Michael Behe correctly interpreted a paper by Liu et al. and followed its methodology, whereas his critics, Lents and Hunt, did not.
Computer methods of analyzing mutations are widely used because they are generally accurate. They do not suddenly lose their accuracy when I cite them.
The dispute started when a review in Science proposed the 2012 article by Näsvall et al. as evidence against Mike Behe’s book Darwin Devolves.
Here’s the simple test to tell if scientists are exaggerating wildly. Let’s call it: “The Principle of Comparative Difficulty.”
David Berlinski notes, “Applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon.”