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.
A very common way to try to discredit an argument is to exaggerate it, ignore distinctions an author makes, and/or change carefully qualified claims into bizarre absolutes.