ABC throws a curve
Last night I was blind-sided by something I saw on ABC while channel-surfing for about 5 minutes (that's about the extent of TV I get to see in any given weeknight). It was at the end of the show Boston Legal (a spinoff of The Practice). For those not familiar, the show stars James Spader as a sleazy lawyer in a fairly sleazy law firm in Boston. The characters and plots are pretty much left-wing in their slant. That's why I was so confused. From what I can gather from the 90 seconds or so that I watched, the firm had taken as a client a teacher(?) who was being sued for teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution in his classroom. For whatever reason, this group of lawyers decided to take his side in the courtroom battle. At the point I began watching, the judge was delivering his decision and it basically went along these lines: Scientists should not be afraid to have other theories taught alongside evolution and intelligent design is not in violation of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Case dismissed.
My jaw dropped. What in the world does this mean?? Hollywood screenwriters producing a script that champions a cause seen as a plot by the "religious right" to sneak religion into public schools? And a major broadcast network actually airing it?? Regardless of what the thought process was in putting the episode together and airing it, I'm very thankful that God saw fit to work it out in this way. Perhaps the arguments made in the episode (and now I wish I'd seen it to hear how they argued the case) will get some folks who are currently in the "undecided" column on this issue onto the side of intelligent design. Again, I'm dumbfounded by this unexpected turn of events in the media...and confused. I need an aspirin.
My jaw dropped. What in the world does this mean?? Hollywood screenwriters producing a script that champions a cause seen as a plot by the "religious right" to sneak religion into public schools? And a major broadcast network actually airing it?? Regardless of what the thought process was in putting the episode together and airing it, I'm very thankful that God saw fit to work it out in this way. Perhaps the arguments made in the episode (and now I wish I'd seen it to hear how they argued the case) will get some folks who are currently in the "undecided" column on this issue onto the side of intelligent design. Again, I'm dumbfounded by this unexpected turn of events in the media...and confused. I need an aspirin.
Labels: Christianity, culture, worldview
posted by Jim V. | 9:30 AM
1 Comments:
Perhaps the story undermined the legitimacy of the verdict by portraying the judge in a bad light earlier. Or maybe the firm argued the case in a deceptive, though ultimately convincing fashion, thus demonstrating how gullible people might get sucked in to thinking that ID is not "pseudo-science." Or maybe the writers of the show are liberals, but are not anti-theists, and so they could be sympathetic to ID.
My prediction is that in the future ID will gain enough clout to make many people rethink their naturalistic view of biology and evolution. However, this does not mean everyone will go rushing to the Gospel -- perhaps it will not even make a blip in the numbers of those who already do. Unbelief will simply find a new outlet, like Gaia theory or eastern mysticism, which could theoretically accomodate ID without all the encumbancy associated with Christianity.
Post a Comment
<< Home