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.
It’s fine to search through random results for an outcome you’re aiming for. Just don’t call it Darwinian evolution.
We looked at some papers claiming to see evolution happening in real time, to see if natural selection has actually invented a new function, or just broke an existing function.
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.