Picard a creationist?

[Peregrin Toker]

Sorry, but Star Trek IS creationist. It's just "intelligent design" creationist instead of young-earth creationist.

No, it is Raëlian creationist!!

(just watch Who Mourns for Adonais!!)

[Rathark]

See the episode "Where Silence Has Lease", Season 2. In this episode, Picard and Riker make the decision to self-destruct the Enterprise (strangely enough from engineering with their hands on a panel presumably for authorization)- giving themselves 20 minutes to prepare for it.

Leaving aside how irrational it is to self destruct the ship when the entity they're being held hostage by is only planning to kill 1/3 to 1/2 (so it can learn the nature of death- it's immortal), Data asks Picard what death is. On one hand he has religion and on the other hand he has stark atheism. He supposedly rejects both and gives a sickening spiel that sounds exactly like intelligent design nonsense, with Picard saying that he believes our existence is beyond what we currently percieve blah blah blah .....

Your argument would have more impact if you quoted him directly.

And while I am totally against creationism, I believe that "Intelligent Design" is only bad when it masquerades as science. As a matter of philosophy, theology or personal belief (NOT coercive), and so long as it acknowledges the true scientifically measured age of the universe, Intelligent Design does not worry me at all.

For example, if a Catholic physics lecturer stated that "the universe came into being because God willed it 13 billion years ago", then he is teaching the wrong class. Regardless of his personal beliefs, as a physicist he must stick to what science can understand and not rope in totally irrelevent material that cannot be proven or disproven by science. If he wants to discuss his personal beliefs, he would be better off inviting someone from the theology department over for some tea and scones.

Here's a related question for you: If my novel is set in a highly technologized far future, and acknowledges the existence of life after death and an infinite being beyond time, space and the material multiverse, is my novel science fiction or science fantasy?

[Vympel]

Your argument would have more impact if you quoted him directly.

Oh come now I'm not going to sit there and post him word for word as I watch the episode.

And while I am totally against creationism, I believe that "Intelligent Design" is only bad when it masquerades as science. As a matter of philosophy, theology or personal belief (NOT coercive), and so long as it acknowledges the true scientifically measured age of the universe, Intelligent Design does not worry me at all.

Intelligent Design is merely a code word for creationism. It's irrational.

For example, if a Catholic physics lecturer stated that "the universe came into being because God willed it 13 billion years ago", then he is teaching the wrong class. Regardless of his personal beliefs, as a physicist he must stick to what science can understand and not rope in totally irrelevent material that cannot be proven or disproven by science. If he wants to discuss his personal beliefs, he would be better off inviting someone from the theology department over for some tea and scones.

Yup.

Here's a related question for you: If my novel is set in a highly technologized far future, and acknowledges the existence of life after death and an infinite being beyond time, space and the material multiverse, is my novel science fiction or science fantasy?

Depends on your definition of the genre. 'Science fiction' is really just a euphemism for anything set in the future nowadays.

[Peregrin Toker]

Depends on your definition of the genre. 'Science fiction' is really just a euphemism for anything set in the future nowadays.

Then what about sci-fi which is set in the past or present, such "Men In Black" (which is about the modern-day government keeping extraterrestrials under wraps) or the "Space 1889" roleplaying game, which takes place in an alternate history where space travel was developed in the 19th century and the first man landed on Mars in 1870??

[Vympel]

Depends on your definition of the genre. 'Science fiction' is really just a euphemism for anything set in the future nowadays.

Then what about sci-fi which is set in the past or present, such "Men In Black" (which is about the modern-day government keeping extraterrestrials under wraps) or the "Space 1889" roleplaying game, which takes place in an alternate history where space travel was developed in the 19th century and the first man landed on Mars in 1870??

Ok I'll put it this way ... advanced technology is whether its sci-fi or not

Although that's probably wrong too, does it really make a difference?

[Darth Wong]

And while I am totally against creationism, I believe that "Intelligent Design" is only bad when it masquerades as science. As a matter of philosophy, theology or personal belief (NOT coercive), and so long as it acknowledges the true scientifically measured age of the universe, Intelligent Design does not worry me at all.

Acknowledging the true scientifically estimated age of the universe is no different than acknowledging the true nature of evolution, which is NOT designed. Durandal put it best: intelligent design is just creationism in a clown suit.

For example, if a Catholic physics lecturer stated that "the universe came into being because God willed it 13 billion years ago", then he is teaching the wrong class.

Which is precisely why you should also oppose intelligent design, since you just replace "physicist" and "universe" with "biologist" and "biosystem" and you have basically the same thing.

"Intelligent design" is OK in Sunday school, but not in a normal school.

Here's a related question for you: If my novel is set in a highly technologized far future, and acknowledges the existence of life after death and an infinite being beyond time, space and the material multiverse, is my novel science fiction or science fantasy?

Your novel can acknowledge that my dog Fuzzy is lord and master of all creation if you like; it would still be science fiction/fantasy. Science fiction has nothing to do with real or theoretical advances in science; it is generally an excuse to set up an outlandish premise in which fantastic things become possible. It has historically ignored scientific realism at every opportunity.

However, that doesn't mean it can't be criticized for being bad or overrated sci-fi, and that is certainly the case of TNG-Trek's repeated violations against evolution theory, just as it is with X-Men and Jurassic Park. It sometimes feels as if idiots in Hollywood are engaged in some kind of overt movement to discredit, misrepresent, and totally distort evolution theory through their entertainment products, so that they can poison the well against its acceptance by young people.

[Uraniun235]

Keep in mind, however, that Roddenberry was simply not all that bright. Look at the idiotic "Progenitors" story. DNA sequences encoded 4.5 billion years ago which survived completely un-altered today, and which GUIDED our evolution in advance?

Sorry, but Star Trek IS creationist. It's just "intelligent design" creationist instead of young-earth creationist.

I doubt Roddenberry wrote that; "The Chase" was sixth season.

Besides, what in-context answer do you have for so many lookalike species spread across the galaxy?

[data_link]

I doubt Roddenberry wrote that; "The Chase" was sixth season.

Besides, what in-context answer do you have for so many lookalike species spread across the galaxy?

In the beginning, God (Rodenberry) created the heaven and the Earth.

Then his budget was cut, and so he had to re-use designs from his first project.

[Peregrin Toker]

However, that doesn't mean it can't be criticized for being bad or overrated sci-fi, and that is certainly the case of TNG-Trek's repeated violations against evolution theory, just as it is with X-Men and Jurassic Park. It sometimes feels as if idiots in Hollywood are engaged in some kind of overt movement to discredit, misrepresent, and totally distort evolution theory through their entertainment products, so that they can poison the well against its acceptance by young people.

Not to nitpick, but neither X-Men nor Jurassic Park are Hollywood creations, as X-Men is based entirely upon Marvel comic books*, and Jurassic Park is based upon a novel by Michael Chrichton...

BTW, while Jurassic Park is loaded to the teeth with anti-scientific dogma,** I don't recall it as discrediting evolution theory.


*And what sane individual expects superhero comics to be realistic???
**Actually, most sci-fi writers demonize genetic engineering when they get the opportunity - although there are some exception such as Iain M. Banks.

[Uraniun235]

I doubt Roddenberry wrote that; "The Chase" was sixth season.

Besides, what in-context answer do you have for so many lookalike species spread across the galaxy?

In the beginning, God (Rodenberry) created the heaven and the Earth.

Then his budget was cut, and so he had to re-use designs from his first project.

Zuh? This concept ('progenitors') appeared in TOS?

[Darth Wong]

Besides, what in-context answer do you have for so many lookalike species spread across the galaxy?

Some alien species removed humans from Earth many tens of thousands of years ago, and human-derived species wound up on many planets throughout the galaxy, albeit with minor evolutionary changes. This would explain the similarities and genetic compatibilities without resorting to this idiotic notion of 4.5 billion years of planned evolution.

[Darth Wong]

BTW, while Jurassic Park is loaded to the teeth with anti-scientific dogma,** I don't recall it as discrediting evolution theory.

The dinos in Jurassic Park develop new abilities within a single generation in order to overcome their breeding restrictions. This feeds creationist notions of evolution as some kind of direct stimulus/response problem-solving mechanism rather than selection among a population with pre-existing variances.

[Crayz9000]

The dinos in Jurassic Park develop new abilities within a single generation in order to overcome their breeding restrictions. This feeds creationist notions of evolution as some kind of direct stimulus/response problem-solving mechanism rather than selection among a population with pre-existing variances.

They do? I was under the impression, at the end of the novel, that the dinosaurs were simply craving L-lysine rich foods such as chicken...

Oh wait. You mean the frog DNA mutation problem? Yeah, that never made too much sense.

[Peregrin Toker]

The dinos in Jurassic Park develop new abilities within a single generation in order to overcome their breeding restrictions. This feeds creationist notions of evolution as some kind of direct stimulus/response problem-solving mechanism rather than selection among a population with pre-existing variances.

Was this in the book? I never have seen the movie, but I do have read the book which it was based upon. Anyway, I never expect a sci-fi novel to be realistic - unless it's written by an actual scientist, of course. (for example: Contact by Carl Sagan)

Some alien species removed humans from Earth many tens of thousands of years ago, and human-derived species wound up on many planets throughout the galaxy, albeit with minor evolutionary changes. This would explain the similarities and genetic compatibilities without resorting to this idiotic notion of 4.5 billion years of planned evolution.

Hmmm.... although it sounds quite Erich von Däniken-ish, (or even worse: Raëlian!!), this is the by far best explanation yet. However, how can one explain that the Klingon digestive system is more similar to that of an ox than that of a human?? (In the Voyager episode Macrocosm*, we get to know that Klingons have multiple stomaches)

Or is this just another [Spock] illogical [/Spock] thing about Star Trek??



*One of the most ludicrously unrealistic ST episodes yet, which depicted one-celled organisms growing to enormous size and haunting the USS Voyager, "Alien" style. (no, I'm not joking!!)

[Uraniun235]

Woah, they ripped off "The Immunity Syndrome" in Voyager?

I guess you don't feel any shame if you're getting laid by Jeri Ryan.

Wong: Oh. Okay. That makes more sense.

[Uraniun235]

Well, not quite ripped off totally, but stole the concept of giant one-celled creatures.

[Peregrin Toker]

Woah, they ripped off "The Immunity Syndrome" in Voyager?

I guess you don't feel any shame if you're getting laid by Jeri Ryan.

Actually, that episode was from BEFORE Seven-of-Nine set foot on the USS Voyager... (3rd season, if I recall correctly)

[Slartibartfast]

The dinos in Jurassic Park develop new abilities within a single generation in order to overcome their breeding restrictions. This feeds creationist notions of evolution as some kind of direct stimulus/response problem-solving mechanism rather than selection among a population with pre-existing variances.

They do? I was under the impression, at the end of the novel, that the dinosaurs were simply craving L-lysine rich foods such as chicken...

Oh wait. You mean the frog DNA mutation problem? Yeah, that never made too much sense.

I think it's the part where one dinosaur switches genders.

[The Dark]

The dinos in Jurassic Park develop new abilities within a single generation in order to overcome their breeding restrictions. This feeds creationist notions of evolution as some kind of direct stimulus/response problem-solving mechanism rather than selection among a population with pre-existing variances.

They do? I was under the impression, at the end of the novel, that the dinosaurs were simply craving L-lysine rich foods such as chicken...

Oh wait. You mean the frog DNA mutation problem? Yeah, that never made too much sense.

I think it's the part where one dinosaur switches genders.

I'm pretty sure the book explicitly states that's due to the frog DNA, since they spliced in DNA from a frog that changed genders if there weren't enough of one gender or the other to sustain a viable population. I don't entirely get it either.

[Darth Servo]

I'm pretty sure the book explicitly states that's due to the frog DNA, since they spliced in DNA from a frog that changed genders if there weren't enough of one gender or the other to sustain a viable population. I don't entirely get it either.

There's nothing to get. Its pseudoscience.

[Durandal]

Durandal put it best: intelligent design is just creationism in a clown suit.

I honestly can't take credit for that. It was in an article I read in Scientific American. However, it is an apt desciption, and it's not like I didn't think similarly before reading it. Intelligent design is just another way the creationists try and sneak their agenda into public schools.

[Durandal]

Durandal put it best: intelligent design is just creationism in a clown suit.

I honestly can't take credit for that. It was in an article I read in Scientific American. However, it is an apt desciption, and it's not like I didn't think similarly before reading it. Intelligent design is just another way the creationists try and sneak their agenda into public schools.

Well, now that I think about it, I'm not sure. My boss as my internship over the summer said that "Windows 3.11 was DOS in a clown suit," so I may have applied that to creationism and later on found that article. I'm not sure. Whatever. I'm drunk.