The Evolutionist/Creationist Debate and the Book “To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek” by Athena Andreadis, Ph. D.

Like The Physics of Star Trek, The Metaphysics of Star Trek, or even, at times, my own journals, this author uses Star Trek as a backdrop to examine an interesting topic; in this case, biology.  Athena Andreadis is not the best author, however, because she comes off as a stuffy, scholarly know-it-all, at least to me, and I did not like her condescension towards Christian studies, nor her mistaken belief that what she believed had already been proven, beyond the need for others to even question her.  Wrong!!!  As I recall, The Physics of Star Trek and The Metaphysics of Star Trek handled similar material in a more neutral manner.  After reading The Biology of Star Trek, I have a good handle on the author and her beliefs, and I have a pretty good idea what Andreanis would think of me if she ever met me, and it isn’t nice, and it isn’t pretty.  That reason alone is enough for me not to like her, but based on her book, she also is the type of person who supports Star Trek whenever it becomes heavy handed in the way it presents its humanistic agenda and world view.

Image from http://www.amazon.com/To-Seek-Out-New-Life/dp/0609804219

     If I were to mount an offensive to her scientific arguments, and a defense of my own spiritual beliefs, using Star Trek as a backdrop, then I might just attempt the following argument opposing the theory of evolution in support of creationism:

     The fantastical character of the holographic Doctor from Star Trek: Voyager looks human, but is in fact nothing more, really, than a sophisticated computer program consisting of, among other things, projected light, energy fields, and computer sub-routines.  How far away is a creation like the Doctor?  Is he purely fantasy and science fiction?  I would venture that the Doctor is not so far in the future.  We’ve already been able to create dinosaurs that don’t exist and put them on film, seeming to interact with people and objects that are real!  If you increase that technology by about 400 years, when the Doctor supposedly exists, then the existence of something like the Doctor becomes more of a possibility.  Imagine, for instance, developing the technology to project one of Spielberg’s CGI dinosaurs into a room 3 dimensionally.  In fact, we might have the basics of that kind of technology even now!

     Now imagine that a scientist examined the good Doctor, knowing full well that he is not a human, but a hologram.  If they also took a look at the dinosaurs created for Jurassic Park, knowing that they were a kind of realistic computer animation, I perceive that they would eventually come to the conclusion that these entities were created, had to be created, and had to be designed by an intelligence.  Yet it boggles my mind that these same scientists would look at the CGI programmers working for Steven Spielberg, or perhaps the fictional but human character of Dr. Zimmerman, the physician who programmed The Doctor, or better yet, the real actor Robert Picardo, who plays the Doctor on Voyager, and say that they were not created by an intelligent designer.  Andreadis would say this as well, and I just don’t understand how they can clearly see that the Doctor and those computer animated dinos were created, but not the human beings that created them!  In many ways, these human beings are more fantastical, wondrous, and complicated than either the fictional Doctor, or those equally fictional dinosaurs.  Not only that, but these same scientists always look down their noses at people like me, who do believe in creation.

Creators Not Created?

     The problem with modern science, as I see it, is that they do not always adhere to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of examining all possibilities, especially when considering the likelihood of a creator.  If these educated men and women are going to be TRULY scientific, they should at least consider this possibility, but they don’t (can’t?).   They actually end up doing what science should NEVER do, which is to limit themselves, put themselves in a confining, closed box, and assume right from the start that one possibility – that there is no creator - is impossible.  Before even beginning, they already shut themselves off to the concept of God existing since considering that possibility supposedly causes them to enter into the realm of religion; never mind that if they tried it the other way, they might discover that religion is scientifically provable.  What I mean to say is that if scientists all the sudden decided that something like air or gravity didn’t exist because admitting their existence breaks some stupid, unwritten rule in the modern science playbook, that doesn’t mean that gravity and air don’t exist.  And I’m certain they could come up with quite a few good arguments and mathematical theories to help prove their anti-gravity or no-air theories, and would be able to get massive numbers of people to believe them by utilizing the right amount of fake scientific clout, linguistic mumbo jumbo, and the backing of a manipulative media that would help to twist and distort the truth – you know, sort of like they do now!  But the simple fact is that gravity and air do exist, and if God exists as well, who are they to determine ahead of time that he doesn’t just because they want to sidestep religion.

     I say, “So what if studying the possible existence of God brings religion into the picture?”  Science should always begin by assuming and examining all possibilities rather than limiting themselves right from the start.  (And let’s be honest here; limiting themselves right from the start is not scientific).  Well I’m here to say that the study of the theory of creationism is as necessary as the study of the theory of evolution.  A scientist MUST study ALL facts, including – in fact, especially – opposing facts; yet they, the “scientific” evolutionists, do not do that.  By enclosing themselves in a box from the start, they really are not practicing proper science, and therefore should not be counted as REAL scientists.  In fact, what they actually become is nothing more than pieces of propaganda.  And Andreadis wrote nothing in her book to make me think that she isn’t one of them!