Sign in to follow this  
MrPsychic

Voth and Religion?

Recommended Posts

What I've always wondered is that for those of you who have the belief of Creationism, how would you view the episode "Distant Origin" with the Voth? The episode says that the Voth evolved from an Earth dinosaur. How would Creationism explain it, or do you just dismiss it as science fiction stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just viewed it as another Star Trek poke at religion altogether. The episode itself wasn't all-bad, but I never cared for how complacent Chakotay was when the Voth tried declaring the crew's very existence a crime to their society. Just too stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dismissed it because I couldn't believe that the dinosaurs could get off the planet in the first place. Not one of my favorite episodes. :superhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly it was an odd storyline relating to how dinosaurs got off the planet Earth.

 

But I don't think that was the point of the episode.

 

The real story was based on how religion can be used to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances.

 

Which, in the United States, in particular, has been a common theme in history, and even the present day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real story was based on how religion can be used to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances.

 

Which, in the United States, in particular, has been a common theme in history, and even the present day.

 

Coming from the country that still has a state religion. :superhappy:

 

United States does not use religion in any forms to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances. The government spends billions on scientific projects which has produce number of scientific breakthroughs. Also the private sectors, I do not have the numbers on hand, also spends billions that has produce number scientific breakthroughs. Just because the federal government, all government worldwide are not so different, won't fund current scientific project it does not equal to repression.

 

I would love to read your proof that United States government does do this? I can say the same thing with Great Britain, but I would still need proof of it.

Edited by Odie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odie, I think one of the things LB is referring to is Creationism - which admittedly doesn't belong in public schools - and Evolution in general. I have to laugh at this - to enshrine any doctrine or theory to the point that it becomes sacrosanct so that it is not subject to discussion, contradictory viewpoints or critical analysis as evolution has become is the very epitome of repression of knowledge and thought.

 

There is no doubt that during the middle ages there was a conflict between religion and science (oh but this wasn't in America)

 

Coming from the country that still has a state religion.
Unbelievable isn't it?

 

But LB is right about one thing - it was trying to make a political statement. What's disturbing is that some people apparently believe there is merit in the far fetched fiction in order to support their political viewpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which, in the United States, in particular, has been a common theme in history, and even the present day.

 

The United States has been on the forefront of so many scientific advances and break-throughs that saying that repression of science in the United States is common is just down-right silly. I'm not saying that it never has, just that it's far from "common."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coming from the country that still has a state religion.

 

Indeed that is regretable, but on the plus side, it does also come from the country that despite having a state religion, also has Charles Darwin and HMS Beagle on the ten pound note.

 

United States does not use religion in any forms to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances. The government spends billions on scientific projects which has produce number of scientific breakthroughs. Also the private sectors, I do not have the numbers on hand, also spends billions that has produce number scientific breakthroughs. Just because the federal government, all government worldwide are not so different, won't fund current scientific project it does not equal to repression.

 

I would love to read your proof that United States government does do this? I can say the same thing with Great Britain, but I would still need proof of it.

 

I did not mention the US government. I said "religion". Specifically the case in Dover, and historically the events leading up to the Scopes trial. In both cases, religious motivations to either repress or interfere with scientific progress.

 

Odie, I think one of the things LB is referring to is Creationism - which admittedly doesn't belong in public schools - and Evolution in general. I have to laugh at this - to enshrine any doctrine or theory to the point that it becomes sacrosanct so that it is not subject to discussion, contradictory viewpoints or critical analysis as evolution has become is the very epitome of repression of knowledge and thought.

 

If you are referring to evolutionary science, you are simply repeating tired old creationist/intelligent design arguments that their viewpoints are "repressed". However, it just isn't true. Creationist/intelligent design arguments are rejected because they are not scientific. It would be like believing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is guiding all events on Earth, then claiming discrimination if such beliefs are not allowed into science classes.

 

There is no doubt that during the middle ages there was a conflict between religion and science (oh but this wasn't in America)

 

You don't need to go into the Middle Ages to find incidents of religious interference in science.

 

The Dover trial, 2005, Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987, Cobb County 2003.

 

All relatively recent.

 

The United States has been on the forefront of so many scientific advances and break-throughs that saying that repression of science in the United States is common is just down-right silly. I'm not saying that it never has, just that it's far from "common."

 

It's not downright silly. It's a very real situation. It's come up time and time again in America's legal system for decades.

 

Unbelievable isn't it?

 

Not really. I attended British state schools and creationism in science classes wasn't mentioned once.

 

But LB is right about one thing - it was trying to make a political statement. What's disturbing is that some people apparently believe there is merit in the far fetched fiction in order to support their political viewpoint

 

Fiction often reflects real world situations.

 

It's called "Art Imitating Life"

Edited by Lady Britannia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed that is regretable, but on the plus side, it does also come from the country that despite having a state religion, also has Charles Darwin and HMS Beagle on the ten pound note.

 

The note looks very interesting and colorful.

 

I did not mention the US government. I said "religion". Specifically the case in Dover, and historically the events leading up to the Scopes trial. In both cases, religious motivations to either repress or interfere with scientific progress.

 

You did. You did not state Dover case in this thread that I quoted from.

 

Lady Britannia,"The real story was based on how religion can be used to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances.

 

Which, in the United States, in particular, has been a common theme in history, and even the present day."

 

It's not downright silly. It's a very real situation. It's come up time and time again in America's legal system for decades.

 

Proof please.

 

I attended British state schools and creationism in science classes wasn't mentioned once.

 

I went to a pubic school and I was not taught creationism myself in any science classes.

 

Fiction often reflects real world situations.

 

It's called "Art Imitating Life"

I agree with LB. It happens all the time in fiction.

Edited by Odie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The note looks very interesting and colorful.

 

I think so too.

 

You did. You did not state Dover case in this thread that I quoted from.

 

Lady Britannia,"The real story was based on how religion can be used to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances.

 

Which, in the United States, in particular, has been a common theme in history, and even the present day."

 

Yes, I've re-read my statement a few times and still can't find the words "US Government"

 

Proof please.

 

I've already cited some legal cases.

 

I went to a pubic school and I was not taught creationism myself in any science classes.

 

Excellent. Hopefully the US courts will continue to fight off the obsessive creationist lobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I've re-read my statement a few times and still can't find the words "US Government"

 

Hmmmm.... It looks like you trying to cover both bases by burring details. When anyone on this board referred the United States they are implying the government. When someone wants to state the citizens they refer to them as Americans. By referring to your cases, which does not support your point of view, as your rebuttal you are implying US government.

 

Proof please.

 

I've already cited some legal cases.

 

Your cases does not support your augment.

 

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

 

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision has sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics...

 

In his Conclusion on pages 136–138 of 139 of this decision he writes:

 

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]

 

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

 

Edwards v. Aguillard

 

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

 

In support of Aguillard, 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists,[1] 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations filed amicus briefs which described creation science as being composed of religious tenets.

 

 

Selman v. Cobb County School District

 

INTRODUCTION

There is no scientific controversy over the validity of the evolutionary explanation of plant and animal diversity, which is the grand unifying concept of modern biology. Although some religious organizations insist that there is, and have recruited spokesmen with only colorable scientific credentials to claim that there is, the fact remains that evolution is the only scientifically valid explanation for the diversity of life. Although a thorough defense of evolution is not possible in a legal brief, amici wish to provide a concise refutation of the notion that evolution is controversial, or that there is scientific debate over it. It is not controversial, and no serious or reliable scientific criticism of the validity of evolution has yet been presented.

 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

 

Amici agree with the plaintiffs that the disclaimer placed by the Cobb County School Board in biology textbooks hurts biology education in a way that appeases sectarian interests. Amici contend that a first-class science education provides students with vital, meaningful ways to understand the world around them and will provide Georgia with the skilled labor force needed to expand our technological economy. Protecting the integrity of science education will contribute directly to the future of our students, our quality of life, and to the prosperity of the state of Georgia. Further, our efforts in Georgia will help other states and nations to protect science education from the incorporation of dogma and pseudoscience. Many educators, including amici, are familiar with the average citizen’s lack of education or training in evolutionary biology. Religious interest groups opposed to modern science take advantage of this ignorance to promulgate confusion, as they have done in the amicus curiae brief filed in support of the plaintiffs. We respectfully submit information that we hope will illuminate these attempts to confuse the court.

 

CONCLUSION

 

For these reasons, Amici urge the Court to find in favor of the Plaintiffs.

 

 

 

 

Excellent. Hopefully the US courts will continue to fight off the obsessive creationist lobby.

 

You have not given the proof that the US courts have not ruled in favor for creationism. The United States through the courts does not support creationism being taught in the classroom. This does not mean the American views on creationism are valid or pointless. They have right, according to Constitution, to have their opinion open in the "public square" along with scientific views on how life started.

Edited by Odie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmm.... It looks like you trying to cover both bases by burring details. When anyone on this board referred the United States they are implying the government. When someone wants to state the citizens they refer to them as Americans. By referring to your cases, which does not support your point of view, as your rebuttal you are implying US government.

 

I do not care what "anyone on this board" may refer to. I speak for myself only. I do not see any reason why I must conform to the arbitrary standards that you declare as applicable to this site. If I didn't say "US government" then I did not mean "US government". I'm not trying to "burr" details. My details are clear to see.

 

Your cases does not support your augment.

 

Actually they do. I said the US has a history of religious motivations being used to try and interfere and repress scientific teachings. This is absolutely true. Previous anti-evolutionary laws have been struck down, and thankfully the US courts have resisted all further attempts. The fact that the US courts have managed to hold back the tide doesn't mean the attempts by the religiously motivated to interfere with science have ceased.

 

You have not given the proof that the US courts have not ruled in favor for creationism.

 

That is not the point of my statements. The point is that attempts to get creationism or variants of it have been repeatedly made.

 

The United States through the courts does not support creationism being taught in the classroom.

 

I never said they did.

 

This does not mean the American views on creationism are valid or pointless. They have right, according to Constitution, to have their opinion open in the "public square" along with scientific views on how life started.

 

American views on creationism are fine, when confined to the appropriate venue, which is not a public school science class. As for views on how life started, if people can come up with a scientific theory of abiogenesis which is peer reviewed by credible science institutions and scientists and held to scientific standards, then it would be taught. However "God Did It" is not a scientific theory, therefore would not be appropriate for teaching and discussion in science classes in public schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! Too many quotes! I will die!

 

 

Anyway, I enjoyed the episode as well, and although it was a wee bit odd, I saw the message in it and agreed with it. :blush2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that there should realy be any religion on trek or any tv show realy. After all not everyone follows the same religion if any.

 

But I actualy think Voyager handled it well. they had a few episodes that were somewhat pro religion/sprituality/afterlife, and they had a few episodes that showed the oposite viewpoint. So I think it was handled fairly for both sides of the argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that there should realy be any religion on trek or any tv show realy. After all not everyone follows the same religion if any.

 

Religion is a real part of many people's lives - refusing to show it because people have different religions or as Hollywood chooses to do - showing only a distorted view - only makes "art" les and less relevant to the lives of real people. If art is to inspire or challenge us - it must be relevant. But if all art wants to do is entertain the brain dead masses - well tv is accomplishing that quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I think that if you're looking for religion you should turn to a house of worship, not a tv show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but I think that if you're looking for religion you should turn to a house of worship, not a tv show

 

The discussion wasn't about "finding religion" - whatever that means; we're talking about depicting religion in the media -

I don't think that there should realy be any religion on trek or any tv show realy

 

I repeat - that is an unreal view of the world. There's no requriement that tv entertainment must be realistic - but if you want real compelling drama - it has to connect with people. And every now and then I'd like to see something other than fantasy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it interesting that the scientist in the you tube video above pointed out that he was a theist, not an atheist. in particular he was a Roman catholic.

 

 

I enjoyed the episode because I enjoy some speculative aspect of sci fi. I liked the 'what if ' aspect. What if dinosaurs had evolved to an intelligence so great that they were able to go into space? I find most ' what if ' tales are on the fantastic side, but most sci fi is.

 

I think the fact that there was a religious based totalitarian regime that hindered science to be quite believable in light of history, but just because someone misuses power does not mean the truth will not win out in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this