Call it a row, a kerfluffle, a spat, or what have you. A paper in PNAS has whipped up some convoluted discussion in science and non-science blogs. Here's the basic run down:

1. A group publishes an explanation for the stepwise evolution of the flagellum, an interesting scientific question, which intelligent designers (IDers) have long promoted as proof of irreducible complexity. 2. Scientists who have done a great deal of blogging to counter IDers' claims nevertheless find a flaw in the paper. 3. IDers rally behind anti IDers. 4. Anti IDers sensing that's just the sort of thing an IDer would do attempted to head them off at the pass. 5. Hilarity ensues. 6. Anti IDers focus on the details of the paper here and here. 7. IDers... seem to lose interest. Oddly I haven't seen any follow up posts.

Questions remain: Will web 2.0 take over science publishing? will Matzke publish a real, paper rebuttal? Will he ever contact Liu and Ochman? Will IDers continue to horn in on real scientific debates or eventually realize that the water's too deep once you get into the details?