“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.
I provided evidence in my post, where I stated that “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.”
Sound weak? It should be.
Yes, I have read the transcripts of Dr. Behe’s testimony. I have previously linked to them, most recently in my post 127.
It’s informally called the Dover case. I’ve consistently referred to it as Kitzmiller. But, these are minor points.
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.
A wonderful example of “each to his own.” I read Dr. Michael Behe’s testimony, and I was very impressed by the skillful questioning of Mr. Rothschild. (In fact, very as an adverb does not do justice to how impressed I was.)
Although you view it as a secondary point, the reviewing of Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, sheds further light on how Behe’s understanding of scientific words and phrases differ markedly from the accepted definitions.
Behe claims that Darwin’s Black Box was rigorously peer-reviewed by five reviewers. Yet, one of those five, Dr. Michael Atchinson, stated that his “review” consisted of a ten-minute over-the-phone gloss of the book’s material. He never saw the text. That would not constitute a “peer-review” in a scholarly journal. Behe should not have included Atchinson as one of the five.
In addition, Judge Jones wrote in his opinion that “We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.” Behe’s major points were, in fact, addressed.
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.
He is absolutely correct. Everything you have said is correct. I ask only that you remember the ruling, namely, “defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best ‘fringe science’ which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.”
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.”
You’ve mostly remembered correctly, but you have made one minor but very important mistake. It was not a “loose sense of the word.” It was Behe’s own definition.
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. There’s no question that it happens. The question is, “How does it happen?” A theory attempts to answer that question.
Right, Behe's point was that astrology was a scientific theory because it was falsifiable and was, in fact, falsified. Now, there are still people who believe in astrology even after it has been falsified and continue to claim that it is scientific.
In the same manner, evolution has been falsified, but there are still people who believe in it and claim that it is scientific. In this context, naturalism and astrology are on the same level.