Deep Kimchi
06-12-2005, 16:15
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0511060230nov06,1,5704905.story
Probably the funniest argument as well...
The author hits on a few other points besides intelligent design - family values, gays, etc. Well worth the read.
On the other hand, when I went to see the film, I left thinking: How could there be a god that would subject the poor penguin to such horrendously difficult reproductive technology? Couldn't an intelligently designing God have provided at least a pouch for the penguin to keep the egg in instead of having to shuffle along with an egg on his feet for a couple of months?
As for monogamy, the idea that birds are faithful is lovely. But what kind of monogamy are we talking about? The penguins mate and stay together for all of a few months. After that, it's a new mate next year.
As for family values, we see that some of the females who have lost their eggs because of incompetent husbands or sloppy footwork have no compunction about coveting and trying to steal their neighbor's eggs, definitely violating the Mosaic code, but not the harsher laws of nature. Then again, these loving families have a strange denouement. The mothers and fathers abandon their chick to return to the sea when the chicks seem knee-high to a grasshopper, never to see them again.
And when it comes to gay marriage, I just don't see what this film has to say about that. If you can tell the straight penguins from the gay ones, you have better gaydar than I do. The family values crowd has seized on the supposed straightness of penguins because of bad memories of the well-publicized news story about two gay penguins in the New York Aquarium in Brooklyn and two more at Central Park Zoo. If you did the math, it would show that in New York, 1 out of 25 penguins is gay. So when you see the film, look again and see if you can spot the odd couples.
Probably the funniest argument as well...
The author hits on a few other points besides intelligent design - family values, gays, etc. Well worth the read.
On the other hand, when I went to see the film, I left thinking: How could there be a god that would subject the poor penguin to such horrendously difficult reproductive technology? Couldn't an intelligently designing God have provided at least a pouch for the penguin to keep the egg in instead of having to shuffle along with an egg on his feet for a couple of months?
As for monogamy, the idea that birds are faithful is lovely. But what kind of monogamy are we talking about? The penguins mate and stay together for all of a few months. After that, it's a new mate next year.
As for family values, we see that some of the females who have lost their eggs because of incompetent husbands or sloppy footwork have no compunction about coveting and trying to steal their neighbor's eggs, definitely violating the Mosaic code, but not the harsher laws of nature. Then again, these loving families have a strange denouement. The mothers and fathers abandon their chick to return to the sea when the chicks seem knee-high to a grasshopper, never to see them again.
And when it comes to gay marriage, I just don't see what this film has to say about that. If you can tell the straight penguins from the gay ones, you have better gaydar than I do. The family values crowd has seized on the supposed straightness of penguins because of bad memories of the well-publicized news story about two gay penguins in the New York Aquarium in Brooklyn and two more at Central Park Zoo. If you did the math, it would show that in New York, 1 out of 25 penguins is gay. So when you see the film, look again and see if you can spot the odd couples.