This is a paper on ID? Thats quite a stretch!
Furthermore this isnt even a paper (its a review article) cautioning against relying too much on histone genes for measuring divergence rates
If you creatinoid "buffoons" knew anything about Behe, you would realize he does NOT question common decent.
It's a peer reviewed article in a major journal and it does, to the mind of the debaters, have to do with ID.
Your denial is weird.
If you creatinoid "buffoons" knew anything about Behe, you would realize he does NOT question common decent.
This is quite a non-sequitar. Are there voices in your head you are responding to?
This is a key point, but one that should be heeded on both sides of the argument. Behe is neither a 6-day creationist or a wholesale evolutionist.
The fact is that we do not yet have a theory for the origin of life on this planet (or the universe at large if one subscribes to panspermia). That evolution occurs and is a fundamental process in the biology of plant and animal development has been adequately demonstrated. But scientists do tend to extrapolate it to areas where they do not have the supporting evidence.