I gave this link of yours its own thread, because I felt it deserved special attention, because I like pragmatic things. I was disappointed with its veneer thin results, though.
(And, I also figured someone else would help me unravel the examples, but I think most of us are fatigued with this debate, by now, so I will assume I have to do it myself. Oh well.)
Continuing with the other examples cited:
(Remember: DB = Dust Bin Theory. See my previous posts on this point.)
DB 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.
That's right: Dust Bin Theory covers the same ground, no intelligence required!
If this has any real, practical, implications for fighting any problems, (such as antibiotic resistance?), please provide some examples. The paper does not give any.
DB and Evo Theorists have inspired theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.
It is worth noting that
all three contenders can agree with this one: I.D., Dust Bin, and Evolutionary theory: They all seek to understand the powers and limits of Darwinian searches, etc.
In fact, Intelligent Design does not add anything to this endeavor, that I can see. Though, ID is prone to assume there are more limits to the algorithm than there really are.
DB has inspired scientists to study proper measures of biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution.
As a practical matter, ID is wrong in this regard. The "reach" of Darwinian evolution goes farther than what its competitors are trying to imply.
But, at least DB agrees that it is worth a try!
DB has inspired scientists to investigate computer-like properties of DNA and the genome in the hopes of better understanding genetics and the origin of biological systems.
Actually, ID has no hope of unraveling the origins of DNA with this approach. If I am wrong on this manner, please show me how.
Evolution by Natural Selection might not provide a complete answer to DNA's origins, either; which is why abiogenesis studies, such as RNA-World, are working with other natural processes, such as auto-catalytic and self-replicating systems, etc. to do it.
Evolution, and its kin, provides the best chance of discovering DNA's origins.
DB has no problem with DNA being "computer like". DNA could simply have been garbage computer code.
DB has inspired scientists to reverse engineer molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum to understand their function like machines, and to understand how the machine-like properties of life allow biological systems to function.
Since ID offers no actual alternative to how those molecular machines could have come about, DB is free to assert itself into the fray.
Evolution
does have explanations for how those machine-like parts came about, that ID was unable to anticipate. And they are still largely ignored or dismissed by the IDers.
ID has not really been able to add anything to these studies, in spite of the claims of this article.
This next one needs more work. The original text:
ID has inspired scientists to view cellular components as "designed structures rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution," allowing scientists to propose testable hypotheses about causes of cancer.
The Dust Bin Compatible version:
DB has inspired scientists to view cellular components as "accidental structures rather than products of neo-Darwinian evolution,"
Neo-Darwinian evolution does NOT imply that cellular components are "accidental by-products", but rather they are systems selected for by natural selection.
It is the Dust Bin Theory that would imply that accidents happened. If one is to understand cancer, this makes more sense, in that context.
I changed more of the text because Dust Bin does not imply "designed structures", as ID does.
Unfortunately for ID, it does not really have anything to say on the subject of cancer research. Especially since the disease, itself, has been known to act as a microcosm of natural selection. (Cancer cells compete with each other, and other cells, for resources, in a manner similar to Darwinism.)
If I am wrong about that, please show me how ID can be applied to the causes cancer.
DB has inspired scientists to see life as being front-loaded with information such that it is designed to evolve, expecting (and now finding!) previously unanticipated "out of place" genes in various taxa.
Front-loading is a response made by evolutionary (more specifically: evo/devo) discoveries. Front-loading does not, itself, make any novel predictions about unanticipated genes in various taxa, that were not already put out by the evo/devos.
(In fact, until evo/devo discovered those things, ID was content with Special Creation, and that would imply we would NOT find such things. But that is just a minor historic point.)
DB has no problem with front-loading, because the concept does not really have to imply intention, at its heart. There is no reason to assume all that loading could not have happened by happenstance.
DB and Evo Theory helps scientists explain the cause of the widespread feature of "convergent evolution," including convergent genetic evolution.
Here is another thing that applies to all three competing theories.
Evolution, of course, covers convergent evolution quite well.
If ID agrees with the notion, that is all well and good. But, I fail to see what new knowledge it can bring to the table. Can anyone help me with that?
DB's opinion of convergence: Why not? Whatever...
DB and Evo Theory helps scientists understand causes of explosions of biodiversity (as well as mass extinction) in the history of life.
A third one for all three!
The study of destruction and re-filling of niches is a story rich with Natural Selection doing its thing.
I suspect ID is lying when it claims it helps scientists understand these things. But, if they are not, perhaps someone can give me a good example?
DB states that we can expect lots of species to go extinct by accident, then reproduce wildly, in different ways, when it is time to recover.
DB has inspired scientists to do various types of research seeking function for non-coding "junk"-DNA, allowing us to understand development and cellular biology.
The examination of "junk" DNA is one that does not imply a designer. In Dust Bin theory we would expect some junk to show up, and perhaps it would even get used by something else: One genome's junk is another genome's treasure!
Of course, I am using the term "junk" very literally in the above text. I recognize that the so-called "junk-DNA" segments serve regulatory and other purposes. But,
Evolutionary theory recognizes this as well. That is why the word is in scare-quotes all the time. ID is merely exaggerating the situation to make themselves look good.
If ID really has anything to add on the subject of non-coding DNA, that is not understood by the evos, I would like to know what that is.
In almost every example, we have seen that I.D. is not really as productive to science as this article makes it out to be. (Unless there are any examples that anyone cares to offer.) If anything, Dust Bin Theory is
more adept at being productive than ID.
Though, of course, Evo Theory still beats DB on every level. That's because DB Theory is, in fact, a can of rubbish.
. 
