That's not what Behe said. What he said was that at the time, astrology could be considered a science because it was an attempt to explain the world. He was speaking of the philosophy of science, which is basically nothing more than a system of inquiry designed to explain the world around us, so by that definition, yes, astrology was science.
Unfortunately, Behe gave his critics the sound bite they were looking for, and they've been using it ever since.
"That's not what Behe said."
Wriggle and squirm from this, if you will. Theories don't have to be true. I love it. He just wants to redefine scientific theory so that he can get ID under the bar, but he has to acknowledge that his redefinition also lets astrology in under the bar too. "a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences" is only a small part of what every other scientist in the world regards as required for theories.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Put more simply, he wants conjectures hypotheses and theories to be lumped together under a single heading, which is "theory". Disengenuous, mad, charlatan? Your call.
Precisely - the evo crowd isn't concerned with what Behe actually said, they're simply interested in the semantics game trying to decieve people by restating it into something he didn't say.. They're frauds and fudge factors are their game - to wit the speciation argument on this thread. Manipulation, semantics and doubletalk. I wonder if they spend their time on the john looking for patterns in the carpet that look like living things so they can test the carpet dna and see if there's a missing link there..
Oh well, cats are intelligent enough to cover theirs in the litter box. At least we can serve a simbiotic relationship of covering theirs for them as they seem incapable of doing so. Still amuses me they think they aren't getting their message out...