Replies

"Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

…

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition [of science]. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions. "

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2005/10/19/behe-astrology-and-id-are-both-science/

Darwinism is a theory, ID is a theory, and astrology is a theory. So ... Where does that get you?

The issue is what theory is correctly based on fact and science: the way things actually are.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions. "

A lawyer opining in court on what constitutes a scientific theory may make a good sound byte, but it is not persuasive. Do you have any scientific evidence on how the word, "theory" is actually used in the scientific literature, as compared to Rothschild's reliance on NAS's relatively recently tailored PC definition? Did the NAS ever conduct such a scientific study before issuing one of their political manifestos?

Cordially,