A story that appeared in Sunday’s newspaper included varying religious perspectives about life on other planets.
One point of view I didn’t include is that some people believe NASA’s space exploration program is a ruse to promote a Godless worldview.
There is no scientific explanation for life on Earth, they say, and wonder why it is we are looking to find scientific proof that life began elsewhere on its own. It is a “search for the esoteric,” as one local creationist says.
As with many stories, I put out phone calls, emails and queries and heard back from 10 or so people. The calls keep coming this week, though the story has been published.
His group is one I’ve never written about and they support a creationist view of our existence as opposed to an evolutionary one.
Here is Norm Crawford’s response:
“The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is actually a search for design, a design that would indicate an intelligent source somewhere in the universe.
Since it has been shown that life itself shows unmistakable design in its information, function and complexity, I find this whole concept ironic.
We ignore the obvious and search for the esoteric.
The scientific implausibility of the spontaneous generation of life on this planet has pushed us to look elsewhere in the faith-based hope that somewhere something will provide enough scant evidence to continue perpetuating a flimsy theory to a mathematically impossible problem.
Unfortunately this shows just how much our space program has digressed from exploration for the “benefit of all” to the search to bolster a God-less worldview.”
A bit more about Norm: Norm has a B.S. Aerospace Engineering from USC and a M.S. in Aerospace Engineering with an emphasis in Orbital Mechanics also from USC. He currently works as a Thermodynamic Modeling and Simulation Engineer for Honeywell in Tucson.
He has been studying and teaching on the subject of creation and evolution for over 17 years in various venues, and presents overview classes to give people the big picture of the problems associated with evolutionary thinking.
His classes stress the importance of using Scripture as our basis for scientific interpretation and not the other way around. The desire is to encourage you in the trustworthiness and veracity of the Word of God, and prepare you to evangelize in today’s science-minded world. He has taught his curriculum as a Sunday School series or as a mid-week evening service. He has also taught at private high schools and campus organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
So, is Mr. Crawford a young-earth creationist or an old-earth creationist? Does he believe in micro-evolution, macro-evolution, or none at all? Is he a true-faith creationist who perhaps still believes the sun revolves around the earth?
Creationists have had to modify their claims so frequently in the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence that it’s very easy for them to become confused.
Belief in the truth of science in NO way obviates a belief in God. That’s yet another misconception common among creationists.
And if God did make us in his image, he clearly imbued us with His own sense of wonder and curiosity about the universe. Why turn that into a bad thing?
Anyone who has studied the geology of the earth cannot possibly believe in the young earth (5,000 years old) concept of creation. Earth is obviously much older as is the solar system, the galaxy and the universe. There is obviously evolution going on all the time which leads to variation in species and eventually the evolved creation of new species. There is also extinction going on which is why there are currently endangered species and fossil remains of dinosaurs, trilobites and a whole host of other extinct plants and animals. (The fossil record)
Creation did happen at some distant time in the history of the universe. The big bang is science’s theory on where all the matter came from in our universe, but there is still the question of what or “who” created the big bang, what was there before the big bang, what is beyond the bounds of the known universe and on and on and on.
On the religious side of things: What other than our intellect makes us different from other creatures? Do we have a soul or a spirit separate from our physical body? Is there some type of existence after death; heaven, hell or something else? Most religions teach tolerance, morals and ethical values which are vital for a civilized society to survive and flourish. A few teach intolerance and hate in the name of God and are of course, a curse on civilization.
Lots of questions remain on both the scientific and religious sides and so the quest for answers goes on.
Scientist must be free to explore and search for scientific answers and religious people of good will must be free to practice their faith. Science should be taught in schools in a moral and ethical manner and religion should be taught in church, respecting the value of scientific inquiry. I pray that someday the two will live in peace, respectful of the benefits each brings to society and mankind.
In its initial capacity science merely observes God’s creation and ‘tells us what they found’ – Wouldn’t that then make science God’s advocate?
Evolutionary scientists don’t argue about creation itself, they argue the ‘Christian’ view of it. For many years they argued that the earth couldn’t possibly be only 6,000 years old. Scientists with ‘Christian’ biases realized that they were right, why else would they ‘change’ and adopt a new strategy and call it, Intelligent Design!
The ‘Christian’ view is not consistent with the Bible, but Evolutionary Biology is:
(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood
- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth)
‘man became a ‘living soul’ ‘ (Genesis):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = animal principle/breathing creature
Adam/man was not initially a ‘human’ being as many Bible proponents haved supposed but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (which had to have been a chimpanzee because of recent human genome DNA mapping).
Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are ‘soul (animal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in other animals? Could it be because we have something the other animals don’t have?
animal = soul
human being = soul + immortal spirit
If ever there’s a discrepancy between evolution-science and creation-science, it is Christian doctrine that is proven inconsistent.
Anyone who has studied the geology of the Earth cannot possibly believe for sure they know anything about its age.
Especially in relationship to the appearance of humans / life.
Science will always be adversarial to religion until science realizes that it has no business teaching children there is no spiritual world or that it has some higher knowledge of morality.
Science is a very very limiting process that must only evaluate known naturalistic processes. The phrase…such as “most scientists believe” is nothing but bias hogwash and needs to be rejected as utter nonsense.
Until this happens expect people of faith to pound the breath out unfalsifiable pseudoscience such as the big bang, macro-evolution, multiverse, common ancestry, etc.
The important thing to me is to know and within that God exists! The mechanics and whatever of how he created the universe may be a matter of conjecture and possibly intellectual stimulation, but are really not that important.
Makes a lot of sense.
— dave 06/17/2008 04:59 AM #
So, is Mr. Crawford a young-earth creationist or an old-earth creationist? Does he believe in micro-evolution, macro-evolution, or none at all? Is he a true-faith creationist who perhaps still believes the sun revolves around the earth?
Creationists have had to modify their claims so frequently in the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence that it’s very easy for them to become confused.
Belief in the truth of science in NO way obviates a belief in God. That’s yet another misconception common among creationists.
And if God did make us in his image, he clearly imbued us with His own sense of wonder and curiosity about the universe. Why turn that into a bad thing?
— Jonathan 06/17/2008 05:56 AM #
Anyone who has studied the geology of the earth cannot possibly believe in the young earth (5,000 years old) concept of creation. Earth is obviously much older as is the solar system, the galaxy and the universe. There is obviously evolution going on all the time which leads to variation in species and eventually the evolved creation of new species. There is also extinction going on which is why there are currently endangered species and fossil remains of dinosaurs, trilobites and a whole host of other extinct plants and animals. (The fossil record)
Creation did happen at some distant time in the history of the universe. The big bang is science’s theory on where all the matter came from in our universe, but there is still the question of what or “who” created the big bang, what was there before the big bang, what is beyond the bounds of the known universe and on and on and on.
On the religious side of things: What other than our intellect makes us different from other creatures? Do we have a soul or a spirit separate from our physical body? Is there some type of existence after death; heaven, hell or something else? Most religions teach tolerance, morals and ethical values which are vital for a civilized society to survive and flourish. A few teach intolerance and hate in the name of God and are of course, a curse on civilization.
Lots of questions remain on both the scientific and religious sides and so the quest for answers goes on.
Scientist must be free to explore and search for scientific answers and religious people of good will must be free to practice their faith. Science should be taught in schools in a moral and ethical manner and religion should be taught in church, respecting the value of scientific inquiry. I pray that someday the two will live in peace, respectful of the benefits each brings to society and mankind.
— Bill M 06/17/2008 11:46 AM #
For balance, why don’t you report on what an extraterrestrial thinks of creationists?
— Reginald Selkirk 06/17/2008 02:18 PM #
In its initial capacity science merely observes God’s creation and ‘tells us what they found’ – Wouldn’t that then make science God’s advocate?
Evolutionary scientists don’t argue about creation itself, they argue the ‘Christian’ view of it. For many years they argued that the earth couldn’t possibly be only 6,000 years old. Scientists with ‘Christian’ biases realized that they were right, why else would they ‘change’ and adopt a new strategy and call it, Intelligent Design!
The ‘Christian’ view is not consistent with the Bible, but Evolutionary Biology is:
(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood
- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth)
‘man became a ‘living soul’ ‘ (Genesis):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = animal principle/breathing creature
Adam/man was not initially a ‘human’ being as many Bible proponents haved supposed but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (which had to have been a chimpanzee because of recent human genome DNA mapping).
Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are ‘soul (animal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in other animals? Could it be because we have something the other animals don’t have?
animal = soul
human being = soul + immortal spirit
If ever there’s a discrepancy between evolution-science and creation-science, it is Christian doctrine that is proven inconsistent.
— Dawn Wessel 06/17/2008 05:35 PM #
Anyone who has studied the geology of the Earth cannot possibly believe for sure they know anything about its age.
Especially in relationship to the appearance of humans / life.
Science will always be adversarial to religion until science realizes that it has no business teaching children there is no spiritual world or that it has some higher knowledge of morality.
Science is a very very limiting process that must only evaluate known naturalistic processes. The phrase…such as “most scientists believe” is nothing but bias hogwash and needs to be rejected as utter nonsense.
Until this happens expect people of faith to pound the breath out unfalsifiable pseudoscience such as the big bang, macro-evolution, multiverse, common ancestry, etc.
— PY 06/18/2008 02:07 PM #
The important thing to me is to know and within that God exists! The mechanics and whatever of how he created the universe may be a matter of conjecture and possibly intellectual stimulation, but are really not that important.
— No Name 07/03/2008 02:32 PM #