I think he meant that just as astrology has been falsified, ID is also subject to falsification.
Therefore, ID is science.
"Cards on the table. What do you think he meant?"
I think he meant that just as astrology has been falsified, ID is also subject to falsification.
Therefore, ID is science.
Interesting interpretation, but I don't see how you can substatiate it.
Reading the transcript, it seems very clear to me that what Dr. Behe is saying is that he prefers the common useage of the word as opposed to its scientific meaning.
Let's look at what he actually said under oath. I'll quote a large section so there is no question about context:
Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A (Behe): Yes.
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.
Behe is arguing that the scientific useage of the word be discarded in favor of the less restrictive common definition.
So in order for ID to be considered a scientific theory under his new definition, it doesn't have to be supported by evidence. Heck, the notion could be flat-out wrong, proven incorrect, and still be considered a "theory." Doesn't say much about confidence in his own work, does it?
So it is as I said: in order for ID to be considered a theory, the word itself must have to be defined down to include such things as astrology.
Hint: the person arguing to re-define words seldom has truth on his side.