[SirLinksalot]

Garbage. You can make any number of "Explanatory" statements, but they are not scientific unless they have implications that can be tested empirically. Any hypothesis or conjecture must suggest research. Field research, laboratory research, something concrete.

NONSENSE. Behe was not saying he believes in astrology or that it is scientific. He is simply saying that it has UNIFYING EXPLANATORY ATTRIBUTES, even if it is not scientific.

He is most definitely NOT endorsing astrology as VALID.

As for Field research, laboratory research, something concrete --- HEY WE'RE ALL FOR THAT. We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.

[tacticalogic]

We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.

Somehow I doubt we'd all like to see that.

[js1138]

We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.

If you are so ignorant as to confuse biogenesis with evolution, then you are beyond help.

If -- rather than "produce life" -- you mean "account for changes in populations over time," I think we can see that. As another freeper might say, take it up with Yockey.

The mechanisms of variation are there and can be observed, the mechanisms of selection are there and have been harnessed by breeders for centuries, the evidence in ERVs is there to demonstrate continuity, and the unity and continuity of cellular machinery is there.

[Dimensio]

Behe was not saying he believes in astrology or that it is scientific.

Behe specificially stated that astrology would qualify as a "scientific theory" based upon his definition of the term. I have seen no one suggest that he accepts astrology, but his own words suggest that he believes it scientific.