Just accord such blogs a generalized Amicus curiae status.

You really should check things like article links more carefully if you want to quibble about "news" versus "discussion." The summary link: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/04/small-windmills-test-results.html, astonishingly is to a "journal." It is the author of the journal article that asserts that "small" windmills "are a swindle." The references to "design" by the OP also appear to derive from an uncited link: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/09/urban-windmills.html, to another journal article that debunked small windmills as a poor investment, or as the authors of the linked article put it "fundamentally flawed." There is in fact apparently nothing in the summary by the OP that does not appear to derive from a "journal" source, if you consider that important. So, evidently it really IS news, wouldn't you say?

Actually, you can argue quite readily that evolution - at least the genetic diversity aspect - is driven by entropy. When you run that diversity over a selective grid, you get an illusion of "progress" which is what creationists frequently confound with evolution. Since it isn't, the whole issue is and has always been a debate over a strawman.

Photosynthesis relies on more than light to do the job. They would still require CO2, H2O, and various critical minerals and amino acids, not including all the raft of other things a biologist would list. So, the question, "what do they eat" is a really interesting one.

You know, thinking about it, since photosynthesis relies on CO2 as a key component to synthesize carbohydrates, possibly they've found a counter for global warming! I'm sure none of the existing AGW climate models include a atmospheric, CO2-fixing bacteria factor.