Nathan Lents at CFI: ID and Science Denial

[davecarlson]

Don’t know if @evograd was the first, but I think this might be the first time at PS:

Behe: Responding to the Polar Bear's Fat

Behe posts this at the end of the article: [29] It’s a list of all the variants predicted to be “possibly damaging” or “probably damaging” by Liu et al. The problem is that he doesn’t inform his audience that this table is only a subset of Liu et al’s table S7. He calls it the “relevant information” from table S7. The actual table looks more like this: [18] Are we supposed to believe that Behe did that little switcharoo without thinking that a large fraction of his lay readers would just see a big list of entries saying “damaging” and come away with the impression that these were the majority of variants, or even all of them?