AIG Says Science Fiction Is Ungodly and Evil

This one will really shock you. It’s at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Their article is titled Science? Or Science Fiction?, and it was written by Calvin Smith — a new name to us. Here’s their bio page on him: Calvin Smith. He’s the the executive director of AIG in Canada, which is very impressive. Here are some excerpts from his post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

After we skip several paragraphs about his childhood fascination with comic book heroes like Spider Man, Calvin says

Pop culture has certainly helped shaped the consciousness of our modern world, and humanist thinking (the foundation of which is the story of evolution) has hijacked much of today’s popular entertainment. This isn’t a new phenomenon however, as some of the earliest and most influential science fiction and fantasy writers had an atheistic, naturalistic, and, of course, evolution-based mindset [The horror!], which spilled out onto the pages of their adventure novels and seeded the minds of their readers with such notions.

It gets better — or worse, depending on your worldview. He says:

Timeless sci-fi classics like Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), Edgar Rice Boroughs’ Tarzan of the Apes (1913), and Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot and The Foundation series (1940–1950) paved the way for more recent additions, like Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek (1966), and of course George Lucas’ Star Wars (1977), that have certainly made huge cultural impressions around the world. … They are pop-culture icons and household names, even in evangelical circles.

Where is he going with this? Slowly, Calvin reveals what he’s trying to say:

Mary Shelley, the woman behind the story of Frankenstein, was raised by her father William Godwin, an anarchist, philosopher, and political writer. … She was ill-treated by her stepmother and ran away with a married man she fell in love with as a teenager, Percy Shelley. She eventually married him after his wife committed suicide.


“Frankenstein’s monster” was born in Mary’s imagination during her escapade with Percy through Europe, as a challenge given by writer Lord Byron while she and Shelley were visiting him. In the story, Dr. Frankenstein defies the laws of nature by creating life: gruesomely sawing and putting together different cadaver parts and then animating the creature through the power of lightning. This concept, in a sense, put man on the same level as the Creator who created him, by having power over life and death. And it subtly promoted the idea that if a natural event like a lightning strike could bring something to life, perhaps God wasn’t needed “in the beginning” after all.

Okay, Calvin doesn’t like Mary Shelley’s work. What else does he have to say? The next few paragraphs are about Edgar Rice Boroughs and his Tarzan books, about which he rants:

With Darwin’s work imbedded in academia in the West, ERB also believed that the story of evolution was a fact and an immutable law of nature, and his promotion of evolutionary concepts, especially that man was simply a “higher ape” can be seen throughout his work.

After that, Calvin gets around to Isaac Asimov, a favorite of your Curmudgeon, But he dismisses Asimov’s immense body of work by quoting his declaration that he was an atheist. Then he moves on to Gene Roddenberry, who gave us Star Trek. He tells us that Roddenberry plagiarized a lot, and also:

He was also a womanizer who had two mistresses at the same time while he was married to his first wife (at the time of producing the first two pilots of Star Trek). He also had multiple extramarital affairs during his second marriage and actually bragged about it with his colleagues.

Then he discusses Roddenberry’s atheism, after which he dumps this on us:

As a true humanist, Roddenberry’s Star Trek promoted a gentler and kinder universe, left a phenomenal legacy, and reflected the socio-political challenges of the time, using science fiction to address those issues when few were able to so plainly. It also consistently promoted the idea of evolution [Gasp!] through the development of civilizations, the romantic involvement between different alien species, and the different degrees of evolved intelligence found on other planets.

Star Trek is well beloved by fans, including many Christians who appreciate its creative elements, but it is based on completely naturalistic concepts. [Egad, naturalism!] The entire premise is that humans evolved on Earth, while the Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, and all of the other aliens evolved on their own planets. And then we all developed technology so we could go visit one another!

Surprisingly, when I’ve pointed out to church audiences that Star Trek is based on the story of evolution [The horror!], many seem surprised, like they never thought of it that way before — which only shows the power of being influenced without knowing it.

Now that we’re getting to the end of his long article, Calvin starts to give advice:

Science fiction and fantasy are not just entertainment. They contain ideas that can shape our worldview. And like anything we see, hear, or read, they can impact us, even if they are fictional. For mature Christians who know the Scriptures well and have the discernment to be able to recognize and reject anything unbiblical in a story while enjoying other aspects it contains, we still need to stay vigilant in not adopting or blending these ideas with what the Bible clearly reveals.

The preaching continues:

Sadly for today’s youth, many do not have much Bible knowledge and the discernment that comes with walking closely with the Lord. And looking for amusement in sources that differ from the truth of the Bible can lead us astray.

EgadStar Trek can lead us astray! Let’s read on:

We can still enjoy and appreciate the creative stories that people, created in God’s image, make (even if they aren’t Christians), but we need to understand that much of the entertainment we enjoy today comes from a worldview in diametric opposition to the truth of God’s Word.

There’s a bit more, but this thing is long enough. Well, dear reader, what should we do about all this horrible literature? All who favor banning it, raise your hands!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

17 responses to “AIG Says Science Fiction Is Ungodly and Evil

  1. What does he think about Bibleman though.

  2. Puck Mendelssohn

    If I’m not mistaken, Mary Shelley’s book actually doesn’t have any reference to the good Doctor “gruesomely sawing and putting together different cadaver parts and then animating the creature through the power of lightning.” It’s not clear, in the text, just how he makes the creature. But AIG evidently can’t be arsed to read the actual book — the movie must be just the same, right? Must be.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Wow. What a killjoy. I can only guess what he thinks of the Beatles.

  4. Dave Luckett

    And oh, dear, as a sometime pro SF writer, I can only take Calvin (good name, that. I wonder where he got it?) at his word. Hear me, brethren and sistern! I, too, “promoted the idea of evolution through the development of civilizations, the romantic involvement between different alien species, and the different degrees of evolved intelligence found on other planets.” Yes, that’s how lost I am. (Weeps.)

    Oddly enough, my story “The Best is Yet to Be” is about a “romantic involvement” between two people, one of them an evolved woman who will live for thousands of years and one a standard man who crews on a speed-of-light starship for whom time practically stops when on voyage. But this “romantic involvement” is monogamous, loving, and faithful; and the conflict (in a literary sense) arises when they find themselves wanting a child.

    Of course the very idea is immoral to its core.

    But if I am lost, what are we to make of C S Lewis? Sure, his “Narnia” series was fantasy, but his “Cosmic Trilogy” (aka “Space Trilogy”) is pure science fiction. Surely this means that this writer, the author of “The Screwtape Letters” and “Mere Christianity” is even worse off than I?

    Sci-fi writers. What a bunch of ratbags!

  5. chris schilling

    Calvin believes in Captain Rabbi — a superhero who offers everyone life after death, subject to certain terms and conditions.

    Shirley it doesn’t get any more fantastic than that, does it? And Captain Rabbi performed all sorts of amazing superhuman feats, like…oh, you’ll just have to go and read the comic books for yourselves (unless you want to watch the movies made from them by obsessive Catholics like Scorsese and Gibson).

  6. I marvel that Calvin Smith objects to Star Wars, bristling as it does with no end of oogity boogity about the supernatural, physics-overriding Force and the cod Dominus vobiscum catch-phrase, “May the Force be with you!”. Is the proper reply to that, “Et cum spiritu tuo”?

    Smith would do well to instead consider this famous, gushing report, on the ‘Darwinism, Design, and Democracy; Conference held in Florida in November 2000, by a keen “earth sciences major” who was destined for greater glory and is dear to all our hearts:

    [Eugenie] Scott definitely speaks “scientese”. She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science. She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she’s saying. It’s no wonder she’s the director of the NCSE. In the past I’ve compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she’s lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys. All in the name of …well, I’m not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It’s certainly not truth.

    (On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire. Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted. However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force. Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the “force” (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better. When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)

  7. “Star Trek is well beloved by fans, including many Christians who appreciate its creative elements, but it is based on completely naturalistic concepts.”

    Confession time; the chemistry that I taught, and the chemical research that I carried out, was based on completely naturalistic concepts.

    How can I expliate so grave an error?

  8. And if anyone doubts the continuing formative influence of Star Wars on our dear Case Luskwalker, here’s a more recent item from April 2012: On the “Settled” Science of Darwinian Theory

    Every time I hear a Darwin lobbyist declare that “There is no controversy” over evolution, I think of Darth Vader in the confrontation scene with Luke, darkly insisting that “There is no conflict” between himself and the dark side of the Force. For years we’ve been hearing from the Darwin lobby that “There is no conflict” over Darwinian evolution, and in a similarly menacing tone. Any Star Wars fan knows Darth Vader was bluffing. So too is the Darwin Lobby’s claim a bluff.

    Maybe the next movie in the franchise will include this thrilling scene:

    CASE LUSKWALKER: I ain’t no kin to monkeys!

    DARTH VADER: No, you are not. Homo erectus is your father!

  9. Paul Braterman asks: “How can I expliate [expiate?] so grave an error?”

    It’s not too late. I suggest you go to Kentucky, find ol’ Hambo, sink to your knees and beg forgiveness, and maybe he’ll let you spend your final years as a tour guide at the Ark.

  10. @SC, But is that enough? I also taught the laws of radiometric dating; pure naturalistic prejudice

  11. chris schilling

    Sci-fi author Zac Vomasi’s Three Laws of Creationists:

    1. A creationist must always maintain that the physical is but a handmaid to the non-physical and, though we are subject to the inherent properties of the former, the latter is really where it’s at.

    2. A creationist must always preference the Bible as the infallible Word of God over the word of fallible man, even though we have it merely on the authority of fallible men that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.

    2. A creationist must always ignore the moral anomalies in the Bible — such as divinely sanctioned rape, murder, and slavery — while always appealing to the Bible as the source of ultimate morality.

    (Only three?).

  12. Offering a fuller confession, Paul Braterman doubts the sufficiency of our SC’s proposed penance:

    But is that enough? I also taught the laws of radiometric dating; pure naturalistic prejudice

    Your case is even more grave than we realised.

    You will need to demonstrate true contrition at the Ark Encounter, and how better to do so than by deploying a completely unnaturalistic concept from Star Trek?

    So I’m afraid you must undertake a full-tilt Vulcan Mind Meld with Ken Ham.

    Granted, to actually find whatever passes for a mind in Ham would be a tall order even for Science Officer Spock himself.

    But persevere, and do not despair.

    There is a mind somewhere in there, Jim, but not as we know it…

  13. I never taught anything but I refuse to walk off cliffs. If that makes me naturalistic-racist then so be it.

  14. docbill1351

    We all remember that scene where Calvin Smith exclaims, “Dammit, Jim, I’m a flaming creationist, not a rocket surgeon!”

  15. Laurette McGovern

    SF ungodly and evil? Of course it is! Why do you think I like to watch/read it?

  16. There was no one more ungodly and evil than Captain Kirk. He had a pretty girl on every planet in our sector of the galaxy.

  17. Wait…I’m to understand that Calvin here believes that cheating on your spouse (or someone else’s) means that anything you write is evil and lacks credibility?
    Well if that’s so the naughty list for clergy is a mile long.
    Isn’t the moral of Frankenstein to NOT play god? It didn’t have very good results anyway. That would be like criticizing the Bible for having the occasional input of Satan.
    I have to wonder about the reasoning of his essay. If most Christians don’t notice the evolutionary tie ins, why clue them in and say it’s naughty! AIG is already walling in ignorance, why spoil a substantial segment of entertainment?