Joined: April 2007
All the papers are from Douglas Axe who was named in the infamous Wedge Document. The first two papers were among a list of “peer-reviewed papers” which supposedly supported Intelligent Design. These two papers have been thoroughly reviewed by ID critics (e.g. link). In short, the best case scenario for Axe is that he made a weak negative argument saying life is too complex and didn’t even acknowledge the possibility of an ID or design alternative.
|- ID has inspired scientists to do research which has detected high levels of complex and specified information in biology in the form of fine-tuning of protein sequences. This has practical implications not just for explaining biological origins but also for engineering enzymes and anticipating / fighting the future evolution of diseases.|
In the third paper, the title says it all The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds. It concludes with…
Ho Hum, just another ID argument claiming to have made “THE” case against Darwinian Evolution. There is nothing here to “inspire” scientists. There are no suggestions for other avenues to explore. This is clearly a creationist argument against evolution.
|Whichever way the matter is ultimately resolved, everyone with a genuine interest in science should agree that there is a scientific case against the neo-Darwinian explanation of biological origins, the arguments put forward here representing only a part of that case. Like all scientific cases, this one will be judged by the evidence, and the diversity of opinion as to the outcome is, on the whole, a good thing for science. For those who continue to think that protein origins can be explained within a broadly Darwinian framework, it should now be clear what lines of evidence stand in the way of that for the rest of us.|
The only “practical implications” of these three papers, especially the last one, is to suggest scientists are wasting their time. What should they do? Go to church and pray for answers?
The first paper, Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe is a Scientific American article tailored to the mass market. A more directly applicable paper would be The Galactic Habitable Zone I. Galactic Chemical Evolution Guillermo Gonzalez, Donald Brownlee, Peter Ward 2001
|- ID has inspired scientists to seek and find instances of fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to allow for life, leading to a variety of fine-tuning arguments including the Galactic Habitable Zone. This has huge implications for proper cosmological models of the universe, hints at proper avenues for successful "theories of everything" which must accommodate fine-tuning, and other implications for theoretical physics.|
It's no mystery as to why Luskin didn't reference it. If the title alone wasn't enough; it includes "In this paper we examine the dependence of the GHZ on Galactic chemical evolution."
The other paper referenced appears to be some engineers rediscovering what Newton and Kepler discovered long ago.
At best, any "inspiration" on this point is irrelevent to ID and/or is nothing new.
The papers referenced are from ID loyalists making second-law-of-thermodynamics creationist arguments. McIntosh is reported to have "...repeatedly said the world is only 6,000 years old." link
|ID has inspired scientists to understand intelligence as a scientifically studyable cause of biological complexity, and to understand the types of information it generates.|
Creation Scientists argued essencially the same this-is-science assertion in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court didn't buy it. Without a doubt, this is probably the best argument creationists have, but it is still primarily a negative attack on evolution.
More inspiration for scientists to go to church for their answers?
| ID has inspired both experimental and theoretical research into how limitations on the ability of Darwinian evolution to evolve traits that require multiple mutations to function.|
The Behe and Snoke paper says nothing at all in support of Intelligent Design. Even so, the paper's assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (Lynch 2005).
Ann K Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F Fahey, Ralph Seelke, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness," Bio-Complexity, Vol. 2010).
Blech, this is hard work. Having to read through all the junk and cross checking everything. I started to write a book and realize this is only one bullet so then I had to condense it. No wonder you guys can be so grouchy at times.
BTW, I found Gishlick, Matzke, and Elsberry's Meyer's Hopeless Monster which I thought was very well written. It included short summaries of Axe's paper.
I also liked Brayton's More DI Lies About Axe's Research
EDIT- Back to the grindstone (hate leaving things half finished) working on bullet #4
I'm going to need help or a lot of time for this one.
Ann K Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F Fahey, Ralph Seelke, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking," Bio-Complexity, Vol. 2010).