Rich Lenski continues his demolition of Michael Behe’s new book

Now this may seem an arcane discussion about protein function, but if you’ve gathered anything from this post, Lenski’s post, and Lents’s posts, it should be that Behe has not been intellectually honest in treating the data in a key example used to make his case that natural selection nearly always relies on broken genes. But what do you expect from a creationist who’s deeply religious and who’s counting on the data to make the case for God?

I’m told that Behe really believes the kind of palaver he uses to make the case for “irreducible complexity” and Intelligent Design. But really, how can you leave out data and distort the conclusions of others, without being conscious of what you’re doing? One might almost conclude that Behe is lying for God.

Lenski isn’t done with taking Behe to the woodshed yet: as he says, “I initially planned to write three posts, but it will now be more than that, as I delve deeper into several issues.” Behe’s tuchas is going to be smarting after this!