The discrepancy in method is crucial to understanding this argument against Behe. Yet curiously, it is omitted from mention by Lents and Hunt. Why?
The greatest engine of atheism in modern times — Darwin’s theory — is nothing more than a bastardization of the strongest philosophical argument for God’s existence.
Many of these provisions are, to say the least, subject to interpretation. And people with dementia may refuse food one meal, and accept the next.
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?