Indecent Digit: Penguin Lust

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Penguin Lust

Speaking of wingnuts, there has been some noise from God's Own Circus on the subject of Luc Jacquet's recent film, March of the Penguins, specifically that the film is cinematic proof of "Intelligent Design". For those of you who don't yet understand the "theory" that constitutes this assault on the scientific method, Robert Cooper sums it up quite well in this editorial, This Smart and No Smarter: The Hubris of Intelligent Design:

"If we can't figure out the solution, then the solution will be forever beyond humanity's reach and study, and only a magical 'designer' can provide us the answers for our unanswered questions."

Anyway, oldschool friends of Indecent Digit know that we are all quite fond of this debate, and I should also add that I have been particularly obsessed with the clowns' assertion that the complexity of the penguins' migration patterns and the strong family bonds that the penguins exhibit in the documentary are solid evidence that A) life is too darned complicated to have just "sprung up" like the Jesus-shaped mold spot on James Dobson's cheese wheel, and B) Marriage, monogamy, and heterosexuality are all imprinted upon us directly by the Creator's Noodly Appendage.

In this amusing article from the Times Online, director of the film has spoken out against the "hijacking" of his work by the dominionist crowd:

“It does annoy me to a certain degree,” ... “For me there is no doubt about evolution. I am a scientist. The intelligent design theory is a step back to the thinking of 300 years ago. My film is not supposed to be interpreted in this way."

And my favorite quote:

“'If you want an example of monogamy, penguins are not a good choice,'” Luc Jacquet told The Times. “'The divorce rate in emperor penguins is 80 to 90 per cent each year,'” ... “'After they see the chick is OK, most of them divorce. They change every year.'”

Take that, Medved!

[UPDATE: I just read this ignorant defense of ID by Donald Hoffman. My favorite part comes in his equally ignorant, though brief, mention of the ID "textbook", Of Pandas and People [emphasis mine]:

"I have not never read '''Of Pandas and People,''' so I have no basis to comment on either its scientific validity or proselytizing potential."

Against such an intellect, the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands no chance.]


Post a Comment

<< Home