PT 2
WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE
The assumption that humanity owes its existence to evolution rather than creation is fundamental in most science fiction, and it is never questioned in Star Trek. Various writers in the field have pointed out the importance of evolution as a presupposition of modern science fiction.[20] This evolution is nontheistic. Theistic evolution -- the theory that a God exists who initiated the process of evolution rather than specially creating the various species or kinds of life -- is not even considered. Nor, of course, is any form of creationism ever entertained. In this connection it should be observed that this is a presupposition worth reexamining.[21]
As well, evolutionary biology is often extrapolated in science fiction to speculate on future evolutionary possibilities, and this theme occurs frequently in Star Trek. The approach taken to such evolutionary advances, however, is frequently negative.
In the very first episode created, "The Cage," written by Roddenberry, the Talosians are an advanced race that became so egg-headed that they spent all their time creating illusions and forgot how to fix their machinery.
In the second pilot episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," good-natured helmsman Gary Mitchell is jolted by an energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy and his natural latent ESP potential is enhanced, making him virtually omnipotent. Unfortunately, the transformation also makes Mitchell so big-headed that he forgets the "little people" and actually threatens to destroy them. At one point Kirk points out to Mitchell that he has failed to acquire the wisdom and compassion an all-powerful god needs.
One of the most interesting explorations of this theme is the previously mentioned "Return to Tomorrow," written by Roddenberry. The Enterprise crew encounters three superbeings whose minds have survived for centuries in containers. The leader, Sargon, speculates that the humans may be descended from Sargon's ancestors when they were humanoid and were colonizing planets throughout the galaxy. This suggestion is countered with the claim that humans evolved independently; Spock, however, thinks it might be relevant to Vulcan prehistory. The evil superbeing Hamon's attempt to steal Spock's body convinces the other two, Sargon and Thalassa, that beings as mentally advanced as they are living in human bodies would pose a grave threat to other races of people. Once again, past biological evolution is regarded as fact, but the idea of future evolution into higher forms of being is implicitly rejected.
Evolutionary extrapolations are also offered in "Star Trek: The Next Generation." A recurring character in the series, introduced in the first episode, is "Q," a superbeing from the "Q Continuum" who is almost (not quite) omnipotent. (Confusingly, both the individual being and his race are called Q.) Despite the power of Q's race, they are fascinated by humans. In "Hide and Q" Q admits to Captain Picard that the human race has the potential to evolve beyond even the Q. Q is an amoral and irresponsible being (by both human and Q standards), again exemplifying the Roddenberry warning that advances in intelligence, knowledge, and power do not guarantee advances in character. Indeed, Q is very much like Gary Mitchell of "Where No Man Has Gone Before."
There are also stories warning against trying to tinker with human nature or alter human evolution. Genetic engineering comes under criticism in the "Star Trek" episode "Miri," regarding a planet that looks like Earth on which experiments were conducted to prolong life. These experiments resulted in long childhoods and then accelerated puberties ended abruptly by madness and death. In "Space Seed," Khan, the product of late 20th-century genetic engineering on earth, is the leader of a superrace rediscovered by the Enterprise crew. Along with his superior breeding comes a superiority complex. Khan troubles Kirk again in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
All of these stories drive home a fundamental belief for Roddenberry: humanity's biological or essential evolution is over, and what is needed now is "evolution" only in the sense of personal, social, and ethical or moral development. Humanity is basically good, but needs to learn to overcome its instinct for violence, as Kirk once put it. And Roddenberry confidently expects that we will. Roddenberry expects us to overcome prejudice, fear, violence, and especially intolerance, not to forge a perfect world, but simply to survive.[22]
A major theme in Star Trek is that the key to overcoming violence is first to overcome prejudice and discrimination. The Enterprise bridge crew in "Star Trek" features a black woman (Lieutenant Uhuru, the communications officer), a Russian man (Pavel Chekov), and a man who is half Vulcan and half human (Spock). Roddenberry had to fight NBC for these characters, and actually would have had a female first officer if NBC had allowed it. (Such a character was featured in the first pilot, "The Cage"; she was called "Number One.")
In "Star Trek: The Next Generation" the bridge crew features a black man (Engineer Geordi LaForge) and a Klingon (Lieutenant Worf, the security officer). Klingons are an alien race introduced in "Star Trek" as a violent warrior race whose empire is encroaching on Federation territory. In the "Star Trek" episode "Errand of Mercy," superbeings called the Organians stop a war between the Federation and the Klingons, and tell Kirk and his Klingon counterpart Kor that one day humans and Klingons will become friends. This prediction is fulfilled in "Star Trek: The Next Generation": the Klingons and the Federation have been allies for some twenty years, and Worf is the first Klingon to serve on a Federation starship.
The ongoing story lines involving Spock (who with his pointed ears looks like the Devil) in "Star Trek" and Worf (who looks like a ferocious beast) in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" typify the vision of Gene Roddenberry. Intelligent beings are, on the whole, not inherently evil; they are simply different, not yet understood. They represent "strange new worlds" that must be embraced, respected, learned from, and befriended. Ultimately the point Roddenberry is making is not that humans need to be prepared to get along with extraterrestrial aliens (Star Trek as myth) but that humans need to learn to get along with each other (Star Trek as parable). And in Star Trek Roddenberry invites us to look into the future and see that we can and will learn such toleration.
Expressing in daring and dramatic fashion this humanistic faith in the inherent goodness of man and the need for toleration is what Star Trek does best. And in many ways the vision of a society free from prejudice, fear, and violence is one that Christians can appreciate. Yet the optimistic view of human nature, the belief that we can get there on our own, is one that Christians cannot accept. Both the biblical revelation and the evidence of human history bear eloquent testimony to the fact that selfishness, fear, anger, lust, pride, and dishonesty are incorrigible traits of human nature. If the human race is to overcome these mortal defects and attain a higher spiritual and ethical nature, the impetus for such a transformation must come from a transcendent source. The good news is that we have such a source in Jesus Christ, the transcendent God come in human form.
THE PRIME DIRECTIVE
Roddenberry's emphasis on toleration is epitomized in the "Prime Directive." It is the Federation's highest law, its "General Order Number One." It forbids representatives of the Federation to interfere with the cultural development of other planets. The Enterprise crew are often placed in difficult situations because of this rule. In many cases, they could escape their predicament easily due to their superior technology, but are hampered from doing so by the Prime Directive.
Although the Prime Directive figures significantly in many of the "Star Trek" episodes (in which Kirk often seems to violate the Directive), I wish to focus on two episodes of "Star Trek: The Next Generation." In "Justice," the Enterprise crew is allowed to visit a planet where the populace, called the Edo, lead an idyllic (and promiscuous) life. When teen-age crew member Wesley Crusher walks in an off-limits flower bed, he is sentenced to death for violating an Edo law he knew nothing about. Picard cannot simply beam Wesley off Edo and leave, however, because somehow that would violate the Prime Directive. When they determine to take him anyway, the Edo's "god" -- a being or space vessel orbiting Edo -- prevents them. Picard then delivers a speech in which he asserts that there can be no justice as long as laws (from the relatively ridiculous Edo flower-bed law to the relatively sublime Federation Prime Directive) are regarded as absolute. "Life itself is an exercise in exceptions." Commander Will Riker concurs, asking when justice was ever as simple as a rule book. The Edo "god" then allows the crew to leave the planet with Wesley.
In Roddenberry's interview in The Humanist, this episode is cited by the interviewer, David Alexander, as a "good example of [Roddenberry's] humanistic philosophy" and "the most anti-religious and humanistic television program I had seen in years." Roddenberry commented that the episode worked for people because "it was all patently sensible."[23] However, it seems anything but sensible. If the Prime Directive has exceptions, then it is not really the Prime Directive at all. That is, there are other directives or ethical principles thought to be overriding. This is indeed a good example of humanistic ethics, but what it exemplifies is that humanistic ethics is incoherent. In their zeal to avoid the absolute ethical demands of a moral God, Roddenberry and other humanists prefer to absolutize toleration except sometimes (not always) where it conflicts with their humanistic ideals of common sense and individual liberty. The result is often more puzzling than enlightening.
Toleration is absolutized, even beyond common sense, in the episode entitled "The Resolution." Here the Enterprise takes on board a scientist from a planet whose sun is going to die within a generation or so. The scientist conducts an experiment with another star to see if his planet's sun can be saved. The experiment is only a partial success, so that more work needs to be done. However, the scientist must return to his planet for a ceremony called the Resolution, in which he will commit suicide, because he is turning 60 years old. (This "Resolution" is unquestionably patterned on the rule in U.S. civil aviation requiring even competent, healthy pilots to retire at age 60.) Lwaxana, Betazoid mother of psychic ("empath") crew member Counselor Deanna Troi (who is half Betazoid and half human), has fallen in love with the scientist. But even she is not allowed to try to persuade the planetary authorities against imposing the Resolution on the scientist, who is, after all, their best hope of survival. Again, the Prime Directive is invoked. At the end of the episode, Lwaxana has accepted his decision and goes down to the planet with the scientist to observe the ceremony.
In Star Trek, then, the Prime Directive prohibition extends far beyond "interference." As "The Resolution" so clearly illustrates, the Directive is cited as forbidding even compassionate attempts to persuade people of other worlds to adopt more ethical practices or rational, life-saving beliefs. There can be little doubt that Christian missionaries would not fare well in Roddenberry's universe!
It should also be fairly transparent that this absolutized toleration is itself irrational. If we may not seek to persuade people of other cultures to change their ways, on what basis may we seek to persuade people of our own pluralistic culture to change their ways? How can Roddenberry justify seeking to change the way people think in his own culture by producing Star Trek? In the end, making toleration an absolute (or even near-absolute) principle is self-defeating.
ITS CONTINUING MISSION
In general, what Star Trek does well is to ask good, penetrating questions about truth, God, man, and the world. It forces us to look at ourselves in fresh ways by taking the questions of life that we face daily and addressing them in a fictional, futuristic cultural context. If it is too much to ask that it should also supply the answers, we may be grateful for the entertaining way in which it asks the questions. As the original "Star Trek" celebrates its 25th anniversary and passes the baton to "The Next Generation" (already running well), its continuing mission will be to explore old questions in new ways.
As a Christian, I invite non-Christians enthralled by Roddenberry's vision of the future to pursue dialogue with Christians. We, too, have a vision of the future in which superstition, prejudice, hatred, fear, poverty, and war will cease. We, too, agree that the human adventure is just beginning, even if we disagree as to where we are going and how we will get there. To pursue the ultimate truth about God and about ourselves is the greatest "enterprise" of all.
Engage!
NOTES
1 Much of the factual information in this article has been verified by consulting Allan Asherman, The Star Trek Compendium, rev. ed. (New York: Pocket Books, 1989).
2 In this article, I use Star Trek (no punctuation) to refer to all of the productions with that name, including all three television series, the films, and the books; and "Star Trek" to refer to the original 1960s television series only.
3 Or 78 episodes, if the two-part "The Menagerie" is counted as one episode. "The Cage," the original pilot, was never shown as such during the network run, but only as the story within the story of "The Menagerie."
4 See Sally Gibson-Downs and Christine Gentry, Encyclopedia of Trekkie Memorabilia: Identification and Value Guide (Florence, AL: Books Americana, 1988), an oversized book of 269 pages.
5 Andrea Hein of Paramount, cited in Stephen Galloway, "Trek Trivia Blasts Off," TV Guide, August 3-9, 1991, 26.
6 David Alexander, "Gene Roddenberry: Writer, Producer, Philosopher, Humanist," The Humanist, March/April 1991, 6.
7 Dorothy Atkins, "Star Trek: A Philosophical Interpretation," in The Intersection of Science Fiction and Philosophy: Critical Studies, ed. Robert E. Myers; Contributions to the Study of Science Fiction and Fantasy, no. 4 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983), 93.
8 My thoughts on these matters have been greatly stimulated and structured through discussions with Prof. Peter Lowentrout of California State University, Long Beach. His assistance in locating scholarly studies on science fiction was also of tremendous help in the preparation of this article.
9 J. Timothy Bagwell, "Science Fiction and the Semiotics of Realism," in Intersections: Fantasy and Science Fiction, ed. George E. Slusser and Eric S. Rabkin (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987), 37.
10 C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan Co., 1943), 13.
11 Cf. Norman L. Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson, Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987).
12 Gilbert Fulmer, "Cosmological Implications of Time Travel," in Intersection of Science Fiction and Philosophy, 31-44.
13 Cf. J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), chs. 2, 3, and 8; Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, 2d ed. (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing Co., 1991).
14 Atkins, 104-5.
15 Ibid., 105.
16 Ibid., 103.
17 Ibid., 102.
18 Jane Elizabeth Ellington and Joseph W. Critelli, "Analysis of a Modern Myth: The Star Trek Series," Extrapolation 24 (1983):241-50.
19 Cornelius Van Til, Christian-Theistic Ethics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., n.d.).
20 Philip A. Pecorino, "Philosophy and Science Fiction," in Intersection of Science Fiction and Philosophy, 12.
21 Besides the works listed above in n. 13, see Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984); Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986); Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit Books, 1986).
22 Atkins, 96-98.
23 Alexander, 16. |
