How about "none of the above."
Behe is simply giving the textbook definition of a theory: A conjecture based on physical evidence and logical inference. Nothing more, nothing less. But balance and perspective is sorely lacking in this debate, mostly on the evolution side. This is not surprising; entrenched paradigms always thrash about when threatened. I expect much more to come in the future.
This is not surprising; entrenched paradigms always thrash about when threatened. I expect much more to come in the future.Indeed. ID has been the entrenched paradigm for several thousand years, and despite the fact that it is still batting zero for successful predictions or suggested lines of enquiry I also expect its thrash to continue for a while yet.
Scientific theories are more than just an explanation of existing results. They are certainly much more than just a conjecture or hypothesis. They make predictions and there are observations that would falsify them. They imply research programs and observations. Thus far no such program has been proposed for ID by its proponents.
Anyhow we may not be arguing about much. Behe, Denton, Dembski, and Meyer are all on record as accepting the following:
- The universe is billions of years old
- Likewise the earth is billions of years old
- Life on earth is billions of years old
- Overwhelming evidence on numerous fronts indicates the fact of evolution
- The scientific theory of evolution is the best explanation yet devised of the fact of evolution
- There is no physical evidence that the "Designer" has intervened for millions of years
Really the only point of dispute I have with those people is whether their investigations of a hypothesis that they call ID have matured to the point where they should be taught to High School children along with established and accepted (even by the ID scientists) sciences like evolution.
Behe is simply giving the textbook definition of a theory: A conjecture based on physical evidence and logical inference. Nothing more, nothing less. You're either lying or exhibiting gross reading comprehension in regard to his testimony. Which is it?
Behe's meaning is entirely clear, except to those who wish to dishonestly deny or rationalize away his admission about "ID".
Astrology is not now, and has never in the past been, a scientific theory. To qualify as a *theory*, far higher and specific standards have to be met, which astrology has never achieved, and which "ID" does not meet either. When Behe wants "ID" taught *as* a theory, he does so by *HIS* REdefinition of the word "theory", in a dishonest attempt at bait-and-switch -- teaching it "as a theory" in *his* meaning, in order to give it the kind of respect that *real* scientific theories (i.e., ones which have actually met the high *scientific* standard of "theory") have rightly earned which "ID" has not.
Behe's admission that by *his* standards, astrology also qualifies as a theory (or even "had" qualified as a theory, since Behe backpedaled after his initial admission and tried to squirm out by saying that, well, astrology had been a theory in the past, mumble mumble) reveals quite starkly that Behe's personal definition of theory (and that of the IDers in general) has been stretched out of all sensible meaning.
Now do you want to deal with the facts of what he said, or do you want to twist and spin some more?
But balance and perspective is sorely lacking in this debate, mostly on the evolution side.
Yeah. Uh huh. Sure.
This is not surprising; entrenched paradigms always thrash about when threatened.
This is why the creationists are in such a froth when they fear that science is contradicting their cherished beliefs, and possibly leading people away from fundamentalist creationism. Their fear and desperation is obvious on every one of these threads.
I expect much more to come in the future.
Yes, I expect the anti-evolution creationists to become even more hysterical than they have already, and they're already major whackjobs.
