The criticisms keep coming. It’s hard to keep up. Lents, in fact, just yesterday added additional commentary on Behe’s use of the chart.
It’s circular: “Because evolution innovates things, it will innovate things if given the opportunity.”
The discrepancy in method is crucial to understanding this argument against Behe. Yet curiously, it is omitted from mention by Lents and Hunt. Why?
Michael Behe correctly interpreted a paper by Liu et al. and followed its methodology, whereas his critics, Lents and Hunt, did not.
As Lönnig points out, Richard Dawkins and others are at great pains to deny the connection. Why would that be?