In 2004, Snoke co-authored an article with
Michael Behe, a senior fellow of the
Discovery Institute's
Center for Science and Culture, in the
scientific journal Protein Science, which received widespread criticism. Snoke's contribution to the paper was an appendix which verified the numerical results with analytical calculations that showed the relevant power law, namely that for a novel feature requiring multiple neutral mutations, the time to fixation has a sublinear dependence on population size. Behe has stated that the results of the paper support his notion of
irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the published version did not address the concept directly; according to Behe, all references to irreducible complexity were eliminated prior to the paper's publication at the behest of the reviewers.
Michael Lynch authored a response, to which Behe and Snoke responded.
Protein Science discussed the papers in an editorial.
Protein Science received letters that "contained many points of disagreement with the Behe and Snoke article", including the points that: • More recent research suggests that Behe and Snoke's model, and even Lynch's response, may have been "substantial underestimates" "of the rate of obtaining an adaptive combination of mutations". • Biochemical analysis of the question has supported an orthodox evolutionary view and rejected Behe and Snoke's approach as an "unreasonable model which assume[s] 'leaps in thin air', such as the evolution of completely novel activities via multiple and simultaneous amino acid changes". On May 7, 2005, Behe described the paper in presenting arguments for irreducible complexity in his testimony at the
Kansas evolution hearings. At the
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial later that year it was the one article referenced by both Behe and Scott Minnich as supporting intelligent design. In his ruling,
Judge Jones noted that "A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used." In 2014 David Snoke, along with coauthors Jeffrey Cox and Donald Petcher, published a numerical study of the evolution of novel structures, in the journal Complexity. The model claimed to address the fundamental problem of the tradeoff of the cost of allowing novel structures which are not yet functional, versus the benefit of the eventual new function. ==Science and theology==