Ken Ham: The Perseverance Rover’s Budget Should Have Been Spent on Creationism February 21, 2021

Ken Ham: The Perseverance Rover’s Budget Should Have Been Spent on Creationism

It was absolutely incredible to watch the landing of the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover last week. The possibilities of what we may learn from the technology that’s now up there will enrich our understanding of the cosmos for generations to come.

And here to complain about all that is Creationist Ken Ham, who cannot believe we’re wasting any money on frivolous things like learning and exploration.

This is an example of evolutionary beliefs driving research. NASA is spending three billion dollars, primarily to see if there was once life on Mars. What an impact there might be if that three billion dollars was spent to show people life on earth could never have evolved by natural processes and that the very first verse of the Bible is confirmed by science: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Spending three billion dollars to proclaim God’s Word and the gospel has eternal value as every human soul will live forever in heaven or hell.

So… we’re supposed to take the $3 billion cost for the rover, which will hopefully open the door to a better understanding of our universe and the biggest questions we’ll ever grapple with, and use it to… convince people evolution is a hoax?

Ham, whose Ark Encounter has a price tag of $100 million, should know better than anyone that throwing money at fiction to convince people it’s fact isn’t a good use of money. Given that NASA’s budget is less than half of 1% of all government spending, and that space exploration — unlike Creationism — actually benefits the economy, Ham has no clue what he’s talking about.

He gives away the game by never arguing against tax cuts for the rich or a smaller defense budget. He’s going right after space exploration.

If his convictions were strong enough, they wouldn’t need a billion-dollar marketing budget anyway.

(Featured image via Shutterstock. Thanks to Dan for the link)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!