“The idea that Mr. Spock could be a cross between a human being and a life-form independently evolved on the planet Vulcan is genetically far less probable than a successful cross of a man and an artichoke.” – Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Yeah we don’t like to think about that do we? Ironically, Star Trek is probably the one television program more than any that got people into REAL science. Sure, Star Trek has a lot of good things about it, too. Star Trek did, and continues to even now, spark genuine scientific curiosity. The sci-fi franchise has power as a cultural gateway into STEM exploration. But the older I get, the more glaring flaws I see with it myself.

And some of this narrative laziness and scientific inaccuracies popularized by science-fiction programming (key word here) like this are harmful long-term. As Sagan writes:  “The idea does, however, provide a precedent in popular culture for the extraterrestrial/human hybrids that later became so central a component of the alien abduction story.” Yes, Carl suggests that the half-human, half-Vulcan trope paved the way for modern True Crime or UFO cult narratives.

Of course, aliens looking so human is a choice made from “economic necessity.”. But Sagan’s point remains valid. “Star Trek doesn’t come to grips with evolution,” Sagan laments. That’s because most of the audience still believed in Creationism and even the atheist Gene Roddenberry was well aware of that. Sagan exposes yet another commercial compromise that has likely shaped audience understanding—or misunderstanding—of actual science.

Sure, Sagan suggested they should have real scientists read the scripts over more often. Well, they actually do this, even with ‘NuTrek,’ but still the showrunners ignore most of their input. The science advisors on Star Trek TNG and following series have constantly lambasted the ‘techno babble’ but the producers go ahead with the nonsense anyway. Star Trek episodes constantly do egregious things that even make me wonder why I watch these programs in the first place! Yes, Star Trek is modern myth-making, but it’s not often presented as such; it’s often presented as entirely plausible futurism.

The greater issue here is when you apply that same Star Trek logic to real-world decision-making. That’s when the mysticism starts to metastasize. I get that Star Trek isn’t peer-reviewed evolutionary biology. But the problem is that too many people don’t draw that line between metaphor and literalism. Pop culture myth becomes dogma when you forget it’s fiction.

And sadly enough, I feel Trek has become even more dogmatic with its pseudo-socialist/utopian future than the Force-based Jedi and Sith religions of the Star Wars canon. I’m not dismantling Star Trek as a whole, but I’m also refusing to give its world-building a free pass.