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.
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.”
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.