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?
Do you know what the criteria are for "acceptance by the majority of the scientific community"? You treat it as if it were a high school election.
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.
I guess I should have said valid or accepted theory. Certainly, there are theories that have since been invalidated and are no longer accepted. So there are falsified theories.
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.
He actually said "changed" not lowered, ok. The problem remains that if the requirements for a valid theory were "changed" such that ID can be considered a valid theory then astrology would also be a valid theory. The point is that ID is no more robust a theory than astrology.
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?
It was brought up by the cross-examining lawyer to provide the court and the public with a point of reference for how poorly ID is supported by evidence. If Michael Behe didn't agree that astrology would also become a valid theory by his own standards then he should have said so. He did not. Instead, he agreed...as a scientist, he agreed.
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?
I don't know. It didn't seem that the lawyer cross-examining Dr. Behe was sniveling. What is it about his actions that prompted you to label him as a "sniveling lawyer"?
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.
He was not asked if it could or could not be investigated by science.
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?
The argument was that changing the requirements for a valid theory such that ID could be labeled as such, would also make astrology a valid theory.
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.
I no longer hold that Dr. Behe considers his changes in the requirements for a valid theory to be a lowering of the requirements. I used the word "lowering" when I should have said "change". I still consider the changes suggested by Dr. Behe to be a lowering of the standards.
