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.
Egad — Star 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!