A few months ago, a friend of mine sent me a link to an article published by Answers in Genesis called “Science Fiction: A Christian Perspecitve” by David J. Laughlin. While I usually love the articles that Answers in Genesis presents, I had to disagree with this one on many points. Being a Christian science fiction author myself, this actually kind of annoys me. I will point out what I agree with and disagree with below. You can read the article for yourself at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n2/science-fiction.
Laughlin starts the article by pointing out how science fiction has grown into the mainstream sphere and how one of the main appeals of sci-fi is that it often is able to predict useful technologies. This part is true, but most of what comes next is what I disagree with.
The author then goes on to complain about the unreality of science fiction. He says
“Regrettably, however, too much of science fiction depicts phenomena or technologies that could never exist. Franz Rottensteiner acknowledges that ‘the “science” of science fiction is often indistinguishable from magic ’. For example, animals becoming half-human (or vice versa), contradicts everything scientists know about the limits of genetic variation. The creation of mass/energy from nothing, or its annihilation (e.g. by a mere laser blast), violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, one of the best proven laws of science. And the notion that dead matter can transform itself into a living organism (spontaneous generation) has never been observed and flatly contradicts the Laws of Biogenesis (that life always comes from life).”
He then goes to try and support this claim by quoting Philippians 4:8
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true… let your minds dwell on these things”
First of all, this is a gross misuse of Philippians 4:8. If what the author is saying is correct, then basically any form of literature or fiction is evil. He is missing the whole point of science fiction. I wonder if Laughlin would object to the half human animals in C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia (a series written by a Christian author containing strong Christian symbolism and themes). If unrealism is so bad, then why doesn’t he also crack down on fantasy and other forms of fiction?
Secondly, while the science of science fiction does often go beyond what we currently scientifically understand, much science fiction actually has well thought out systems and technologies. The “creation of mass/energy from nothing, or its annihilation (e.g. by a mere laser blast)” actually shows the author’s ignorance on the subject as many popular science fictions, such as Star Wars, actually have schematics of how a laser gun or lightsaber would work in that setting. The creators of science fiction usually aren’t just making stuff up. Often the technologies are planned out and realistic (to an extent). Besides, even if they weren’t possible, is that really a horrible thing? It is, after all, fiction.
His next part of the argument goes on to blame sci-fi for the escapism in some sci-fi fans’ lives.
“Second, because of mankind’s rejection of God, he has not found genuine meaning or peace in this world. So, he searches elsewhere to fulfil these needs. Maybe, he reasons, outer space has something to offer that cannot be found here. Perhaps the grass is greener on the other side of the galaxy.”
While it is true that sometimes people look to a fictitious world as an escape, you can’t blame an entire genre for a few peoples’ sociological problems. Any medium of art could become an escape for anybody. It’s not just a problem with science fiction. I recently did a major project on problematic usage of computers, including people who use the virtual world for escaping the real world. I found that many people used that as a reason to believe that video games and online communities were inherently evil and drag anyone who uses them in, but my research actually showed that a very small percent of people who used those games/websites actually formed any sort of problem. Think about it, millions of people use Facebook and World of Warcraft (for example) every day without forming any sort of dependency. Only a small amount of people actually have problems with it. On top of that, people who do form problematic usage patters usually have some deeper psychological need that is not being otherwise met. The medium is just a vessel that they use to try and fulfil that sector of their lives that are lacking.
Laughlin’s third main point is that much of science fiction is very humanistic and also goes to bash robots in science fiction as being unrealistic and for the glory of man, not God. While this is true sometimes, that is not a reason to disown the entire genre. Science fiction is simply a genre. Rap, rock and reggae are all genres of music that can be used for or against God, as is similar with genres of literature. As for the robots, if we were made in the image of God (containing many of the desires and traits of God, such as creativity) and God made us, would it not be logical then that we would want to also make a creation in our own image. While many may view this as a humanistic point, I feel that this is all just part of our cultural commission to build and develop. Like anything else, how we use the robots will determine if they are good or bad.
In the next section shows a few examples of how humanism/atheism is seen in science fiction. His main example is shown below.
“One of the most powerful examples is seen in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called ‘The Outcast’, written by supervising producer Jeri Taylor. In the story, Commander Riker of the Enterprise falls in love with an alien named Soren, a member of the J’naii race. Long ago, the J’naii were male and female, but evolved into their present genderless state. They now reproduce by artificial means and consider those few among the J’naii who have strong inclinations of gender to be throwbacks to their primitive past. Therefore, expressing feelings of gender is forbidden. Soren is among those who have gender, so when her intolerant superiors learn of her affair with Riker, they administer the dreaded psychotechic therapy which brings her back to ‘normal’. Although the story is an allegory, it draws an obvious parallel with today’s conflict between ‘bigoted’ Christian fundamentalists and ‘persecuted’ homosexuals. Mark A. Altman, regular contributor to Cinefantastique, comments: ‘Taylor’s script is a stunning reminder of how effective the science fiction genre can be in providing allegorical explorations of political and social concerns.’”
The example given here is actually an accurate cultural observation. I find it kind of sad that the author of this article sees simply sees this as an expression of humanism and as an attack to Christianity. Really, this should be a wake up call to the church that we are obviously doing something wrong if all culture sees us as are people who hate homosexuals. I don’t want to open up another can of worms here, but I think he is looking at that example all wrong.
In the next section, he talks about occultism in science fiction. While it is true that there is some occultism and mysticism in some science fiction, really realistic and evil occultism is rare, especially along true-to-the-term science fiction. The “occultism” in Star Wars and Star Trek is so mild. It’s basically like magic in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings (another Christian author). Again, this is not a reason to avoid all science fiction.
In the final section, Laughlin talks about how evolutionary ideas have permeated science fiction. Basically, his point is that science fiction books inspire evolutionary thoughts. First of all, again I must say that just because a genre or things has roots in something untrue or wrong, it doesn’t have to ruin everything of that genre. Not all sci-fi is based in evolution. Some science fictions works don’t even mention origins. Secondly, a book or movie about evolution will not automatically sway anybody. It may be harmful for some weak Christians or children, but for mature believers, as long as we have good judgement on what is true, than we should be okay and be able to appreciate the writing, plot, themes, predicted technologies, etc. in the work.
While it is clear that science fiction does contain high amounts of evolutionary material, the examples that he uses in this section fail in several ways. One of the examples that Laughlin uses is H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine where the main character travels forward in time to find that mankind has divided into two races, the strong animalistic Morlocks and the weak passive Eloi. Laughlin uses this as an example of evolution in science fiction, but he is really missing the entire point of the novel. The book isn’t about evolution, even though it contains it. It’s a warning about the growing difference between the upper class (represented by the Eloi) and the lower class (the Morlocks) and showing how inhumane it really is.
In the article, the author also uses an interesting quote to try and show Wells’ atheism.
“If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards.”
Ironically enough, I feel that Wells actually very accurately portrays the problem with the Christian evolutionary theory.
In conclusion, I feel that Laughlin misses the point of fiction and can not see past a few small untruths to see the whole beautiful picture of many works of science fiction art. The author wants us to can an entire genre due to some bad works, but we aren’t like the Israelites anymore. We now have the spirit and the power to discern truth from lies and good from evil. We can’t completely eliminate a genre of literature and films simply because of some works. I recently finished writing a short 180 page science fiction novel. Are you trying to tell me now that my writing is evil, that hour and hours of work put into writing about human struggles while exploring scientific themes is bad? Also, how can we hand someone a Bible and say “Here, read this.” and then completely avoid anything from their perspective? I feel that the title of that article should be changed from “A Biblical Perspective” to “One Christian’s Perspective” as, evidently, not all Christians believe that what is being said here is truly a Biblical perspective.
skrivande 