Garry Phillips critiques the ‘ancient alien theory’
For the last six years or so, the History Channel has broadcast a programme called Ancient Aliens.
The one-hour programme features interviews with fringe scientists, authors and archaeologists. It premiered on 20 April 2010, and is produced by Prometheus Entertainment. The clue, it seems, is in the name of the production company – entertainment, not serious or studied scholarship. So there we have it – entertainment and clever trickery.
The documentary-style show presents theories of ancient aliens (AA) presented by a cadre of contributors (pseudo scientists) who propose that historical religious texts, archaeology and legends contain evidence of past human/extraterrestrial contact.
Phenomenal success
The programme has since become a phenomenal success, attracting around 1.3 million viewers per episode. At the time of writing 1,217,851 people had visited its Facebook page. To date, eight seasons have been aired, comprising 104 episodes.
The AA theorists posit that extraterrestrials, with superior knowledge of science and engineering, landed on Earth thousands of years ago, taught man about technology and influenced ancient religions. Eric von Däniken made the theory popular in his best-selling book Chariots of the Gods published in 1968.
On closer examination we find these ancient aliens theory writers are not qualified to talk about science. They hold no recognised or relevant qualification. Georgio Tsoukalos for instance has a degree in communication and sports information! Tsoukalos has publicly described himself as a pantheist. In other words, he believes that the entire universe and everything in it is itself God.
The third talking head is for me far more sinister. He is David Hatcher Childress (born 1957). He is an American publisher. Interestingly, Childress proudly refers to himself as a ‘rogue archaeologist’. Childress does not hold any degree and claims no credentials or expertise, which is par for the course with the rest of the bunch. Allegedly, he settled a lawsuit claiming he republished a Masters thesis without its author’s permission. Childress is considered a recognised ‘expert’ amongst AA circles, not only on ancient civilisations and technology, but also on other irrelevant subjects.
Jason Coalivito rightly says: ‘Reasoned appeals to scientific methodology, burdens of proof and rules of evidence are simply meaningless in this context because the ancient astronaut theorists pay no attention to them, and it is simply not possible to rebut the ancient astronaut theory while simultaneously teaching the scientific method and inculcating an understanding of the history of science – all in the space of a few sentences or sound bites. The more discerning will quickly see through their claims simply by using their basic common sense.’
For example, Brian Switek of the Smithsonian Institute says: ‘Our narrator goes on at length about how carbon-14 dating is unreliable for telling the age of dinosaurs, but paleontologists do not use carbon-14 to estimate the age of non-avian dinosaurs.’ This is a very basic mistake by AA theorists.
‘Everyone comes from the sky’
In a Rolling Stone interview of June 2011, singer Katy Perry admitted she had become ‘obsessed’ with the show, saying: ‘when it talks about the sky people, how everyone comes from the sky and how the pyramids were used for star observations, it’s too much for me.’ She added: ‘It all seems to connect the dots, it’s blowing my mind.’
Among other celebrities who are impressed by the theory are TV presenter Dermot O’Leary, actress Megan Fox, Lee Ryan from the British band Blue and, I suspect, many more. It needs to be said and I say it here, in my view the History Channel is guilty of indoctrinating our young people by its web of lies. Consequently I have written to the History Channel asking them to include a warning at the top of the show along the lines of ‘This show is for adults who are not gullible or susceptible to the show’s content. Also, the footage in the show is a reconstruction of (supposed) events and therefore must not be taken as real’. It is no surprise that I haven’t received a reply to date, nor do I expect to receive one this side of aliens landing on the lawns of the White House.
Duty of care
Whether they like it or not, I feel that the channel has a ‘duty of care’ towards our young people. What is even more worrying and shameful is the channel’s latest offering. It is a book deliberately targeting the young demographic profile, entitled The Young Investigator’s Guide to Ancient Aliens, based on the series and ensnaring susceptible youngsters. This book is a tie-in to the show, with the History Channel’s official endorsement and authorship, and was released by Roaring Brook Press, a division of Macmillan Press, one of America’s largest book publishers. The glossy volume is aimed at readers aged between eight and 12, clearly defining the overarching motive and objective of H2 (History Channel’s sister channel).
Thankfully, H2 averaged only 196,000 viewers last year, according to the Broadcasting and Cable magazine. This is a huge fall in viewer numbers when measured against the highs of its early showings in 2010. Moreover, AA has also fallen out of the top 100 Friday cable programmes. The last AA episode to chart in the cable ratings aired at 3.04 AM on 4 September 2015 and drew just 721,000 viewers, of whom 300,000 were in the 18–49 demographic profile. However, switch on the History Channel at any time of day or night and you will find an episode of AA re-running.
Repetition
The alert viewer will also find that each is simply regurgitated from previous episodes, and indeed in each one you have countless references to previous segments from the same episode. Repetition, Repetition, Repetition. Von Däniken’s disciple, Georgio Tsoukalos, is as outrageous as his mentor and leader von Däniken. Georgio is a self-styled real-life Indiana Jones (according to his biographical note).
How did this insidious programme ever get its popularity? First, it is well produced, glossy and pacey. Why do people follow it so assiduously? It appeals to the inquisitive. But it isn’t serious science and it isn’t even logical. For most of us with any sort of scientific or professional background the word ‘theory’ carries with it the implication that careful investigations, research, testing and related experiments have been conducted and support the stated idea or thought. For professionals, a stated idea or thought relative to an observation or belief is not a theory. It is a hypothesis and this is not a good one. Any scientific chain of reasoning begins with some initial assumptions that are not rigorously proved, otherwise one would get caught in an endless regression of proofs of assumptions and proofs of proofs of assumptions. Initial assumptions must be reasonable, and shown to be reasonable on the basis of evidence. On this basis, therefore, AA isn’t even a theory.
‘In the know’?
My analysis is that the AA theory is a fantasy fuelled by the everlasting human desire to be part of something greater and higher – or in the language of younger people – to be ‘cool’ and ‘in the know’.
Often the claims are taken at face value with no critical examination involved. Furthermore, the success of the AA credo is peddled using red herrings, circular reasoning, non sequiturs and an assortment of outrageous and unsubstantiated arguments along with downright lies. I trust, however, the discerning Christian will see through it.
Finally, a word to our Christian young people from the NIV Bible: ‘Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth’ (2 Timothy 2.15). This is a good and biblical way of not becoming ensnared by the ‘wiles of the devil’ (Ephesians 6.11, KJV).
