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?
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.
You do not need to study mutations for thirty years to predict that bombarding plant chromosomes with radiation will not lead to major agricultural advances.