Nothing I repeated or provide reference to said that astrology cannot be investigated by science.
No. They make fun of a man for saying it can. Every last cowardly one of them knows very well astrology can be investigated by science.
No. They point out that if the requirements for a valid theory are changed to include ID, they would also include astrology as a VALID theory.
Which requirements? The real-world requirements, or screwball requirements that include
popularity?
In other words, ID doesn't pass the current requirements for a VALID theory. Nothing was said at all about whether either one could be investigated by science.
Ha! Your own post said
I have studied it enough to know that the "theories" and "evidences" provided to support it, don't meet the criteria to even call it a viable hypothesis much less a theory. 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. In fact, he agreed that if the standards were lowered enough for ID to pass the test, then astrology would also meet the criteria for a viable theory.
He never said anything about lowering standards, and you have nothing there
but a scare-word argument - nothing at all.
You may wish he had said standards would need to be lowered, and clearly an attempt was made to bait him into saying it. The press reported it as if this attempt had been successful, after it failed. It is not in his testimony, and evowishing does not change the situation.
If you disagree with my description of the court records please provide a quote from the records to refute my assessment.
Who brought up astrology, and why was it brought up?
The press who hyped it know this. The judge knows this. The sniveling lawyers - everyone!
You do realize that the founder of the Discovery Institute was a lawyer, don't you?
Does he snivel?
Regardless, no-one knows that Michael Behe was being made fun of because he said that astrology could be investigated by science. Michael Behe never said that because that was not brought up in the testimony or the cross-examination.
Plain as day, he was asked about astrology. Plain as day, he answered honestly.
The argument is not made on its merit; I never said it was. It is a pure, distilled appeal to emotion.
You haven't shown that this argument was made at all. Please try again.
Oh really? Would you mind stating exactly what your argument is, now that you know Michael Behe didn't say the standards of science would need to be lowered?
And if it's not too much trouble, it might be helpful if you can point out any changes in your position now that your know the facts.
