Scott seems to take as his premise that there’s no way life could have arisen on Earth without intelligent intervention. Of course the critical community isn’t entirely happy about this idea. Donald Clarke in the Irish Times frets about the “worrying” implication that life was somehow “engineered,” the product of “intelligent design”:
Too bad, Donald, suck it up. Or board the train to Rerun City. “Worrying” premises like intelligent design is what separates interesting films from three-hour fart jokes.
A reviewer for The Economist became so upset watching the movie with its implications of “intelligent design” that he goes into a (completely irrelevant) rant about chimp versus human DNA and young-earth creationism:
– “Critics Getting ‘Worried’ about ‘Intelligent-Design Subtext’ in Ridley Scott’s Prometheus” (Evolution News & Views, June 7, 2012 )
All some of us say is this: If it is really true that human and chimp DNA are 98-99% identical, then DNA doesn’t tell us much. We’re waiting for real answers.
Anyway, Klinghoffer also notes (“Prometheus: A Brief Review”, Evolution News & Views, June 8, 2012),
Without spoiling the plot for you, one of the first characters to, uh, pass away under rather unpleasant circumstances is a biologist who earlier protested that the space ship Prometheus’ mission — to explore an alien planet in search of life’s intelligent-designing “engineers” — is a crock because it flies in the face of “three centuries of Darwinism.”
No, no, it’s not a remake of Fundies’ Revenge and anyway Klinghoffer warns it’s not for all family members.
But really, three centuries of Darwinism are really enough.
Follow UD News at Twitter!