Battlestar Galactica- "Daybreak, Pt. 2"

Let me say this: I had planned to buy the box set of the series sometime down the road (or at least amass the DVDs).

Not now. The ending left a bad taste in my mouth, for reasons I described here. It was almost as sour as the ending of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, where Capt. Sisco flies into the wormhole and tells the entities who live there "you hold yourselves out as gods to the Bajorans, well, step up to the plate and act like gods"; they do and they wipe out the 2,500 ships invading through the wormhole.

Are the writers that lazy? Do they have to keep writing themselves into a hole where they have to resort to having an omnipotent Sky-Fucker step in and save the day?

A friend of mine noted that Star Trek: The Next Generation kept going to plots that hinged on the actions of a godlike creature, Q, and that the end of the Shadow War in Babylon 5 depended in no small measure on The First Sentient Being What Ever Lived stepping in to rally the ancient civilizations. Why is it that science-fiction shows keep feeling a need to have a supernatural entity ride to the rescue?

I contrast that with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a fantasy show that was steeped in the mystic and supernatural. The conclusion for the show did not depend on a god stepping in (in fact, Buffy defeated a god at the end of the fifth season). Neither, for that matter, did its spin-off series, Angel, depend on a deity rescuing them at the end- the show ended with hordes of demons attacking the good guys and the sense of it was that the good guys were all going to be killed.

So why is it that two of the most memorable fantasy shows of the last decade didn't have to go to the Flying Spaghetti Monster Saves the Day, yet most of the so-called hard science fiction shows had to resort to that crutch?

I think I'll pass when Caprica starts to air on the Sci-Fi channel. I'm tired of being disappointed.