“God is in control”: A field report from the Ark Encounter’s “Astronaut Encounter”by Deana L. Weibel
|
| Each mission proposed for cancellation holds the potential to deepen our understanding of outer space and humanity’s place within it. |
For much of my life, the science carried out by NASA and its partner agencies has been a source of national pride. There have always been reasons for critique, though - NASA’s hiring of Wernher von Braun, for example, whose WWII-era rockets killed thousands and were built by enslaved workers; or the Cold War’s symbolic Space Race, funded at the expense of domestic needs like civil rights and social programs. Yet despite such concerns, NASA’s scientific work has generally been viewed in a positive light, whether for improving weather forecasting, enabling lifesaving technologies, or expanding the boundaries of human knowledge.
Some critics argue that the proposed cuts are not merely an effort to trim NASA’s budget, but part of a broader attempt to curtail the dissemination of scientific information that challenges certain partisan positions or worldviews.[2] Take climate change: the scientific consensus clearly links human activity to rising global temperatures. Yet some political and religious groups frame these conclusions as the results of certain political stances. We’ve seen similar skepticism directed at medicine and pharmaceuticals,[3] part of a broader erosion of public trust that mischaracterizes science as “just another opinion” rather than a process grounded in replicable data, peer review, and a rigorous commitment to objectivity.[4]
 The Ark Encounter’s full-scale replica of Noah’s Ark served as the backdrop for the Astronaut Encounter event, blending biblical literalism with spaceflight testimony. (credit: D. Weibel) |
A very different astronaut encounter
I recently attended a space-themed event on July 12, where these same dynamics played out. Scientific consensus, including consensus on space science, was framed as ideologically motivated, with NASA’s research characterized as a product of what event organizer Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, has previously called “the secular religion of atheism.”[5]
A friend in the space community who follows my research alerted me to an event being held in Williamstown, Kentucky: the Astronaut Encounter. This is not to be confused with the Astronaut Encounter events at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex. This one took place at the Ark Encounter, a Young Earth Creationist theme park that had just celebrated its ninth anniversary. The park is built around a reconstruction of Noah’s Ark, following the specifications identified in the Bible. The people who run the park sincerely believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that any science contradicting a literal biblical perspective must be discarded as Satanic in origin.
The advertised speakers at the event were Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis (the organization that runs the park); Apollo 16 moonwalker Charlie Duke; retired NASA astronaut Jeffrey N. Williams; and still-active NASA astronaut Barry Wilmore, recently returned from the ill-fated Boeing Starliner mission. That mission had resulted in Wilmore and his fellow crewmember Sunita Williams (no relation to Jeffrey Williams) remaining aboard the International Space Station (ISS) for months longer than originally planned.
As a cultural anthropologist, I would normally be writing about interviews I’ve conducted with people in the community I study, keeping their names and identifying details confidential. In this case, because it was a public event, that’s not necessary. The three astronauts who spoke at the event have all discussed their beliefs publicly and on a regular basis. I was able to record their presentations and the question-and-answer session that followed. My aim was to better understand the influence of Young Earth Creationism on the way these three astronauts talked about space—and, more broadly, to understand what this perspective reveals about the shifting American perception of science and how those changes might be influencing the current administration’s efforts to drastically reduce NASA’s science budget.
| The broader argument made by the park, and by extension the Astronaut Encounter event, is that mainstream science is misleading and deceptive, propagated by non-believers. True science, on the other hand, aligns perfectly with the Bible and should be the dominant form of science. |
On Saturday morning, I drove to the Ark Encounter. It was a hot and humid Kentucky day, and I was grateful for the early morning start. After showing my ticket on my phone at the gate, I was directed to a parking lot and took a shuttle from there about a mile to the park itself. The central feature of the Ark Encounter is, as mentioned earlier, a replica of Noah’s Ark. It measures 510 feet (155 meters) long, 85 feet (26 meters) wide, and 51 feet (16 meters) high. This structure dominates the view of the park, which is designed above all to create an immersive experience of being alive during the time of Noah and his descendants. Although I didn’t have the opportunity to enter the Ark itself (this was a full-day event, and by the time I finished, the park was closing), park materials indicate that it is four stories tall and contains displays imagining what the interior of the Ark would have looked like.
One of the more striking beliefs held by the group behind the park, Answers in Genesis, is that because the Earth is only 6,000 years old, all discovered fossils must also date from within that span, including those of dinosaurs. From this perspective, humans and dinosaurs must have coexisted. Anthropologist James Bielo, who conducted ethnographic research on the creation of the Ark Encounter, described the organization’s desire to “take dinosaurs back.”[6] Dinosaurs are perceived as inherently scientific and attract significant public interest, which is part of what Answers in Genesis wants to harness. The broader argument made by the park, and by extension the Astronaut Encounter event, is that mainstream science is misleading and deceptive, propagated by non-believers. True science, on the other hand, aligns perfectly with the Bible and should be the dominant form of science, as it was (in their view) before the Enlightenment. Answers in Genesis is also affiliated with several non-accredited religious universities that offer degrees in scientific fields, though the content of those programs diverges significantly from that of accredited institutions, both secular and religious.
Across from the Ark is the Answers in Genesis auditorium. I went inside, was given a lanyard at the entryway, and directed downstairs to a table where I could pick up my badge and a plastic gift bag containing literature, flyers, books, and stickers. As the day progressed, the audience grew, and I was struck by the large number of families with young children (many of my recordings include the sounds of crying babies.) Most attendees were of European descent, though not exclusively, and the overall atmosphere was one of ease and comfort. Interactions were warm and friendly, with a clear sense of community. Many people wore Young Earth Creationist-themed T-shirts, NASA apparel, or patriotic clothing featuring stars and stripes. I also noticed several attendees who appeared to be members of the Church of the Brethren, a historic peace church with a strong presence in nearby Cincinnati, known for its emphasis on simple living, service, and nonviolence. I made my way to the auditorium and found a seat.
The cosmos from a creationist perspective
After the crowd was greeted by Ark Encounter representative and enthusiastic emcee Bryan Osborne (a T-shirt cannon was involved), well-known Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham took the stage. Ham gave a well-practiced speech, focused on defending the legitimacy of the science done by Creationists, a position that had been attacked in 2014 when Ham debated science educator Bill Nye. At the time, Nye had claimed that Young Earth Creationists could not be real scientists; Ham was now hosting this event, featuring three astronauts, to prove him wrong. The underlying argument was that an astronaut is, by definition, a scientist. This is not exactly the case in practice, but it aligns with a broader tendency at Answers in Genesis to adopt language and imagery associated with science as part of their brand.
The group is known for depictions of human beings living alongside dinosaurs and has included dinosaurs among the animals Noah saved from the flood in the biblical story. At one point, when Ham intended to use the word “robot” while referencing an upcoming virtual reality attraction in Pigeon Forge, Kentucky, he accidentally said “dinosaur” instead. I believe this was a slip of the tongue, as both dinosaurs and robots are popular symbols of science and the kind of imagery his organization values—largely because they attract families with children. Astronauts fit into this category as well.
Ham went on to discuss the cosmos, naming various constellations and nebulae and demonstrating his familiarity with astronomy. He explained his belief that God had created the universe to showcase His power to human beings; as Psalm 19 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”[7] The universe, Ham claimed, has no other purpose than to impress us here on Earth with God’s capacity for creation.
 Charlie Duke discusses his Apollo 16 mission in front of a lunar map showing human and robotic landing sites, reinforcing the reality of the Moon landings. (credit: D. Weibel) |
A Moonwalker’s faith
Charlie Duke’s speech followed Ken Ham’s. The stage in the auditorium featured an enormous screen behind the lectern, and as Duke spoke, it cycled through spectacular images he had taken on the Apollo 16 mission, along with additional visuals, including a photograph of the Moon annotated with the mapped locations of both human and robotic landings. Duke delivered a rousing tale of adventure, recounting his voyage to Earth’s largest satellite and describing some of the sights he and John Young had seen on its surface. Duke is a delightful speaker and an engaging presence overall.
| Williams, who earned a Doctor of Ministry degree in 2021, delivered something closer to a sermon than a traditional space talk. Its central theme was that science and religion are fundamentally compatible. |
As he spoke, I began to notice how deliberately he addressed, and preemptively countered, common claims made by Moon landing deniers. For example, he explained why stars aren’t visible in the Apollo 16 photos taken from the Moon: it was daytime during the landing, and the mission was scheduled to coincide with an extended period of sunlight on the Descartes Highlands to ensure the lander maintained a warm enough temperature. He also described the flag he and Young planted, and how (despite the internal curtain rod designed to make it appear as though it were flying) it remained slightly wrinkled, despite his best efforts to smooth it out.
Charlie Duke is known for his strong Christian faith, and after recounting his lunar journey, he turned to the story of how his marriage had entered a crisis following Apollo 16, and how it had improved after he and his wife fully converted to Christianity. He spoke about his ministry, his 62 years of marriage, and his upcoming 90th birthday. It was a heartwarming presentation and stayed very close to the narrative Duke typically shares in public. The audience was delighted and gave him a standing ovation.
 Jeffrey Williams presents a slide contrasting biblical and secular approaches to science, arguing that Enlightenment ideas led to widespread scientific error (credit: D. Weibel) |
Science and the dominion mandate
After a break, during which much of the audience disappeared to line up for photos with Charlie Duke on a lower floor of the conference center, Jeffrey N. Williams came to the stage. His talk shared the title of his photography book, The Work of His Hands, a reference to Psalm 19 mentioned earlier. Williams had published the book while still an active NASA astronaut, something another astronaut I’ve interviewed described as problematic due to the book’s strong religious framing and Williams’ then-role as a representative of the space agency. The book’s underlying premise is that viewing Earth from orbit helped Williams understand the planet as God’s creation and even revealed evidence of Noah’s flood. Much to my surprise, however, proof of the biblical flood was not a focus of his speech.
Instead, Williams, who earned a Doctor of Ministry degree in 2021, delivered something closer to a sermon than a traditional space talk. Its central theme was that science and religion are fundamentally compatible. He began by describing some of his time in space, sharing photos and a few personal memories. And while Charlie Duke had gone to some lengths to debunk Moon landing deniers, Williams briefly addressed another fringe belief held by a small number of Christians: that the Earth is flat. In a friendly tone, Williams told the assembled crowd of what was announced to be 1,500 people, “This verse might be familiar too, maybe not. It’s the oldest book in the Bible, Job 26: ‘He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.’[8] By the way, I know you don't believe this, but you have a friend that does. The Earth is not flat… It is a sphere hanging on nothing—literally—which is amazing in itself. But think about it. This verse is written from the perspective of being off the planet, which gives testimony to the author of scripture, right?”
Williams then turned to another belief he considered false: the idea that the Earth, or the universe, might be much more than 6,000 years old. Early science, he explained, including astronomy, was based on the Bible and fully compatible with the creation account in Genesis. Over time, however, adherence to biblical truth was gradually undermined and replaced by a secular worldview. Williams observed that while the Enlightenment and Renaissance are often portrayed positively, and the “Dark Ages” negatively, he believed the opposite was true in terms of how science began to be conducted.
According to Williams, 18th-century thinkers like geologist James Hutton introduced “Satanic” ideas into science, such as the possibility that the Earth was many thousands, or even millions, of years old. As these ideas gained traction and “deep time” became widely accepted, new scientific theories requiring vast chronological scales proliferated. Darwin’s theory of evolution is the most well-known example, but geology and astronomy also depend on timelines measured in millions or billions of years. In Williams’ view, scientists promoting such theories (at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis) led a gullible public to adopt an understanding of the universe that he and others believe is based on a lie.
Another key part of Williams’ talk was already familiar to me: the concept of the “Dominion Mandate.” It’s based on Genesis 1:28, which reads: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”[9] Williams explained, “Scientific endeavor is a component of this Dominion Mandate. Be fruitful. Subdue what I’ve given you. I’m turning it over to you—have dominion over it.”
“Hugo,” whose work with the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab involved robotic interplanetary exploration, had said something similar in an interview with me:
We’re supposed to rule over creation—not in a harsh way—but there’s a stewardship going on. Yeah, it’s a stewardship. How can you steward what you don’t know? Most of what God made is not on Earth. It’s in space! And so I think from a religious perspective, there’s even more of a reason to explore space than from a non-religious perspective, because we are reflecting God’s self to the created order when we go to the Moon, or when we send robots to Mars… God said to fill the Earth and subdue it. Maybe Earth is… maybe it’s not literally Earth. Maybe it’s the whole creation.
Hugo was not a Young Earth Creationist, but he and Williams shared the view that this verse from Genesis could be read as divine permission or even encouragement for space travel.
A conversation I had in 2019 with a young Muslim woman studying space medicine, “Badra,” revealed a Quranic verse that conveyed a similar message. This is ar-Rahman 55:33, which reads: “O assembly of jinn and humans! If you can penetrate beyond the realms of the heavens and the earth, then do so. ˹But˺ you cannot do that without ˹Our˺ authority.”[10] Badra explained, “When I read that, I thought it could obviously apply to underwater exploration or any type of exploration, but to me, space specifically came to mind because it said, ‘the heavens and the Earth,’ and that’s what I thought of.” That verse was part of what made Badra decide to apply for astronaut candidacy after finishing her degree.
 Barry Wilmore describes Starliner’s onboard failures and his manual docking maneuver. (credit: D. Weibel) |
Starliner: peril and providence
The final talk of the day was given by Barry “Butch” Wilmore, recently in the news because of his role as commander of the ill-fated Boeing Starliner mission. The Starliner successfully docked but its erratic behavior while in orbit and other concerns led NASA to send it back to Earth without Wilmore and his crewmate Sunita Williams. Wilmore’s talk focused on that mission, particularly his belief that God had “providentially” put him through the correct life experiences and training so that he was in the right place at the right time when he was needed to manually pilot Starliner after several of its thrusters gave out and it lost its ability to move forward/aft. His narrative reminded me of an interview I did with a retired astronaut I call “Tom,” who understood his whole career trajectory as having been orchestrated by God.
| The boy’s tears reflected his awe at being in the presence of someone whose experiences in space made him seem almost godlike. |
Wilmore’s tale of the spacecraft’s thrusters going offline and online and offline again in their doghouses and the adjustments needed to successfully dock was suspenseful and kept the crowd’s attention. His slides included clear illustrations and animations and made the situation he and Sunita Williams encountered easy to follow. He explained how various elements of NASA and Navy training had given him the resources necessary “culminating in this moment. The Lord's preparation of me for this moment providentially working, as I said, realizing he's in control.”
Interestingly, as mentioned previously, participants in the Ark Encounter’s Astronaut Encounter were given a gift bag of books, folders, flyers and stickers and one of the stickers features an image of the Starliner capsule above the words “GOD IS IN CONTROL, Isaiah 41:10.” Isaiah 41:10 reads: “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.”[11] This sticker worked as another illustration of Wilmore’s story, although I suspect most of those assembled knew the verse better than the spacecraft.
 A sticker distributed at the Astronaut Encounter event linked Barry Wilmore’s Starliner mission to divine providence. (credit: D. Weibel) |
After describing the successful docking, Wilmore turned to the topic of his family, including his love for his brother Jack and how much he had missed his wife and daughters when his “short” visit to the ISS was unexpectedly extended. He talked about how members of his church came to his family’s aid, taking over chores like mowing the lawn, and how his wife stepped up to care for the family in his absence. He also explained how connected he had stayed to his church from orbit, attending services virtually. He recounted the end of the mission in this way:
One day I'll leave this wretched body, this wretchedness of my sin and I'm going home. [Gesturing around him] Because this is not my home. And in like fashion, not that the space station is a wretched place, it's not. But this interacting with everyone else, being there within the body of the church, helping one another, exhorting one another, encouraging one another. This is what God designed for us to do. We take time to go and do other things as our jobs dictate, but this is the place that God would have us be and that's why you long to come back when you have those periods where you have to be away unexpectedly and so did I. So like all true believers, we will go home. And one day we finally came home.
After making this comparison between leaving space for Earth and leaving Earth for Heaven, he played a video of the eventual splashdown on March 18 when he and Suni Williams returned on a Crew Dragon capsule.[12]
Because the day-long event was to be followed by a “Dinner with the Astronauts” (tickets were sold out by the time I found out about it), the opportunity for attendees to meet Wilmore took place in the auditorium where he had spoken while the downstairs area was prepared for the dinner. Members of the audience were clearly thrilled to take photographs with him—the story of the dangerous journey aboard the Starliner and both Wilmore’s heroism and faith had moved the crowd. As people returned to their seats I heard the following exchange between an older woman and a boy of about six or seven:
Boy (full of emotion, voice tinged with tears): “Will Butch Wilmore remember us?”
Woman (with calm warmth): “No, he’s meeting all these people! But God will remember you.”
Wilmore had very clearly established himself as someone deeply admirable and close to God in a way that would have a lasting impact on the audience there. As I wrote in a previous article for The Space Review, “Astronauts’ literal ‘otherworldliness’ may trigger quasi-religious responses in people, responses that are generally reserved for saints and other religious figures.”[13] The boy’s tears reflected his awe at being in the presence of someone whose experiences in space made him seem almost godlike.
Asking the right questions
The last talk of the day was a question-and-answer session. Throughout the event, audience members had been encouraged to submit questions. They could fill out postcards and turn them in, or use a QR code to submit digitally. The organizers then selected from among these to construct the Q&A. This format prevented surprise questions that might catch the participants off-guard and allowed for more control over both content and sequencing. Armchairs had been brought to the stage, where Wilmore, Duke, and Williams sat facing the audience, flanked on either side by Bryan Osborne and Ken Ham.
The first question addressed the motivation for holding an astronaut event in the first place. Ken Ham returned to his 2014 debate with Bill Nye for context. He explained, “When I debated Bill Nye in 2014, he said that Creationists can’t be real scientists. He also said if we teach people to believe in Genesis, believe in the Bible’s creation, that it’s going to stifle technology, and it will result in a lack of technology and so on. And I want young people… to meet people that we hear of as astronauts… to meet those who are Christians, Creationists, who love the Lord, and to show them that hey, you can be a Creationist and be a real scientist, can be a real astronaut.”
Ham’s comments suggested two things. First, that astronauts are by definition scientists. This is not necessarily the case. Before Harrison Schmitt, no astronaut had been an actual scientist, even though many had engaged in scientific work. A retired Apollo-era astronaut I call “Zack” told me that it’s much easier to train a scientist to be a pilot than it is to train a pilot to be a scientist, which, he explained, is part of why NASA increasingly brought scientists into the corps to join military pilots as its missions expanded. Second, Ham implied that the Answers in Genesis position, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and the universe roughly the same age, is not only scientifically valid, but more accurate than the conclusions of mainstream science, which is built on the scientific method rather than biblical interpretation.
| All three astronauts expressed doubt that humans would ever reach the Red Planet, citing the vast distance, health risks, and inability to bring sufficient supplies to repair the many things that would inevitably go wrong. |
I want to note here that my findings suggest science and religion are not fundamentally incompatible. In 2019, for instance, I spent a month conducting ethnographic fieldwork at the Vatican Observatory with the “Pope’s astronomers.” Although the scientists at the Specola are mostly Jesuit priests and brothers, the astronomy they publish regularly appears in peer-reviewed journals and is subject to the same rigorous standards of evidence and methodology as research produced by secular scientists. They’ve contributed to NASA missions like OSIRIS-REx and Lucy, generating work grounded in data rather than scripture. This is not to say that the Vatican astronomers don’t see their work in a religious context (they absolutely do) but that their religious beliefs do not purposely drive the way they process and interpret data when doing science. One of my contacts there, “Carlo,” has mentioned more than once that the Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be one. They expect their findings to contradict biblical accounts and explanations.
By contrast, the speakers at the Ark Encounter’s Astronaut Encounter event were deeply invested in their biblical science being understood as correct, objective science. The Q&A session gave them a chance to respond directly to ideas they viewed as outlandish, and to position themselves as models of rationality. For example, Bryan Osborne posed the following audience-submitted question to Jeffrey Williams: “Why do you believe a flat Earth is heretical and goes against the Bible?” Williams responded:
Well, it’s utter foolishness in essence. There’s no logic behind it; we have a God of logic. When I first heard about it, it was actually ironically when I was on orbit the last time in 2016. I thought it was satire. I thought it was a joke. And it wasn’t until I returned to Earth that I realized that there are people that are actually caught up in this. It’s almost like a cultic kind of behavior. And if folks are going to get caught up in that kind of thinking, that kind of irrationality, then they are vulnerable to go down any path.… If you go down that path, you’ve departed logic. You’re not based on the word of God. By the way, [the flat Earth belief has] some scripture to justify it, but it takes it completely out of context and makes clearly figurative language into some literal imagination. So if you’re susceptible to do that, who knows where you’re going to end up.
Several elements of Williams’ response were notable, but I was especially struck by how he co-opted the very arguments often used against Young Earth Creationism: that it’s a cultic belief, irrational, and based on misreadings of figurative scripture as literal fact. By framing flat-Eartherism as an extremist position, he effectively positioned Young Earth Creationism as the more judicious and reasonable view. Ken Ham followed up: “And really all three of you have been up there in space. Observational science! You’ve seen the Earth from space.”
The topic then turned, almost inevitably, to Moon landing denial. Again, Young Earth Creationism was cast as comparatively commonsensical. Charlie Duke expressed genuine bafflement that he still met people who believed the Moon landings were faked. He explained that when he asked these individuals for evidence, none was ever provided. “There’s no evidence,” he said. “People are like that with the flat Earth. It’s the same! You can’t demonstrate any evidence.” Duke described evidence for the Moon landing, including photos taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that clearly show the landing sites. Ken Ham, however, shifted the frame from empirical to moral proof, suggesting that the best evidence was that “we have a man who loves the Lord, who loves His Word,” Ham said. “Has he only come to lie about those sort of things?” In doing so, Ham subtly replaced empirical validation with an appeal to religious authority that was not based on Duke’s astronaut credentials or data, but on his devout Christian character. This rhetorical move echoes the classic logical fallacy known as appeal to (irrelevant) authority: trusting a claim because it comes from someone viewed as morally upright instead of evaluating the independent evidence for the claim itself.
The session continued with a question about Mars. All three astronauts expressed doubt that humans would ever reach the Red Planet, citing the vast distance, health risks, and inability to bring sufficient supplies to repair the many things that would inevitably go wrong. They all agreed that robotic exploration of Mars was preferable. A lack of political will was also cited. After hearing their responses, Ham offered this reflection: “Going to Mars would cost billions and billions and billions of dollars. I’d rather spend all that money showing people how to get to heaven than to Mars.” The audience cheered.
The panelists also agreed with Ham’s pronouncement that there is no life elsewhere in the universe. Barry Wilmore summed it up: “God focused on THIS planet… This is the planet he created to be inhabited…Everything is to support life on this planet. It’s all focused here. There is not life elsewhere. I’m convinced of that based on what God’s word says.” He, too, received enthusiastic applause.
There was only one moment when the session began to go a bit off-script. An audience question read, “Why is it hard for some scientists like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, etc., to put their faith in God?” These three figures, of course, are widely seen as opponents of Young Earth Creationism. Williams disputed the premise, saying that many scientists (though not the ones listed) did, in fact, have personal relationships with Jesus. This led to a broader discussion about being spiritually dead versus awakened by God.
Then, somewhat unexpectedly, Charlie Duke cheerfully announced, “I’ve had an opportunity to get to know Richard Dawkins. I had lunch with him probably ten times.” My audio recording captured the hush that fell over the room, followed by the voice of a nearby man saying, “What?” Duke explained that he had been trying to witness to Dawkins for quite some time and felt that Dawkins’ recent self-description as a “cultural Christian”[14] signaled progress. The crowd remained somewhat puzzled as Duke recounted a friendly meeting with Stephen Hawking. He shared that Hawking had once said, if given the chance to ask God a single question, it would be: “Why are there microwaves?” The audience laughed, perhaps interpreting the remark as an odd or humorous reference to kitchen appliances. But Hawking’s question almost certainly referred to cosmic microwave background radiation, which is widely understood as some of the strongest empirical evidence for the Big Bang.[15] In that moment, the laughter seemed to offer a kind of release, allowing the audience to reaffirm their interpretive framework—even as Duke, notably, expressed warmth and respect for a figure so often positioned as philosophically opposite. Wilmore followed the anecdote with a simple affirmation of Duke’s unexpected perspective: “And that’s why we pray. We seek those opportunities to share.”
The final question of the day read, “As an unashamed Bible believing Christian, what challenges have you encountered working for NASA?” The answers aligned with research I’ve done in the past, which points to a strong Christian (or at least “culturally Christian”) atmosphere within NASA. Williams answered first: “I have no particular challenges… But I never, in my faith, really got censored or criticized or critiqued for sharing my faith. And that’s by the grace of God.”
Wilmore explained that on his most recent time aboard the ISS, he “never said anything… to proselytize,” but that he “did take advantage of the questions that the Lord again put in the hearts of men and individuals that would ask me specific questions.” Those questions allowed him to witness without initiating the interaction. He continued: “And not once did NASA ever say, ‘Stop saying what you’re saying.’ I was protected by God, the Holy Spirit.” He acknowledged that he was occasionally questioned about how he could be both an astronaut and a person of faith but compared that difficulty to the much greater challenges faced by Christian martyrs who had been killed for their beliefs. Duke answered next, recounting how Bibles had been carried to the Moon and referencing Apollo 8’s famous reading from the Book of Genesis.[16] Regarding NASA’s take on religion, he said, “They didn’t push it, but they weren’t against it either. It was sort of a neutral situation back then.”
As the session drew to a close, Wilmore reaffirmed his conviction that Young Earth Creationism represents the only true science:
The whole premise that science and faith don’t congeal is just another lie of Satan. That’s just a lie. It’s not true. We know that… The Bible is absolutely factual. Every single point where it speaks to science—it’s not a science book—but where it talks to science, it’s absolutely factual. Now, it may differ from theoretical science, right? Theoretical science includes theory, hypothesis, assumption, right? In the science. So it’s not true science. It’s not like physics; it’s not like two plus two is four. So it may differ there, but true science—it doesn’t differ at all. It’s absolutely true.
Wilmore was acknowledging the differences between the findings of mainstream science and what the Bible says but framed those findings, particularly in fields like cosmology and evolution, as based on theoretical constructs rather than perceptible truth. In this view, theoretical science is understood not as a rigorous process of evidence-based reasoning but instead as a system of human speculation, uncertain and subjective, that must be subordinated to the “observable” science supported by scripture.
Science, subjectivity, and what’s at stake for NASA
The program ended, and I headed back to my hotel to type up my notes and contemplate what I’d observed. This was a rare opportunity to witness a particular intersection of space exploration and spirituality that I had never encountered firsthand.
| If the public increasingly sees science not as a method but as a set of claims indistinguishable from ideology, then support for complex, visionary projects, especially those that require decades of commitment and international cooperation, will inevitably erode. Not because the science has failed, but because our ability to recognize its value has. |
As a researcher who studies religion, I recognize the enormous value religious belief can offer: solidarity, meaning, orientation in the cosmos, and a deep sense of purpose and human worth. The participants in the Astronaut Encounter clearly drew strength from their faith, as did their audience. There is great comfort in a worldview that situates Earth and humanity at the spiritual center of creation. But this event can also be seen as a case study in how a deeply held religious perspective, especially one rooted in a literalist reading of scripture, can frame scientific research as speculative at best, deceptive at worst. The very science that underpins decades of NASA missions, science that is empirical, evidence-based, grounded in peer review and rigorous critique, was repeatedly portrayed not as a way of knowing the universe, but as a value-driven set of opinions. When the Bible is described as “absolutely factual” and theoretical science is said to be based on “assumption,” the message is unmistakable: scientific disagreement with scripture isn’t an intriguing tension to be explored, it’s simply evidence that science is untrustworthy.
It’s true that science is an imperfect human activity. Scientists make mistakes. And anthropologists, including myself, are trained to view all systems of knowledge (including science itself) as culturally embedded. But what distinguishes science is not its freedom from culture—it’s the fact that it was deliberately designed to interrogate and correct for bias. It does so not by discarding evidence that contradicts existing assumptions, but by examining that evidence more closely. Theories require proofs, and those proofs may not always be directly visible from a spacecraft window, but that doesn’t make them arbitrary. Einstein predicted that if the universe had expanded from an early hot, dense state, it would leave behind faint, uniform microwave radiation—essentially the afterglow of the Big Bang. Decades later, that radiation was detected, first by accident and then with increasing precision. This cosmic microwave background confirmed both the Big Bang theory and Einstein’s prediction.[17] These waves aren’t abstract: they’re measurable, observable, and essential to technologies like satellite communications and precision GPS. These are used by astronauts in space as well as those of us on Earth and must account for the structure and expansion of the universe to function accurately.
When science is cast as “just another belief system,” it's easier to justify cutting its funding. It's easier to frame long-term missions like OSIRIS-APEX or New Horizons as extravagant or unnecessary. It's easier to dismiss efforts like the Mars Sample Return as irrelevant because, from this view, there’s nothing meaningful to discover. If the public increasingly sees science not as a method but as a set of claims indistinguishable from ideology, then support for complex, visionary projects, especially those that require decades of commitment and international cooperation, will inevitably erode. Not because the science has failed, but because our ability to recognize its value has.
I don’t believe most US policymakers share the specific beliefs promoted at the Ark Encounter. Young Earth Creationists remain a minority voice, concerned primarily with preserving their space in the cultural landscape. But when their framework, one that treats scientific findings as threats rather than tools, is amplified in high-profile public settings, and when literal astronauts lend their credibility to the idea that modern science is “just theory,” it has real consequences.
The proposed 47% cut to NASA’s science programs would sunset dozens of missions, including some that could help us understand the origins of life or even prevent planetary catastrophe. These are not fringe efforts, they’re part of the core work that has made NASA a global leader in science. But when the tools of science are seen as agenda-driven, when peer-reviewed data is dismissed as speculative or even Satanic, the road to cutting missions becomes smoother, the justification more comfortable.
To treat science as merely one belief system among many is to misrepresent what science is and why it matters. Claims that science is merely a tool to promote a certain political perspective (whether accusing climate researchers of fabrication or reducing medical research to “Big Pharma” profiteering) are rhetorically powerful because they reframe empirical findings as mere opinion. But while no human endeavor is untouched by ideology, the strength of science lies precisely in its effort to weed ideology out. NASA’s science missions must be protected, not despite the fact that their findings may challenge deeply held beliefs or even particular political goals, but precisely because they do. In an era when the authority of evidence is often undermined or dismissed, defending the integrity of empirical discovery is essential - not only for the future of space science, but for the very idea that reality can be investigated and understood without fear of the consequences of challenging dogma, whether religious or political.
References
- Eric Katz, “NASA Renews Its Push to Slash Its Workforce,” Government Executive, June 9, 2025.
- Karin Kirk, “Trump’s Climate Research Cuts Are Unpopular, Even with Republican Voters,” Yale Climate Connections, July 3, 2025.
- Dilshani Sarathchandra, Kristin Haltinner, and Matthew Grindal, “Climate Skeptics’ Identity Construction and (DIS)Trust in Science in the United States,” Environmental Sociology 8, no. 1 (August 23, 2021): 25–40.
- Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton, and Simon Perry, “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” Environmental Research Letters 16, no. 11 (October 19, 2021): 114005.
- Ken Ham, “Atheism-a Hopeless Religion,” Answers in Genesis, July 4, 2025.
- James S. Bielo, Ark Encounter: The Making of a Creationist Theme Park (New York: New York University Press, 2018).
- Psalm 19:1, New International Version (NIV).
- Job 26:7, New International Version (NIV).
- Genesis 1:28, King James Version (KJV).
- Quran, Surah ar-Rahman 55:33
- Isaiah 41:10, King James Version (KJV).
- Alison Francis, Greg Brosnan, and Rebecca Morelle, “NASA Astronauts Butch and Suni Finally Back on Earth,” BBC News, March 19, 2025.
- Deana L. Weibel, “Astronauts vs. Mortals: Space Workers, Jain Ascetics, and NASA’s Transcendent Few,”, April 8, 2019.
- LBC, “Richard Dawkins: I’m a Cultural Christian,” YouTube, April 2024.
- Daniel An et al., “Apparent Evidence for Hawking Points in the CMB Sky★,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 495, no. 3 (January 2020): 3403–8.
- Kendrick Oliver, “The Apollo 8 Genesis Reading and Religion in the Space Age,” Astropolitics 11, no. 1–2 (January 2013): 116–21.
- Ethan Siegel, “The CMB: The Most Important Discovery in Cosmic History,” Big Think, January 29, 2025.
Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.