In a follow-up to his post on Behe's conduct as a scientist (which I discuss here), Steve Matheson has now posted the second part of his critique, this time examining Behe's "scientific" arguments regarding malaria. There will be a part IIb in the future.
More like this
Ian Musgrave does a wonderful job explaining the recent Science paper on the evolution of hormone binding sites.
The middle-aged man named
The ACLU-PA blog has an interesting post on a key point in the cross examination of Michael Behe in the Dover trial.
Over at Darwinian Conservatism, Larry Arnhart recently wrote a post about how Michael Behe, the scientific "star" of the ID movement, seems to have fallen out of favor with the Disco Institu
Ouch! That's got to leave a mark on Behe! Matheson's critique is so clear that even I, a non-professional, can understand it. Thanks for the links.