I defend this assertion by saying that the universe is too complex to simply be by itself. It needs support, and that support can be found on the back of a turtle.
Using Dr. Behe's definition, is this a scientific theory?
Should this be taught in the public science classroom alongside the Big Bang?
“What if I said that the universe is held on the back of a turtle, who is on the back of another turtle, and so forth?”
Then I’d ask you what your evidence is for that claim.
As for Behe’s definition of a scientific theory, I think SirLinksalot addressed that earlier in this thread, but I’ll touch on it again. I suggest you read the transcripts of Behe’s testimony in the Dover case (or whatever it was called).
I read most of Behe’s testimony, and I was very impressed by it. Evolutionists talk a lot about “quote mining” and taking things out of context, but that is precisely what they did to Behe here. Apparently evolutionists couldn’t address Behe’s main points directly, so instead they distorted his testimony and diverted attention to secondary points such as who reviewed his book.
What Behe said is that the word “theory” can have different shades of meaning in everyday life depending on the context. That is absolutely true. People who use that word do not always have the rigorous scientific definition in mind.
As for astrology being a “scientific theory,” evolutionists have really distorted that one. What Behe said, if I recall correctly, is that, in a loose sense of the word, astrology could have been considered a scientific theory in its time, and indeed it was. Behe certainly did not say that it was a *correct* theory or that he thought it had any merit. You see, a “theory” can be dead wrong and still be a “theory.”
That’s a point that evolutionists don’t seem to understand. They seem to think that because evolution is called a “theory” it can’t be wrong.