Our responses to the Muller two-step have been around for a long time; it would be nice if ID critics would recognize and perhaps answer them.
The core difficulty for some scientists who read Michael Behe’s book is also the key idea at its heart.
Professor Behe traces the errant thinking to an outdated mathematical picture taken from Ronald Fisher and his 1930 book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.
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.
The discrepancy in method is crucial to understanding this argument against Behe. Yet curiously, it is omitted from mention by Lents and Hunt. Why?