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.
