Thanks for sharing. It seems that once again Behe misses the main point of anyone’s critique of his book or articles regarding probability and the ‘edge of evolution’ and again repeats similar statements ‘low probability = bad for evolution.’
But evolution is the result of an extremely large number of ‘improbable’ events strung together. Thornton’s article is particularly helpful:
[Behe] supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve. This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.
It is ridiculous for someone to come in and tell researchers that they don’t even understand their own experiments and papers but that’s what you are limited to do when involved in an anti-science thinktank. In the real world of science, those that actually do the experiments can comment on their own experiments better than anyone else. While I could provide maybe some helpful thinking to another research group, the idea of me taking their published results and correcting all of their conclusions and mechanisms is utter nonsense.