionists.”

    In your dreams, Hambo. We don’t know if there’s an absence of life out there. For it to be detected, it would have to:
    a) be intelligent;
    b) be able to construct technology;
    c) be technologically advanced;
    d) have a desire to send out extremely powerful signals;
    e) live in a clear atmosphere so they can see, and thus be aware of, the universe (otherwise, why send out signals?);
    f) be close enough so that the signal arrives here strong enough to detect;
    g) transmit on a frequency we’re listening for;
    h) transmit at the right time so that our dish antennas are pointed in the right direction when the signal arrives;
    i) have transmitted many, many years ago so the signal would have reached us by now. By your reckoning, Ham, their planet could be no more than 6,000 light years away. And if they were at that distance, they would have had to have transmitted the signal in year one of their very existence — again, by your reckoning.

    It’s no wonder we haven’t detected intelligent life out there yet. And just think — we’ve only known about radio for a little over a century. Even by Ham’s reckoning, that’s just 1/60th of Earth’s existence. Of course, by a rational reckoning of time, we’ve only known of radio for 1/46,000,000th of Earth’s existence.

  6. Mike Elzinga

    There is an interesting angle to the problem of contacting any form of extraterrestrial life; and that is due to the fact that life – any form of living, wiggling, reproducing organism – must, by necessity, be made of soft matter systems no matter what narrow temperature range they live in. And all soft matter systems exist in a very narrow temperature range.

    This means that all such living organisms must be, by the laws of phyiscs, ephemeral.

    Now it might be possible that an organism that evolved to a state of intelligence in which it found solutions to all assaults leading to its own disintegration could live nearly indefinitely; but getting to such a state is a problem of evolution in itself.

    Another possibility is for such a civilization to build intelligent robots that are not soft matter systems and can survive much more hostile environments. But the mere fact that these robots are not soft matter systems would limit their ability to reproduce and continue to evolve long after the civilization that invented them died off. And in order for such robots to be as impressively intelligent as their makers means that their makers survived and evolved to the point where they could build such robots.

    Finding such civilizations or their robot emissaries would mean that the life spans of civilizations and their emissaries would overlap over the vast time and distances between solar systems. And if only the emissaries met, their makers would never have discovered other life.

  7. Mike Elzinga

    retiredsciguy:

    By your reckoning, Ham, their planet could be no more than 6,000 light years away. And if they were at that distance, they would have had to have transmitted the signal in year one of their very existence — again, by your reckoning.

    And also, according to Jason Lisle’s reckoning, the signals would reach us instantly. (No Doppler shifts, however.)

    So apparenly Ham believes that if we haven’t received any instantaneous signals in 6000 years, there can’t be anyone else out there.

    Air tight creationist “logic” as usual.

  8. And we have exactly the same amount of hard evidence for extra terrestial life as we have of any supernatural gods entities – none, nil, zilch, nada!

  9. I think Ham is right in that the idea that climate change killed off whatever aliens are out there is a made-up story. On the other hand, it is a made-up story involving things which exist and could have happened. We know the earth has had extremely different climates over its history, and life has experienced mass extinctions, so it’s quite conceivable that life elsewhere did not survive the changes in its environments long enough to produce an intelligent life form. That’s probably true for some aliens. But, perhaps not all of them.

    The most obvious answer, to me, for the Fermi paradox of where are the aliens is “why do we expect them to be here?”

    Assuming an alien species arises that somehow avoids annihilation by war, self-induced climate change, world-wide plagues, catastrophic asteroid impacts, or any of a number of other things – why would it spend a large amount of its treasury to send a small number of its “people” on a one-way trip to another solar system. The technology would have to evolve to the point that this was feasible for significant numbers of individuals. It could happen, but colonization of other star systems would be a slow process. Assuming such civilizations are rare to begin with, maybe one or two per galaxy, and faster-than-light travel is impossible, there is no reason to believe we will ever be visited by aliens.

    On the other hand, non-intelligent or non-technologically advanced life on other worlds may be plentiful and detectable by indirect means – i.e. by studying composition of exoplanet atmospheres or some other yet-to-be discovered method. We may even find life, or its remains, elsewhere in our own solar system.

    I hope I am around when it happens, not only for the excitement of the discovery, but also to revel in the reactions of the creationists like Ham.

  10. “Well, if you can’t find any evidence of X, just make up a story for why!”
    On which Ol’ Hambo of course the greatest expert of all time.

  11. Kenneth The Ham:
    ” The absence of any life in outer space has long been a problem for evolutionists.”

    The absence of any evidence of God in heaven has long been a problem for creationists.

  12. The absence of any alternative for evolution has long been a problem for creationists.

    See, for example, the 1852 essay by Herbert Spencer, The Development Hypothesis

  13. AH! The BS ‘Fermi Paradox’ There is no paradox, just remember space is big REALLY REALLY BIG! Mind numbingly BIG!!!!!