PDA

View Full Version : Bears Eating Hippies and Intelligent Design


08-28-2005, 01:36 PM
I read this in the Washington Post today and thought some might find it interesting as it touches on many of the same themes that pop up in here.


Penguins, People and a Grisly Bear Tale

By George F. Will

Sunday, August 28, 2005; Page B07

This summer's movie stars are not the usual bipeds but other animals -- emperor penguins and grizzly bears. Their performances are pertinent to some ongoing arguments.

"March of the Penguins" raises this question: If an Intelligent Designer designed nature, why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins? The movie documents the 70-mile march of thousands of Antarctic penguins from the sea to an icy breeding place barren of nutrition. These perhaps intelligently but certainly oddly designed birds march because they cannot fly. They cannot even march well, being most at home in the sea.


In temperatures of 80 below and lashed by 100 mph winds, the females take months to produce an egg while the males trek back to the sea to fatten up. Returning, the males are entrusted with keeping the eggs warm during foodless months while the females march back to the sea to fill their stomachs with nutriments they will share with the hatched chicks.

The penguins' hardiness is remarkable, as is the intricate choreography of the march, the breeding and the nurturing. But the movie, vigorously anthropomorphizing the birds, invites us to find all this inexplicably amazing, even heroic. But the penguins are made for that behavior in that place. What made them? Adaptive evolution. They have been "designed" for all that rigor -- meaning they have been shaped by adapting to many millennia of nature's harshness.

Speaking of harshness, Timothy Treadwell, college dropout, drug abuser and failed actor, became a Southern California beach bum, had a heroin overdose and then an epiphany: He must spend summers in Alaska "protecting" the grizzlies. The idea that these huge, robust carnivores need protection provided by this mentally wobbly narcissist -- a developmentally arrested adolescent in his forties -- would be funny, had not Alaska officials "hauled four garbage bags of people out of the bear" that devoured Treadwell and his girlfriend at the end of his fifth summer filming grizzly bears to which he gave cute names such as Mr. Chocolate and Sgt. Brown.

About half of "Grizzly Man," a documentary about Treadwell, is his film. The rest consists of interviews with, among others, a dry-eyed Alaskan who says "he got what he was asking for." Although Treadwell has been described as an "animal lover," the grandiosity of his self-praise as he preens and waxes metaphysical in front of his camera reveals that his great love was himself. His cooing of "I love you" at magnificently indifferent bears and his swooning over the warmth of bear feces ("This was just inside of her!") is as repulsive as his weeping over evidence that nature really is red in tooth and claw.

Evidence such as bear cubs killed by mature male bears so the mother will stop lactating and be sexually available. Call that the Summer of Love, Alaska-style.

Treadwell was not far from mental illness, or from a social stance -- nature is sweet, civilization is nasty -- not easily distinguished from mental illness. Call it '60s Envy. So, see "Grizzly Man," then read T.C. Boyle's 2003 novel "Drop City."

It is about a bunch of Treadwells who, having dropped out and dropped acid, are addled but able to see that their California commune, based on "voluntary primitivism," has become overrun with inane philosophy and the communards' sewage. Also, the county sheriff is angry. So a few of them decide to found Drop City North in Alaska. As one of these pioneers explains, in Alaska there are "no rules" but there are food stamps.

There they plan "to live the vegetarian ideal" but where will the cheese come from, now that a wolverine has eaten the communal goats? When an Alaskan explains that "we eat bear and anything else we can get our hands on," a nature worshiper is horrified:

" 'But to kill another creature, another living soul, a soul progressing through all the karmic stages to nirvana' -- she paused to slap a mosquito on the back of her wrist with a neat slash of her hand -- 'that's something I just couldn't do.' " 'You just did.' " 'What? Oh, that. All right . . . I shouldn't have . . . but a bug is one thing . . . and like a bear is something else. They're almost human, aren't they?' "

The movies and novel prompt a thought: Reality's swirling complexity is sometimes lovely, sometime brutal; its laws propel the comings and goings of life forms in processes as impersonal as Antarctica is to the penguins or the bears were to Treadwell or Alaska was to Drop City North. It is so grand that nothing is gained by dragging an Intelligent Designer into the picture for praise. Or blame.

NotReady
08-28-2005, 10:12 PM
Will's glasses have been too tight for too long. They've squshed his brains.

siegfriedandroy
08-29-2005, 04:41 PM
Interesting article, Chris.

2 questions for you:

1) Why are you repulsed by the crazy hippie dude's admiration and wonder at the fact that the poop was inside of her, and also by the fact that he said 'I love you' to the indifferent bears!? (funny excerpt!)

2) What does this have to do with intelligent design? I think most who espouse intelligent design theory do not deny that nature can be brutal. Personally, I am a Christian, and believe that these brutal realities of nature are testament to the garden of eden, to the reality that our world is fallen immeasurably and has been incredibly corrupted.

08-29-2005, 07:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting article, Chris.

2 questions for you:

1) Why are you repulsed by the crazy hippie dude's admiration and wonder at the fact that the poop was inside of her, and also by the fact that he said 'I love you' to the indifferent bears!? (funny excerpt!)

2) What does this have to do with intelligent design? I think most who espouse intelligent design theory do not deny that nature can be brutal. Personally, I am a Christian, and believe that these brutal realities of nature are testament to the garden of eden, to the reality that our world is fallen immeasurably and has been incredibly corrupted.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I didnt write the article and I found the use of the word repulsive there to be an interesting choice. I suppose Will finds extreme naivity to be repulsive.

2. ID proponents make the argument that chance alone cant account for nature and it must have been designed. At the beach this summer I was given a pamphlet by an evangelical group which explained why evolution was wrong. The first page explained how the banana is the perfect evidence for this. To summarize...."look at the banana, its designed perfectly for people, its shape fits perfectly in the hand, its the perfect size for the mouth, its a standard single serving of food for people, it has a wrapper which keeps the food safe until ready to eat. The banana is the same as a can of coke and nobody would ever claim that a can of coke wasnt designed." If this is the standard that ID folk want to use than Will points out that the penguin mating habits imply an incompotent designer, while evolution explains it with no problems.

NotReady
08-29-2005, 07:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Will points out that the penguin mating habits imply a n incompotent designer, while evolution explains it with no ! problems .


[/ QUOTE ]

What he said was this:

[ QUOTE ]

Adaptive evolution. They have been "designed" for all that rigor -- meaning they have been shaped by adapting to many millennia of nature's harshness.


[/ QUOTE ]


So Will believes their behavior was designed - but the designer is evolution, not God. Would that be moronic design, or MD?

The problem is, if God is incompetent if He does it, why is evolution so astoundingly wonderful when it does the same thing? And just out of curiosity, what is the survival value of this kind of mating habit?

gumpzilla
08-29-2005, 07:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]

The problem is, if God is incompetent if He does it, why is evolution so astoundingly wonderful when it does the same thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't, really. It's still a pretty clumsy seeming setup, but evolution is always looking for local extrema, not global ones. It finds a good path, but not necessarily the best path, in other words. And I don't think Will is saying that this is terribly clever design, he's just saying that we shouldn't be amazed that they can survive the rigors, because if they couldn't they wouldn't even exist for us to know about them, essentially.

[ QUOTE ]
And just out of curiosity, what is the survival value of this kind of mating habit?

[/ QUOTE ]

The ice melts over the course of the year, and near the end of the season has basically regressed all the way to where the breeding ground is. The penguin infants aren't quite ready for the water when they are born, is the impression that I got. Still, the badness of the current system makes me kind of surprised that the more obvious "birth near water" strategy is most likely worse.

I'd be very curious how they identify where they should go, whether it's some kind of memory effect or whether they can determine the thickness of the ice acoustically or some such thing like that.

NotReady
08-29-2005, 08:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]

It's still a pretty clumsy seeming setup


[/ QUOTE ]

There are many things in nature that don't make obvious sense to us. I don't understand why we think God has to make everything He does fit with our ideas.

Will spoke of the movie:
[ QUOTE ]

vigorously anthropomorphizing the birds


[/ QUOTE ]

Will then says:
[ QUOTE ]

If an Intelligent Designer designed nature, why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins?


[/ QUOTE ]

But calling it tedious is also anthropomorphic. For all we know, that march may be the highpoint of a penguin year.

[ QUOTE ]

Still, the badness of the current system makes me kind of surprised that the more obvious "birth near water" strategy is most likely worse


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, wouldn't it be a "clever" design?

gumpzilla
08-29-2005, 08:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]

If this is true, wouldn't it be a "clever" design?

[/ QUOTE ]

Relatively. It's not nearly as clever as a solution like having babies that can handle going in the water early so you can stay near the water with less cost, and so it's not a particularly impressive piece of work.

NotReady
08-29-2005, 08:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]

it's not a particularly impressive piece of work.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some people God can't impress no matter what He does.

gumpzilla
08-29-2005, 09:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Some people God can't impress no matter what He does.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary! He has impressed me greatly with your pompous douchebaggery.

08-30-2005, 12:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Some people God can't impress no matter what He does.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary! He has impressed me greatly with your pompous douchebaggery.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the word "douchebaggery" and use it at every opportunity.

Perhaps all the ID advocates would care to explain to me why a whale, which spends all its time in the water, should have lungs, which require it to surface in order to breathe.

NotReady
08-30-2005, 01:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps all the ID advocates would care to explain to me why a whale, which spends all its time in the water, should have lungs, which require it to surface in order to breathe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ask evolution, maybe he knows.