Michael Behe correctly interpreted a paper by Liu et al. and followed its methodology, whereas his critics, Lents and Hunt, did not.
Starting today, you’re invited to sit back and enjoy a five-part series on polar bear genes in light of Behe’s thesis in Darwin Devolves.
Computer methods of analyzing mutations are widely used because they are generally accurate. They do not suddenly lose their accuracy when I cite them.
Here’s the simple test to tell if scientists are exaggerating wildly. Let’s call it: “The Principle of Comparative Difficulty.”
The fallibility of the scientific “consensus” is revealed in no humbler, more everyday form than chicken eggs.