Intelligent design? My arse

What kind of a god would design a dog with two noses? It looks bloody ridiculous.

It’s discoverer has a rather silly name as well: Colonel John Blashford-Snell. I so wish the BBC had misspelt his last name.


  1. Uh? Where did that come from?

    Seriously, I’m intrigued by your comment “James” (and in case this looks like I’m talking to myself, I assure you I’m not), it’s almost as much of a non-sequitor as this (poor) joke:

    I say, I say, I say. My dog has two noses.

    How does it smell?

    Of burning Christians. Boom! Boom!

  2. See Jameses, some Christians think that Christianity implies intelligent design. Come to think of it some atheists appear to think that too.

    Anyway, actually no I agree with James. (Which one?)

    I think ID is pretty ridiculous too, but, seriously, who said anything about purges? Some Lib Dems support Sheffield Wednesday, and if I can be civil to them, then IDers are safe.

  3. Call me a posh git but I’ve met Blashford-Snell and a very decent chap he is too. He’s the guy behind Operation Raleigh that gave loads of kids a chance to sail a tall ship and explore Central and South America twenty plus years ago.

  4. Actually, being serious for a moment, this is what bothers me about James #2’s response.

    The whole point of ID is that it is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis, not a religious belief. Sure, the Dover judge found it to be religious belief masquerading as a scientific hypothesis, but this has still not been conceded by its advocates.

    Now there is no question that scientific ideas are fair game for ridicule in a way that religious ideas generally aren’t considered to be. You can’t advance something as a scientific idea and then claim affront to your religion if people disagree. That’s having your cake and eating it.

  5. About Intelligent Design (ID)

    ID is most often and wrongly linked to God and creationism, as opposed to Darwinism and evolutionism. We are there in fact facing an old philosophical problem transposed this time from man to the universe: the difficult and even impossible distinction between what is innate and what is acquired. But the reader of my pages will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between both concepts is sterile and that a synthesis is even possible.
    If any great complexity of a feature could not exclude evolutionism, science itself could not reject some forms of ID in the evolution of the universe, at least in some steps of the process. After all, man himself is already a local actor in this evolution, an actor showing little intelligence so far (global warming, life sciences …). He could however be led to play a greater and nobler part if he succeeds to survive long enough (dissemination of life in the cosmos, “terraforming” of planets, planetary and even stellar formation, artificial beings…). The development of this kind of “draft ID” could only be limited by our refusal to do so and by our ability to survive. We would be viewed as gods by our ancestors from the middle Ages, and we would also view our descendants as gods if we could return in a few hundreds or thousands years.
    By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe, man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being. It is in fact just another way for placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as for the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.
    Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy, and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.
    Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith in man’s solitude in the universe than with true science. Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future? As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses that way, and it would not be scientific to exclude one hypothesis that could be quite credible. ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too.
    Benoit Lebon

  6. Ooh! Such long words. Simple response:

    Please outline for me, if you will, an experiment or prediction that could be conducted that would either prove, or disprove, the Intelligent Design “hypothesis.”

    That is all.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.