An article in the latest issue of New Scientist highlights the exciting work of scientists at the Biologic Institute, a new research lab conducting biological research and experiments from an intelligent design perspective. While writer Celeste Biever can’t suppress her visceral pro-Darwin bias from the story (which carries the dismissive title “Intelligent design: The God Lab”), Biever’s article is going to make it very difficult for Darwinists to continue to assert that scientists who support intelligent design aren’t conducting scientific research.
Researcher Douglas Axe was featured in that article:
Building a case
While researching protein structure at various institutes in the UK, Douglas Axe, now at the Biologic Institute in Redmond, Washington, published two peer-reviewed papers…
Evidence that intelligent design is backed by serious science:
Axe’s Paper 1:
“Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol 301, p 585.
What it reports: “Inducing multiple mutations in a bacterial enzyme causes it to lose its ability to perform its role as an antibiotic disabler.” Because such mutations destroy “the possibility of any functioning” in the enzyme, it could not have arisen via “Darwinian pathways” (William Dembski, from Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, Cambridge University Press, p 327).
Axe’s Paper 2:
“Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol 341, p 1295.
What it reports: “Calculates the probability that a random sequence of amino acids will result in the folded shape that a protein needs to function as an enzyme.” The probability of creating a functioning protein fold “at random” is very low, making “appeals to chance absurd, even granting the duration of the entire universe” (Stephen Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, vol 117, p 213).
We wish the best for George Weber, one of the four directors of Biologic, it is so sad that apparently he was fired for declaring her: “We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design… The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism.”