Their scrupulous work found that Jerry Coyne and others, in bullying Christians and Jews on how “we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty,” were in reality poorly supported.
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.
He doesn’t mean there won’t be humans in the Oval Office in the future, but that the power behind the power will be AI. Is it true?
The standard evolutionary model is incapable of driving major transformations such as a fish evolving into an amphibian.