Tag: Nathan Lents
Muller Two-Step Model: A Refutation of Behe on Irreducible Complexity?
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.
Polar Bear Seminar: On Retracting — and Not Retracting — Errors
It was Nathan Lents himself who wrote, “I’ve made mistakes, some I caught, others someone else caught. I always correct it the best I can. That’s what honest people do.”
Polar Bear Seminar: A Fake Scandal About a Chart
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.
Polar Bear Seminar: Unacknowledged Discrepancies, Inconsistent Standards
The discrepancy in method is crucial to understanding this argument against Behe. Yet curiously, it is omitted from mention by Lents and Hunt. Why?
Polar Bear Seminar: The APOB Gene and Damaging Mutations
Michael Behe correctly interpreted a paper by Liu et al. and followed its methodology, whereas his critics, Lents and Hunt, did not.