I guess I was wrong - the concept of "Intelligent Design" really is useful...

I guess I was just plain wrong about this.

The ID paradigm really is an amazingly useful tool for scientific endeavors, and therefore by extension, naturalistic evolution really is false. How could I have been so wrong all this time? I just thought that ID was a way to sneak religion into public school science classes - how wrong I was!

Here is how I now know this.

Yesterday, I had some time to kill and did a little intellectual autoflagellation at Dembski's den of sycophantic simpletons (i.e., Bill Dembski's blog), and I ended up following a couple of links to "Mike Gene's" most recent blog, The Design Matrix.

Its main purpose seems to be publicity for his upcoming book of the same title*, but what intrigued me was this page, and specifically, the entry titled Example of Design Detection.

Now let me inform you what the entry page to this blog said re: Gene's new book:

"What clues might lead to a suspicion that Life was intelligently designed? Is it possible to move beyond the suspicion?..."

So, MY suspicion was that Mike Gene may have actually produced - for the very first time - evidence that a 'design' paradigm actually produced results - maybe he actually came up with some concrete evidence for 'design in nature' - evidence that Life really was the product of Intelligence! How exciting!!

Imagine how I felt when, upon clicking the link for the entry, and seeing only a link.
I was a bit suspicious, but what the heck.

Then imagine my surprise when I saw that the link that Gene provided as an example of design detection was on a political blog, in an article titled:

Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?

An article about how it was discovered that a photographer had doctored photos.


Color me impressed! Color me astonished! Color me converted!

I mean, if it was only via an Intelligent Design paradigm, as Gene implies in the title, that this act of photoshopping was discovered, what other biologically relevant discoveries will adopting metaphorical terminology and relying on analogies as evidence provide for humanity!?!?

And Mike Gene is no slouch - why, anti-Darwinian theologian William 'Isaac Newton of Information Theory' Dembski says of him " Mike Gene is the pseudonym of one of the most insightful individuals in the ID/evolution debate."

Wow.

I guess he would know...

Let's get this new book in public schools immediately!

NOT!

*a book wherein Gene apparently talks about his 'suspicion' of design....