Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Born again evolutionary biologist critiques Gauger-Axe paper

Denyse O'Leary
April 14, 2011
Biology, Chemistry, Evolutionary biology
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “Protein evolution in BIO-Complexity”(Todd’s Blog , April 13, 2011), Todd C. Wood comments on the recent BIO-Complexity paper by Ann Gauger and Doug Axe. He finds their work puzzling because they proceed as biochemists rather than evolutionary biologists, and summarizes:

In the larger scheme of things, I am sensing a discouraging pattern to BIO-Complexity publications. As I quoted above, the journal is supposed to be about “testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life,” which is a great goal. But this is the fifth paper published by BIO-Complexity, and it’s the fifth paper that focuses on perceived inadequacies of evolution. So when are we going to test “the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life?”

Thoughts?

Comments
BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.
I fail to see how addressing the deficiencies of competing theories fails to progress toward the stated goals.Mung
April 14, 2011
April
04
Apr
14
14
2011
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. ~ George Wald The only alternative is to say that they did arise from muck because God’s finger went out and touched that muck. That is to say, there was a non-natural process. And that’s really where the action is. Either you think that complex organisms arose by non-natural phenomena, or you think that they arose by natural phenomena. If they arose by natural phenomena, they had to evolve. And that’s all there is to it. ~ Richard Lewontinbevets
April 14, 2011
April
04
Apr
14
14
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Well as te EF mandates, before we can even consider the design inference we must first eliminate chance and necessity. And if not by chance and necessity what is left?Joseph
April 14, 2011
April
04
Apr
14
14
2011
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply