One of my favorite quotes is from conservative author P.J. O’Rourke who noted that “Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.” Sadly it is often that easy. And I am often horrified at how we (Christians) give fodder to the critics.
But it gives me great pleasure to report that the director of the surprise hit movie March of the Penguins has actually given me some material to have fun with while defending my Christian colleagues. March of the Penguins is the amazing story of the mating habits of Emporer Penguins in Antarctica. It is a heart warming and inspiring treat. But some viewers and reviewers have had the audacity to see the hand of God in the extraordinary rituals of the penguins.
Writing in the Christian publication World magazine Andrew Coffin, noted that the complexity of the penguins’ lives was clear evidence of intelligent design, demonstrating it could not have come about through random selection.
I am not sure that I would make quite so bold a deduction. But if that’s his opinion it’s okay…right? Apparently not.
March of the Penguins director Luc Jacquet is unhappy that Christians have “hijacked” his movie. (Did some zealous group grab the film and demand to go to a different theater?) But I digress. Mr. Jacquet is annoyed that some Christian commentators have used his movie as an example of Intelligent Design. This offends Mr. Jacquet.
“It does annoy me to a certain degree,” he said. “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. Some scientists I know find the film interesting because it can be a good argument against intelligent design. People should not jump on these bandwagons.”
Immediately my three hundred year old thinking processes creaked into action. What would WilIiam Penn do? And I realized what I needed. I would be most grateful if Mr.Jacquet could give me a list of which bandwagons I should jump on. Without his help I might have jumped on this one. Whew!
But the Christian right wing wasn’t done offending our beleagured director. Radio host and film critic Michael Medved (who is Jewish but that’s not relevant to the greater good of bashing Christians), noted the story of the emperor penguins’ journey “most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing.” Who could disagree with a sweet affirmation of values like that?
Well, Mr.Jacquet could. Now he had to throw the penguins under the bus with the Christians.
“If you want an example of monogamy, penguins are not a good choice,” 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.”
This shook me to my core. I had based the foundation of my marriage on the example of the penguins. Now what could I look toward? Properly chastised I began to compose a letter to Mr. Jacquet to win back his favor.
Dear Luc,
Please forgive this knuckle-dragging, pea-brained Christian. You see I thought I had the right to “interpret” a work of art anyway that I wanted. For some reason I once thought that when I plopped down eight bucks I could think what I wanted. I guess I was wrong. Can you help me next time to interpret your film the correct way? I would be most grateful since it is obviously dangerous to you and others if I think for myself. By the way, I know some scientists who find the film interesting because it can be a good argument for intelligent design. But now I realize that they don’t count. You are right Mr. Jacquet. Forgive me.
Regards,
A Bad Christian
Sadly, these stories are becoming common place. Why is the intelligent design movement so infuriating to those who believe in evolution? If it is such bad science then it should be quite easy to debunk. As Billy Shakespeare once said, “The lady/gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.” Can we simply allow the process to go forward? Can those who believe in the hand of a Creator have the courtesy of not being ridiculed as flat earth Neanderthals? Paul wrote to the church at Corinthians about such debates.
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”[ and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile. I Cor 3 NIV
Mr.Jacquet leaves no room for intelligent discussion and that is by design. “For me there is no doubt about evolution. I am a scientist.” So if I suggest I have some doubts about evolution I have announced that I am a moron. I’m okay with that. And on that I suspect Luc and I can reach agreement.
Zac hungerson
I think the author of this is a great wordsmith. The sarcasm so apparent in this article does a wonderful job of drawing your attention away from the fact that the content of the article is empty and bias.
Facts have nothing to do with artistic interpretation. One cannot look at half of an arguement and ignore the other half if it contradicts his or her own opinion. What the author basically said was "I can look at this part however I want because I’m interpreting art, but I’ll look at this part and cite it as fact."
"…Michael Medved…noted the story of the emperor penguins’ journey ‘most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing.’" Now there’s a perfect example. The fact of the matter is that this is a very juvenile, shortsighted and in fact incorrect interpretation of the lives of emperor penguins. An 80-90% divorce rate is by no means a good example of "traditional norms" no matter who you ask.
Christian fundamentalists need to stop being so damn hypocritical. If you want people to be open to more than one theory of creation, fine. But if you expect others to do this, should you yourself not also partake? Both Intelligent Design and Creationism are not valid scientific theories. They cannot be proven, they can not be validated, and the fact that Christians say they can does not change the fact that they cannot.
Faith and science are, in this case at least, irreconcilable, and the Faithful need to recognise this. God cannot be proved scientifically.
Dr.J.A.Schulp
I think I can explain the annoyment of Mr. Jacquet with the ‘hijacking’ of his movie by creationists because the interpretation of the movie the creationist way is so obviously at variance with the facts as observed and filmed by him.
Apart from the divorce rate already mentioned by Mr. Jacquet, also the focusing of the birds on their own offspring is rather in favor of Dawkins’ ‘Selfish Gene’ concept than with all kinds of altruism. Reciprocal assistance is only given by the birds insofar as they get back as much as they invest, so an interpretation in the direction of Christian altruism is out of place either. And finally, I should call the whole risky, superfluous migration practice rather stupid than intelligent design.
Lainey
Maybe you should read this then?
http://www.alternet.org/movies/25610/
Mark Marsden
Evolution (and some evolutionists) annoy me because they are unscientific. I think it’s possible to be a Christian evolutionist (some would disagree), so I’m not annoyed on theological grounds but it’s the SCIENCE (and the logic) which are lacking. The scientific method is:
1. OBSERVABLE
2. REPEATABLE
3. VERIFIABLE
4. CONSISTENT
5. FALSIFIABLE (openness to contradiction of initial expectations)
Evolution must be FALSIFIABLE to be scientific.
I watched a program about String Theory (basis of energy) and it was very engaging as they frankly admitted it was currently unverifiable and was more of a belief than a science.
A couple of interesting links (amidst all the pro and anti-evolution dross):
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Creation_science
What any belief needs is RIGOUR, be it Christianity or Evolution, rather than naive acceptance.
Angie Keener
From one moron to another–that was great!