This is interesting. It's a shame I can't get access to the paper w/o paying for it, but that's how it goes.
I wouldn't get carried away with giving ID much credit for conducting scientific research though. I mean, presenting ONE research paper that possibly could lend some credence to ID isn't making much of a convincing case that ID proponents are conducting extensive scientific study.
I did some quick online investigating to see if I could find more papers of this type (along with the fact that I've been keeping my eyes open for this type of thing for awhile now) and I wasn't able to find anything else. I did come across a website called
ResearchID.org, a pro ID site, though. I didn't find much there, however. Basically a bunch of articles with no actual results from scientific research, but simply a framework for how the articles should be set up, should anyone have any relevant info to go into the articles. Also, by the site's own admission:
quote:
As the foundations of ResearchID.org were being constructed, we realized there was no well-articulated general approach to undertaking research (theoretical or empirical) from an "intelligent design framework." In fact, to our knowledge there was not even a framework.
and also
quote:
Up to the present, theoretical research is by far the most commonly undertaken study of intelligent design, with empirical research trailing behind.
source for both quotes:
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Breaking the Mold I: Theoretical Research of Intelligent Design
When they say "empirical research" (ER), it is a clickable link with more info about ER as it relates to ID. For some reason "theoretical research" (TR) isn't a clickable link, so one is left to wonder how TR is usefully conducted in regards to ID.
TR can be useful in scientific studies, but w/o more info about it as it relates to ID, I get the impression that's it's code for "vague philosophizing".
Also, they don't say that "ER is trailing
right behind" or "
close behind" TR, just that it "trails behind". Taking that into consideration along with the fact that I can't seem to find any actual ER for ID on the site, it appears to be a meaningless claim. There could essentially be no ER for ID and they could still technically state that "ER research trails behind TR for ID".
I do bear in mind that my criticism here for ID scientific research is being primarily based off one website, but it's also worth noting that any other time I've tried to follow a trial of ER for ID I come to the same dead end.
I haven't read the following 2 blogs entries in their entirety, but they seem to provide interesting commentary on Axe's paper, including some excerpts.
ID in the United Kingdom: A very controversial paper!
ID in the United Kingdom: Douglas Axe - J.Mol.Biol.(2000) 301, 585-595
I'll ask the Mol Bio and Biochem people I know if they are aware of Axe and his research and what they think of it.
Also, I don't mean to jump to any definitive conclusions without being able to properly analyze the paper, but in theory, can ID ever be proved? Theoretically, Darwinian evolution could be falsified (as impossible as it seems, given the TONS of scientific evidence supporting it) but could we ever scientifically (
naturally) prove that a
supernatural designer is the reason behind the observable biodiverity on the Earth?
I apologize if my response has transcended the scope of what this thread was intended for. I'm not really familiar with the "In the News" forum and how it exactly differs from the other forums where threads go through the proposed threads process. I'll have to look into that.
Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.