Hambo Says Alien Civilizations Are a Joke

Assuming humanity survives for several million more years, do you know what technology we will have? No, of course you don’t. And you certainly don’t know the technology of intelligent aliens who have already been around that long. But there is someone who does know. Yes, you guessed it. We’re talking about Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry, he just posted Could Aliens Civilizations Move Their Star? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Just when you think you’ve seen everything, you spy the headline, “Alien civilisations could move their star to avoid a cosmic disaster.” Yes, you read that right.

The article that got ol’ Hambo all excited is this one, posted at the website of New Scientist, which describes itself as “the world’s most popular weekly science and technology magazine.” Unfortunately, you can’t read it without a subscription, What little we can read says:

The idea, thought up by Alexander Svoronos at Yale University, is called a Star Tug and would allow civilisations to avoid cosmic disasters.

Fortunately, Hambo tells us everything we need to know. With the advantage of his supremely advanced knowledge, he says, using scare quotes to convey his opinion of the research involved:

According to new “research,” advanced alien civilizations could use machines to move their star over many millions of years — and if we look for it, we might be able to see it!

Hambo knows that’s absurd, and he reveals more of what the article says:

This proposed alien machine would be a large structure that would orbit the sun, producing a gravitational pull that would drag the sun towards it. Thrusters would then pull the star along, and eventually, and over hundreds of millions of years, move a sun and solar system to a new galaxy. Why would they want to do that? Well, maybe to colonize other planets or escape a nearby supernova.

Fascinating (as Spock would say). Hambo tells us more:

One researcher even thinks we may be able to spot these aliens on the move, “most stars rotate around the galaxy in the same direction, but some don’t. ‘We think they’re natural . . . But if you see a lot of them, that might be a hint that something weird is going on.’”

That seems reasonable to us — but what does Hambo think? As expected:

This absurd article brings a verse of Scripture immediately to mind, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).

According to Hambo, those researchers are fools! He explains their problem:

What nonsense people invent when they reject God’s Word as the authority. They will believe anything — except, that is, the true history recorded in God’s Word.

Ah yes, that’s the problem. Those scientists have rejected The Truth. Here’s how Hambo ends his article:

Instead of looking for non-existent “Star Tugs,” these researchers would do better to look for the One who is not far from us (Acts 17:27) and who has left a testimony to his existence in everything he has made (Romans 1:20) — and revealed himself to us through his Word and the person of Jesus Christ.

Hambo is brilliant, as always. There is nothing more to be said.

Copyright © 2020. 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

21 responses to “Hambo Says Alien Civilizations Are a Joke

  1. Speaking of exoplanets, here’s an article of great interest — the first actual images of exoplanets around another star.


  2. Why do we think that a million-year old cvilization is associated with a star?
    BTW, shouldn’t therebe a better word than “civilization”? Doesn’t that assume certain characteristics?

  3. TomS says:

    BTW, shouldn’t there be a better word than “civilization”? Doesn’t that assume certain characteristics?

    Yes, it does assume certain characteristics. There could be a planet full of intelligent squid, but if they just zip around in the ocean, they’ll never develop any technology. To have a technological species, they need some kind of society, with an economy, and the resources necessary to explore science and develop some technology. Otherwise, they may be happy, but they’re never going to do anything.

  4. Aside from the counter argument that this civilization might more efficiently move itself to another solar system, there’s nothing wrong with speculation. Indeed, it’s fun and sometimes productive, though in this case probably less appropriate for a journal supposedly dedicated to science. That Hambo is once again bent out of shape by aliens/exoplanets provides us with much amusement. I am reminded of a book I once saw on a store rack in a highly religious area, A Bible Verse for Every Occasion. While the “ancients” knew about human nature, their understanding of the natural world was very limited. Their writings are largely irrelevant where science is concerned.

  5. Yes, I understand it as just fun, and fun can be productive. The New Scientist is not in the same category as Nature or Science, though.
    @SC: AIUI, a hunter-gatherer nomadic society is not a civilization, but it has technology.

  6. Depends on how you define civilization. If we accept Wikipedia’s definition

    “a complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, a form of government and symbolic systems of communication such as writing”

    the Celts didn’t have a civilization.

  7. Theodore J Lawry

    No one has ever accused Ken Ham of having a sense of humor. That requires having more than one perspective.

  8. Dave Luckett

    I wonder why it is perfectly acceptable to say, “The Celts didn’t have a civilisation”, which is completely correct, but that to say “The (Australian) Aboriginal people didn’t have a civilisation” would get one branded as a racist?

  9. Laurette McGovern

    This just in, “Alien Civilizations Say That Ken Ham Is A Joke”

  10. @Dave Luckett
    I wonder how it would have been received in the 19th century to say that the Celts had no civilization.

  11. Michael Fugate

    I don’t think one need wonder, when the point is to annihilate a group by any means necessary. Why protect a people, a culture, a history if they are declared “uncivilized”. The arrogance of “they – meaning the other – have nothing to offer”. These are groups that seemingly lived sustainably in one place for 10,000+ years and they nothing to teach anyone. It is about listening for once. Is that too much to ask?

  12. Since the SS claimed to protect European civilization against that line of thinking has been out of vogue, though some right wingers (judean-christian tradition, boreal culture) try to revive it.
    Also there is Ghandi’s quote: “Western civilization? That would be an excellent idea.”

  13. There is a difficulty with the word “civilization”. There is a technical meaning, derived from the Latin word “civis”, meaning “city”; and the popular meaning: something like “sophisticated” or maybe “well behaved”.
    I intended to point out that intelligent beings can develop technology without having civilization in the first sense. I would realize to use the word in the second sense for anyone today would be intended to give offense.
    Were the builders of Stonehenge civilized?
    BTW, the quip attributed to Gandhi is not well attested, according to Wikiquote.org.

  14. @Michael Fugate
    Anything goes as far as justifying that history. Those rich plantation owners might have had to actually work for a living. Maybe change their way of life. Maybe marry the mothers of their children, or at least recognize their sons and daughters as human beings.
    And for a century after being forced to
    Give up, still could not be forced to treat people of recent African ancestry as if they were human. And yet even in the 21st century …

  15. Michael Fugate

    Many people including historians have issues with the NYT 1619 project and as with any curriculum I am sure some are legitimate, but I have problems with old white guys clearly lacking any perspective other than their own. I have no idea if I weren’t white and male that I would have my life and career all other things equal. Many of the beefs about it can be found at strangely the World Socialist Web Site. This one by all means a liberal historian is quite tone deaf. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html

    The 3 accomplishments of the civil war were saving the union (not sure that was such), the end of slavery, and some amendments that have never been realized – hey but there is potential! And he can’t understand why Black not to mention Indigenous people might have a more cynical view?

  16. @Michael Fugate
    I still remember how the final argument was, “Would you want your sister to marry one?”
    Thank god I didn’t think of the comeback, “Maybe one of them is your sister.”
    It being ok for a white man to “marry” one of “them”..

  17. @MichaelF: I like this one.

    “the necessary evil upon which the union was built”.
    This is the perfect reason to pay immense compensation.

    From your other link:

    ““They didn’t just stop like, ‘Oh, civilization’s over. We’re going to go ahead and jump into [colonial history] now,’” says Turner Hunt,”
    Apparently Hunt missed the Wikipedia definition of “civilization”.

  18. Michael Fugate

    Cotton and his fellow travellers are spouting a massive tu quoque – “there were worse places and there still are – so the US is and always has been the greatest – there!” chants of USA, USA, USA

    It is like the missionaries claiming that it is better to die a Christian in slavery than a nonChristian in freedom. If you believe that, then you can justify anything.

  19. @Michael Fugate
    And perhaps there is some way to justify the century of Jim Crow, including lynching, and the continuing racism.