[quote]Thanks for posting the transcript. If you read the context of his remarks, Behe is simply saying that at one time astrology was a legitimate scientific theory that required testing to validate. That validation failed, but before science made the effort to validate or invalidate astrology it was a legitimate area to investigate. IDers may have jumped the gun by pushing their theory before they have found a way to test it, but I dont see why at this point in time it is not a legitimate field of inquiry. String theory and much of modern particle physics are not at the moment testable, but they are legitimate areas of scientific investigation. Opponents of ID seem to want to stop ID before it even has a chance to get going.[/quote]
The only reason why astrology used to be considered “scientific” was because no one knew any better. These days, those people who believe the magic that the positions of planets dictates your life are rightfully considered dumb. It never made any predictions other than the made up consequences of Uranus being in Taurus.
Science is great because it tends to shake out the good and bad ideas. If it’s testable and reproducible, the theory will stand. The alternatives to evolution do not provide this foundation. Is it any wonder why they don’t have any acceptance? It’s not about who yells the loudest on the internet, but who has the correct ideas. The Church suppressed the heliocentric view of the solar system and even imprisoned Galileo because of his support of it. They controlled what was “correct”, but in the end the truth comes out.
The difference in the evolution controversy is that the currently correct and scientific argument is already out there, but a small minority has a non-scientific alternative. This wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t reflect so poorly on the state of science education in the US.
Oh, and string theory has made predictions that are testable. Most of particle physics is also testable.
>> Oh, and string theory has made predictions that are testable. <<
Actually string theory predicts undetectable dimensions that when they are tested for with new machinery, are simply reworked to be smaller than the new detection methods can detect. The theory always runs just ahead of the experiment to prevent falsification.