• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Distant Origin = heavy-handed, insulting propaganda

Navaros

Commodore
Commodore
I just watched "Distant Origin" for the first time. I found this episode to be extremely offensive. It goes way too far, and is nothing but one hour of being a soapbox for pro-evolution, anti-Christianity, anti-any dissenting point of view about the theory of evolution, propaganda.


I know I'm gonna get hammered by other posters for posting a thread that runs contrary to evolution on a Trek board since Trek fans who believe in evolution greatly out-number Trek fans who do not, and speaking against evolution on a Trek site is usually frowned up by the posters who believe in evolution. However, I believe this thread is justified based on the content of the episode being discussed, therefore I'm making it nonetheless, despite all that. I personally do not believe in evolution to the extent that one species can evolve into another, different, totally unique species (macroevolution), which is indeed part of why I find this episode offensive. However, this episode goes way too far regardless of that. I'd like to think that even if I was an evolutionist, I'd still have the good graces to be offended by this episode's disgusting inferences. I suspect that many fans will be happy at an episode like Distant Origin where the sole purpose seems to be to try to "stick it" as hard as possible to those who do not believe in evolution and/or anyone who is religious. I'm here in this thread to say, that being happy about things like this should not be so. On moral grounds in respect of everyone's beliefs. Also because the theory of evolution, despite what this episode propagates, does not hold any sort of unquestionable monopoly over the truth - to think it does is no different than any so-called "religious dogma". And also because Trek has tried so hard in other episodes, and in general, to not promote hivemind, collective thinking mentality Yet - shockingly - hivemind, collective thinking mentality in regards to the theory of evolution is exactly what this episode promotes.


I feel this episode does a great dis-service to Trek. It may receive popular support due to evolution being more popular than alternative theories like creation. But that doesn't mean much; this episode preaches to the choir, and slaps everyone who is not a member of the choir in the face. That kind of heavy-handed, mean-spirited preaching is never going to convert a single skeptic/dissident to the side of evolution. And because of the pompous, insulting, divisive context , this episode, aside from preaching to the choir, accomplishes nothing. Other than to sow further seeds of strife and resentment between the two sides. If the intention of the episode was simply to rally the audience into a "RAH RAH for evolution" cheerleading squad around the idea of evolution being infallible truth, while also hostilely mocking those who disagree with that idea, then that is very very poor taste on the part of the writers and producers of this episode.

It's bad enough that most Trek shows are always constantly making passing references to claim the theory of evolution is perfect, indisputable, unquestionable fact even though in actuality it is not; in all kinds of episodes that have absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever. Yet the seeds of promoting evolution constantly just to make sure [/i]everyone[/i] in the audience (or so they wish) is still onboard in believing in evolution, always must be planted according to the general consensus of Trek show makers. But Distant Origin crosses a line that those episodes even with constant passing, ill-placed promotions of evolution, do not.


Here are some specific problems where this Distant Origin episode crosses the line.

- The Evolutionist Saurian won't acknowledge the possibility that his interpretation of his data may possibly wrong. Implying here that the core idea of the theory of evolution has some sort of divine invulnerablity as being perfect, unquestionable indisputable fact. In reality, it is anything but. But - even if it weren't - that would still be a very arrogant, destructive, pompous way of thinking, and indicates that really the pro-evolutionist is just as bad or even worse than the "evil religious caricature" on the show. The Evolutionist Saurian is behaving in exactly the same evil way as she was, only from the opposite side of the fence. Yet he is supposed to be painted by this episode as having some sort of "moral highground" by virtue that the theory of evolution being inherently correct and promoting that upon pain of death is fine and dandy. I'm saying that moral highground alleged to the Evolutionist Saurian by the writers, "mood music" makers, and director, is BS. He has no moral highground at all. The Evolutionist Saurian and the "evil religious caricature" are morally one and the same, just on different sides of the fence.

- Chakotay saying Earth has "the complete fossil record", which of course is not the case in reality on Earth now. The fossil record contains major holes that cast a serious shadow of doubt over any claims made regarding the fossil record proving anything about the theory of evolution being correct.. This statement was a shady way of implying that the theory of evolution is proven to be indisputably correct in the future. Wishful thinking by the writers to dubiously attempt to erase the faith factor that is required for the belief in evolution now in present time. Due to the gaping holes in the fossil record requiring clear leaps of faith to validate any assertions about the theory of evolution based on the fossil record.

- Chakotay's speech which basically implies that not believing in the theory of evolution has halted progress on Earth and progress on their own planet can only be made if the Saurians believe in the theory of evolution too. Chakotay words also imply the Bible is a myth, which too is deeply offensive. This is a fine example of hardline evolutionist religious dogma. That's right, the evolutionists are promoting their very own religious dogma by way of insisting that anyone who does not believe in their religion of evolution, will halt the progress of society, and the only way to prevent that is to impose collective hivemind adherence to their religion of evolution upon every person in society. Evolution isn't necessarily a religion in and of itself, but when it is adhered to so zealously and seen as essential to be imposed upon everyone else, as seen here, in that case it certainly has become one.

- The religious person in this episode is portrayed as ignorant, evil, and harmful to society which is clearly a not-very-subtle metaphor that religious persons on Earth now are ignorant, evil, and harmful to society. Generally speaking, they are none of the above. They just reject viewpoints that are contrary to theirs, for good reasons.


- Line at the end, one day everyone Saurian will believe they came from Earth. Supposed to imply that one day every human will believe in the theory of evolution. Followed by the cutesy "happy music" just before the end credits which imply human societies are terrible now because they do not universally accept evolution, yet will be great in the future when the time comes that every human being accepts the theory of evolution. And the episode is strongly implying that if you don't do that, something is wrong with you. You are then the same as the "evil religious caricature" on the show; you are evil, ignorant and harmful to society for not accepting the theory of evolution. This again is deeply offensive, and it is also incorrect. The theory of evolution will never be accepted by every human. There is nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong with those who choose not to accept it. Not believing in evolution doesn't make someone evil, ignorant, or harmful to society. There is something wrong with zealously trying to shove the belief in evolution down everyone's throats, though, as the "message" of this episode intends to do. That is immoral, and bad for society.


The funny thing is that DS9 also handled the issue of evolutionism vs. creationism in the episode "In the Hands of the Prophets". But DS9 did it in a classy way that respected both sides of the issue. Jake Sisko was telling his dad that the evolutionist position was the correct one, and mocking the other side. Then his dad told him that they can't afford to think in a mocking, condenscending way like that. Because thinking like that is being the exactly the same as the "evil religious side", only from the other side of the fence. The Sisko had it right with those comments and that very brilliant scene. Yet Voyager has come along with this terrible "Distant Origin" soapbox propaganda episode, and attempted to undo that good work that the Sisko's message about the same issue had intended to convey. On this issue DS9 has it right, Voyager has it terribly wrong.
 
1. Believing in the theory of evolution is not a "religion," any more than believing in the theory of gravity is.

2. Do you have anything to suggest that evolution isn't correct, other than "the Bible says different?"

3. In the episode, did the Saurians objecting to the "distant origins" theory have anything to suggest diferently, other than "the holy texts say different?"

4. Do you not agree that, historically, attempted religious censorship of science has been a bad thing? Galileo, anyone?
 
There are Christians who believe in evolution. Even in theologically conservative bodies like the Catholic Church.

"Distant Origin" is certainly a pro-evolution episode, though. It is also once which ignores the nuance I just mentioned, and caricatures its opponents, but this is typical of the morality play mindset of hundreds of Star Trek episodes.

Support for evolution is an unsurprising stance for Star Trek to take, and one it's been consistent on (in off-hand references and a dozen dumb hyper-evolution episodes). There may be things about evolution the writers either didn't understand or chose deliberately to gloss over, but they certainly believe in it.
 
14thDoctor said:

2. Do you have anything to suggest that evolution isn't correct, other than "the Bible says different?"

There are plenty of scientists who can offer plenty of tangible scientific reasons that evolution is not correct. Granted they are out-numbered by scientists who believe in evolution, but being out-numbered does not invalidate their different interpretations.

Basically it all boils down to human interpretation of things humans have found, and which side one chooses to put his faith in about the accuracy of those interpretations. It requires faith on either side of that fence, because there is no absolute proof that one way of interpreting that data is correct over the others.
 
Navaros said:
14thDoctor said:

2. Do you have anything to suggest that evolution isn't correct, other than "the Bible says different?"

There are plenty of scientists who can offer plenty of tangible scientific reasons that evolution is not correct. Granted they are out-numbered by scientists who believe in evolution, but being out-numbered does not invalidate their different interpretations.

Indeed, while an idea need not be popular to be correct, I've yet to see anything that seriously suggests evolution isn't the best explanation we've got right now. Most of the criticisms of evolution I see tend to be basically "yeah, but you don't 100% know absolutely for sure," and that's not enough to convince me.
 
The only offensive thing about this episode is that we're asked to swallow a race that has been in space for over 65 million years and is still so incredibly stupid.
 
Navaros said:

I know I'm gonna get hammered by other posters for posting a thread that runs contrary to evolution on a Trek board since Trek fans who believe in evolution greatly out-number Trek fans who do not, and speaking against evolution on a Trek site is usually frowned up by the posters who believe in evolution.

You have every right to believe what you believe, I hope you do not speak ill of me for saying what I believe.


Navaros said:

- The Evolutionist Saurian won't acknowledge the possibility that his interpretation of his data may possibly wrong. Implying here that the core idea of the theory of evolution has some sort of divine invulnerablity as being perfect, unquestionable indisputable fact. In reality, it is anything but.

Well he's a scientist, talking to a political and I suppose religous leader. I don't consider them to be on the same footing. Science has to be proven, whereas the "Doctrine" she is defending doesn't. He is attempting to prove, she is attempting to disprove without a shred of evidence. Also she is protecting something that she says has an as you say it, a Divine Invulnerability. Evidence please.

Navaros said:
- Chakotay saying Earth has "the complete fossil record", which of course is not the case in reality on Earth now. The fossil record contains major holes that cast a serious shadow of doubt over any claims made regarding the fossil record proving anything about the theory of evolution being correct.. This statement was a shady way of implying that the theory of evolution is proven to be indisputably correct in the future. Wishful thinking by the writers to dubiously attempt to erase the faith factor that is required for the belief in evolution now in present time. Due to the gaping holes in the fossil record requiring clear leaps of faith to validate any assertions about the theory of evolution based on the fossil record.

Actually, this says that between now and the 24th century, science will learn and discover monumental new things about the past. As for the gaping holes in our current fossil records and data, as far as I know, nobody has yet to be successful in the quest to create a warp drive, or a phaser. Therefore, the assumption that we will learn much more of the fossil record is a fair one. Also, the possibility that with greater study and disocveries, more people will believe in evolution is not an unfair assumption. Do I think it will be complete? No.

Navaros said:
- Chakotay's speech which basically implies that not believing in the theory of evolution has halted progress on Earth and progress on their own planet can only be made if the Saurians believe in the theory of evolution too. Chakotay words also imply the Bible is a myth, which too is deeply offensive. This is a fine example of hardline evolutionist religious dogma. That's right, the evolutionists are promoting their very own religious dogma by way of insisting that anyone who does not believe in their religion of evolution, will halt the progress of society, and the only way to prevent that is to impose collective hivemind adherence to their religion of evolution upon every person in society. Evolution isn't necessarily a religion in and of itself, but when it is adhered to so zealously and seen as essential to be imposed upon everyone else, as seen here, in that case it certainly has become one.

This is one of the things that scares me the most about Creationists. Calling Science religion. Science has to be Proven or at the very least backed up by a great deal of historical, empirical or observational evidence otherwise it is not science.

Creationists put the bible on the same level or even higher than science. This to me is deeply offensive.

Chakoay has it right on the money, because this is a very far reaching problem. There are still many places where children are not tought the basic science of how the world has come together, insteadthey learn creationism. You are entitled to your opinions, but I'm sorry, teach the kids science because it is much much more provable.

As for this problem holding us back? It does. Religions hold back social and medical progress. Gay rights have been held back because of religion. The KKK burned crosses to make their points. The Concept of religious doctrine being a poor influence or holding people back is far from an unfair one.

As have Stem Cell research, it is a delicate area of science and we should be extremely careful with whatever comes of it, but the only way to learn is to experiment. We have conditions that are well beyond our current medical abilities and some that are just barel out of reach. Religious policy holds back those achievements. If you don't want em, don't use em. But if I were to develop Parkinsons or cancer, I do not want religion to impede my chances for recovery especially when I do not believe in it at all.
It holds us back, it holds everybody back.

Navaros said:

- The religious person in this episode is portrayed as ignorant, evil, and harmful to society which is clearly a not-very-subtle metaphor that religious persons on Earth now are ignorant, evil, and harmful to society. Generally speaking, they are none of the above.

Enter Pat Robertson, Stage right. There are religious persons on earth who do things in the name of god who are extremely dangerous and corrupt. Hitler did what he did in the name of the almighty. This isn't unreasonable to say say that there are bad religious people and that they have the ability and opportunity to wield great influence and power.

Now, not for a second do I mean to say that I am sure there are not any bad doctors or researchers out there. There are bad people somewhere in every group, it is that sad reality of the universe. There are bad people who act in the name of god. More people in history have died because of religiously motivated wars than any other reason. Religon has blood on it's hands and it needs to acknowlage the suffering and pain it has caused rather than holding itself up on ahigh horse and telling everybody who doesn't believe in it that they are wrong and are going to hell for using the minds they have to think for themselves and disagree with others.

Navaros said:
- Line at the end, one day everyone Saurian will believe they came from Earth. Supposed to imply that one day every human will believe in the theory of evolution. Followed by the cutesy "happy music" just before the end credits which imply human societies are terrible now because they do not universally accept evolution, yet will be great in the future when the time comes that every human being accepts the theory of evolution. And the episode is strongly implying that if you don't do that, something is wrong with you. You are then the same as the "evil religious caricature" on the show; you are evil, ignorant and harmful to society for not accepting the theory of evolution. This again is deeply offensive, and it is also incorrect. The theory of evolution will never be accepted by every human. There is nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong with those who choose not to accept it. Not believing in evolution doesn't make someone evil, ignorant, or harmful to society. There is something wrong with zealously trying to shove the belief in evolution down everyone's throats, though, as the "message" of this episode intends to do. That is immoral, and bad for society.

Again, the absolute is doubtful, but such a great gap in time, leaves such an opportunity for new disoveries.

Also, as for the episode saying that if you don't believe in evolution you are wrong, or you are harmful, tell me, let's say I don't believe in god and reject many things in the bible. Where would you say I am destined to go when I die? The answer: Hell. What would I be called? The answer: A sinner, a hethen or other unpleasant things. There is the same absolute from the other side.

Navaros said:
The funny thing is that DS9 also handled the issue of evolutionism vs. creationism in the episode "In the Hands of the Prophets". But DS9 did it in a classy way that respected both sides of the issue. Jake Sisko was telling his dad that the evolutionist position was the correct one, and mocking the other side. Then his dad told him that they can't afford to think in a mocking, condenscending way like that. Because thinking like that is being the exactly the same as the "evil religious side", only from the other side of the fence. The Sisko had it right with those comments and that very brilliant scene.

I actually agree with you that I thought it was a good scene. Talking about tolerance, talking about how religous beliefs can be helpful in hard times. I fully believe that religion has comforted many in their darkest moments.

But don't forget that one of the main problems in this episode was based prodominatnly on a religious figure trying to restrict scientific information and effectively elling a teacher that she does not have the right to teach science.

Navaros said:
Yet Voyager has come along with this terrible "Distant Origin" soapbox propaganda episode, and attempted to undo that good work that the Sisko's message about the same issue had intended to convey. On this issue DS9 has it right, Voyager has it terribly wrong.

One reason I do not believe the message of this episode a bad one, is because religion has too much authority in my view. I never could bring myself to say the "under god" part of the pledge of alliegnce even after 9-11. I cringe every time I hear a politician say "God Bless America." Why? Because change is caused by action. People, actual peopledoing things and making things change. I have never before seen even a trace of evidence that would cause me to believe in God. I believe there isn't any.
 
Navaros, distant origin was a fictional story set in a fictional universe which has absolutely thing to do with the Jeudo-Christian God, because we saw Q swirl his hands in a puddle of goo 5 million years earlier which was destined to evolve into man, and we saw aliens spreading their genetic material across a thousand worlds 5 million years ago in TNG The Chase hoping that on those thousand worlds or so that being would evolve in their likeness. Then there was an entire episode called "Evolution" where all the people and the aliens "devolved" as reassumed forsaken genetic potentials... Any evidence that the universe is older than 5000 years is proof that the bible is pack of lies in the fictional universe of Star Trek, hell, the space dinosaurs had a culture which was 65 million years old which is considerably a greater number than 5000... And the fossil records on Voyager were able to track then from one state to another...

In the real world you are right. In the Star Trek Universe, you're pissing into the wind.

However, one must ask, isn't 65 million years a generous enough amount of time for evolutionary effects to have taken place on these "people"? But then evolution is supposedly about stronger/smarter/gifted babies capable of overcoming natural adversity and surviving while weaker/stupid/deficient babies die before being able to reproduce.

This has always helped me console the two view points, "God created a 5 billion year old universe 5 thousand years ago."

So, taking that into account, 5000 years ago God created Space Dinosaurs who had the genetic evidence to have been born on earth at the same time as he was seeding the fossil record to fuck with our sense of curiosity and faithlessness. God loves to test us, just ask Job. Besides, if God is only going to allow a piddling 166,000 people ascend to heaven after the rapture, he has to whittle down the potential applicants somehow? Surely Navaros if you want to get into heaven then you should be encouraging people to beleive in false and flawed premises such as evolution.

Jews and Muslims don't believe that the refrigerator will make pork clean, purely because 3 thousand years ago it was easier to stop the deaths from contaminated meat though religion than law, and so a bloody good idea turned into dodging sin. Religion trumps technology.

What the hell is with that fish Friday thing with the catholics?

Seriously Navaros, you are being way too sensitive, Brannon freaking Braga wrote this. Not a left wing nut trying to tuck a volley in under the radar but the producer of the whole damn show who is barely a competent person at the best of times if his later writing is to be considered evidence the condition of his soul has rundown into.

besides the Chief Pope Dinosaur, who I believe was played by the same lady who played the seeder of genetic Information from the Chase(Maybe there is a Conspiracy?)accepted that Janeway and Chakotay were right but the plebs were too volatile to accept it, Just like how vulcan culture was restructured by Archer's discovery of the Kir'Shara. they probably had to stamp down on a lot of people every year to make sure that no one figures out that their society is based on a lie.

I recently saw a Documentary on the history Channel about the discovery of the Book of Judas. His take on the whole crucifixion dealy. Which from what they were saying if any of it was/will be accepted, or any of the other 27 "Books" could be discovered which were left out of the bible to make a more concise palatable version for the plebs to unite under... Well, surely all bets are off?
 
Evolution is where Wesley's nanites escaped and evolved and took over the computer, leaving the ship in peril.

The episode where the crew devolved was Genesis, which thankfully didn't have Wesley, nor much of Dr Crusher, as Gates McFadden was directing.

It did have Worf as some sort of monster Klingon thing, Barclay as a spider, Deanna as a toad, Riker as Riker, um I mean a Neanderthal, and Picard as a dear. D'oh! A dear.
 
Yeah Distant Origin was pretty offensive.

But it's NOTHING compared to the show's treatment of us flat-earthers. :klingon: :(
 
Sisu said:
Evolution is where Wesley's nanites escaped and evolved and took over the computer, leaving the ship in peril.

The episode where the crew devolved was Genesis, which thankfully didn't have Wesley, nor much of Dr Crusher, as Gates McFadden was directing.

It did have Worf as some sort of monster Klingon thing, Barclay as a spider, Deanna as a toad, Riker as Riker, um I mean a Neanderthal, and Picard as a dear. D'oh! A dear.
I thought Picard was a lemur.
 
Navaros is happy to mention that some scientists do not believe in the theory of evolution, noting that they have provided 'tangible evidence' against its credibility. Following this line of reasoning, then, in the absence of 'tangible evidence' supporting creationism, we must also assume that creationism is equally false. Right?

If Distant Origin had depicted a pro-creationist stance (ie, the 'Doctrine' of the episode's plot) at the absolute expense of evolution, I somehow doubt that Navaros would be here right now complaining that the episode is a 'slap in the face' to people who believe in evolution (or who, at least, don't believe in creationism).

Navaros is welcome to his beliefs, so please nobody paint me as a Christian-hating evildoer. I did my 12 years in a Catholic school, and I identify as a member of that denomination. But I also have a degree in human biology (or will have, in 6 months :D ) and to me, personally, that comes first.
 
"Distant Origin" is one of my favourite Voyager episodes. It's obvious that a christian would find it offensive. Perhaps christians should learn to accept that the earth wasn't made in only 6 days, and dinosaurs actually existed and were not placed there as "tests by God." I didn't read the rest of your long-winded post.
 
Navaros said:
I feel this episode does a great dis-service to Trek. It may receive popular support due to evolution being more popular than alternative theories like creation.

:lol: Biblical "creation" is not an alternative theory to evolution.

Bible's Genesis is an alternative theory with respect to Hesiod's Theogony, the Voluspa, or the Enuma Elish. I lament your poor understanding of... well, everyting, if you believe that "creation" by supernatural means is on the same footing of a scientific theory. They are apple and orange, really.
Maybe the theory of evolution is wrong: I don't think so, but even if it is so, it would be surpassed by another scientific theory, not by a religious teaching. They are so profoundly different that I really don't understand how they could be seen as competitors. It's like asking "do you prefer fire of water?" Well, it depends! For heating and cooking I would pick fire, for washing and drinking I would choose water. Treating religious doctrine as science is no more smart that trying to drink fire and cook your beef with a glass of water.

And if you think that believing in the literal interpretation of centuries old book is more "free thinking" than intellectual inquiry and scientific research, well, I'm afraid you are a bit too late for that.
 
Lord have the mercy, it's just a fictional look at the philisophical debate of ones origin. :rolleyes: It doesn't even have to be interpreted as creation vs. evolution, it can also been seen asa debate of the recent discovery/claim that all human life in the world originated in Africa.

I swear, almost every show on TV frequently shows topics like adultry and murder and we don't bat an eye. Then Trek brings up a debate that's been discussed in classrooms world wide even before Trek was ever created, yet a fiction tale of Dinosaurs offends us more than watching brutal crimes of murder. :rolleyes:

Is it any wonder why Trek fans get stereotyped?
 
exodus said:
Lord have the mercy, it's just a fictional look at the philisophical debate of ones origin.[...]

Is it any wonder why Trek fans get stereotyped?
Well, personally I think the problem is not the degree of devotion to Star Trek, but the degree of devotion to the other kind of fictional stories. :p
 
"Distant Origins" is one of the few really cool science fiction stories filmed as part of modern "Star Trek."

Science fiction writers don't need to apologize to anyone for being pro-science, anti-superstition. People don't have any right to be protected from offense.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top