CBEB’s

“B.O.L.O.” is law enforcement jargon meaning, “Be On the Lookout”. Seeing that Denyse O’Leary just loves to trot out analogies using the field of criminology to prop up the non-starter known as Intelligent Design, she might already know about the B.O.L.O. acronym. Then again, she might not.

Another common law enforcement acronym is “MMO”, which stands for “Means, Motive & Opportunity”. Judging by Granny Spice’s latest episode of CSI: Imaginary Kingdom, it’s pretty obvious that she thinks “MMO” means something entirely different.

In an awkward attempt to show there’s some sound reasoning behind the vacuous enterprise known as “design detection”, O’Leary uses an example of a man stabbing his dinner companion:

Harry and Jack are having a somewhat tense conversation over a beer and steak at the local pub.

Harry seizes a steak knife and tries to plunge it into Jack’s ribs.

Pub regulars overpower him and the police are called. He is charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

That’s intent.

I’m fully aware that saying “Denyse O’Leary is wrong” is entirely redundant, but in this case, she is wrong on so many levels, it hurts to even think about it. Most damaging to her premise, however, is the fact that intent can really only be established once the suspect is identified. In some cases - for example, a body is found with its head blown off by a shotgun blast - the intent is obvious, but it’s useless in determining a suspect. This is where “Means, Motive & Opportunity” come into play. Since Intelligent Design is a science-stopper, Denyse O’Leary is apparently satisfied with the outcome of her little mystery. Being such a super-duper writer and all, maybe she’ll pen an Agatha Christie-style thriller utilizing her amazing crime-fighting know-how.

I can see it now… Private Detective Michael “Bill” Behembski cracks the cases that the materialist cops are afraid to touch. In Chapter One of “Pinched, Purloined and Pilfered”, gumshoe Behembski arrives at the mansion of real estate mogul Arnold Tromp, who has had his collection of rare jewels stolen.

Behembski: It looks to me like the burglar’s intent was to steal your collection of rare jewels.
Tromp: No shit, Sherlock. I’m interested in finding out who stole them.
Behembski: I’m afraid that’s beyond the scope of this investigation. After all, it’s obvious those jewels were designed in a manner that would attract thieves, so it could be anyone. There might even be those who say that aliens stole your gems, but that’s mere speculation. Judging from the way your elaborate alarm system was disarmed, I’m guessing it was someone reasonably intelligent, but that’s the most I can say.
Tromp: You’re fired!
Behembski: Case closed. Another satisfied customer.

Being colossally mistaken has become the norm in Denyse O’Leary’s career as an ID apologist. Her articles touting the truthfulness of Intelligent Design are often nothing more than Mad-Libs, the blanks filled in with the ID talking points du jour: Blah blah blah “materialism”. Yadda yadda “design inference”. Boo hoo hoo “buy my book”, and so on.

Just in case readers are unconvinced of how utterly wrong she is, O’Leary hammers the point home, adding:

No one knows his motive, but no one needs to know his motive. What he intended was obvious. And it is a crime

In O’Leary’s example, the perpetrator’s intent could mean the difference between 15 years in prison and 15 to life. Regardless of motive, was the man’s intent to merely see his victim bleed, or did he want to kill him? What if the heated discussion involved the victim bragging about how he was going to set off a bomb in a densely populated area after he finished his steak? It doesn’t matter to Saint Denyse of Leary; a roomful of witnesses saw a guy stab someone in the ribs with a steak knife. End of story, no further investigation needed. We all know that ID is a science-stopper, but it doesn’t look like “design detection” would ever be of any use as a crime-stopper. Is it any wonder that the field of criminology still relies on good old-fashioned science?

I’m sure Ms. O’Leary doesn’t want anyone to consider the subtleties - or lack thereof - of her analogy. After all, if she doesn’t spend more than two seconds thinking about the validity of her arguments, why should we?