Michael Behe, himself stated on the witness stand in Dover, PA that the requirements of science would have to be lowered in order for ID to be considered a theory.

Q. Is there, again, an analogy you can make here to
the Big Bang theory?
A. Yes. Yes, there is. Again, many people,
including many scientists, saw in the Big Bang theory
something that had theological implications, maybe this,
this Big Bang was ex-nihilo creation by a supernatural
being. And many people who saw that didn't like that.
Nonetheless, the Big Bang theory itself is an utterly
scientific theory because it relies on observations,
96
physical observations, empirical observations about
nature, and reasons from those observations using
logical processes.
Q. Is intelligent design a religious belief?
A. No, it isn't.
Q. Why not?
A. Intelligent design requires no tenet of any
particular religion, no tenet of any general religion.
It does not rely on religious texts. It does not rely
on messages from religious leaders or any such thing.
The exclusive concern of intelligent design is to
examine the empirical and observable data of nature and
reason from that using logical processes.
Q. Now some claim that intelligent design advances a
religious belief, that it is inherently religious and
not science. Do you agree?
A. No. Again, no more than the Big Bang theory is
inherently religious. Although the Big Bang theory and
intelligent design might be taken by some people to have
theological or philosophical implications, both of them
rely on observed evidence, empirical evidence, and
logical reasoning.
...
Perhaps in the future, science will find an
explanation for that event. Perhaps it won't. But
nonetheless, the Big Bang is a completely scientific
theory. Again, intelligent design is a scientific
theory that starts from the data -- the physical,
observable data of nature, and makes reasoned
conclusions from that and concludes intelligent design.
Scientific information does not say what is the
cause of design. It may never say what is the cause of
design. But nonetheless, it remains the best scientific
explanation for the data that we have.

Q You don t always see eye to eye with the National
13 Academy?
14 A Sometimes not.
15 Q And the definition by the National Academy, as I
16 think you testified is, a well-substantiated explanation of
17 some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts,
18 laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Using that definition, you agree intelligent design
21 is not a scientific theory, correct?
22 A Well, as I think I made clear in my deposition, I m
23 a little bit of two minds of that. I, in fact, do think
24 that intelligent design is well substantiated for some of
25 the reasons that I made clear during my testimony. But
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
BEHE - CROSS
35
1 again, when you say well substantiated, sometimes a person
2 would think that there must be a large number of people then
3 who would agree with that. And so, frankly, I, like I said,
4 I am of two minds of that.