But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
I'm not sure what you're reading. I'm looking at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcript from day 11, PM session Part 1.
Dr. Behe admits he is not using the standard definition of the word "theory", and he agrees with counsel that he's using it in the sense of the word "hypothesis."
Dr. Behe also admits that doing this would include disciplines such as astrology. The fact that he believes that both of these "theories" are falsifiable through similar means doesn't change a word of my post.
Especially since Dr. Behe also admits that he doesn't believe intelligent design is a theory in the sense that the NSA defines the term.
Here's what he actually said, "That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community."
"and he agrees with counsel that he's using it in the sense of the word "hypothesis.""
Here's what he actually said, "No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term."
"Dr. Behe also admits that doing this would include disciplines such as astrology. The fact that he believes that both of these "theories" are falsifiable through similar means doesn't change a word of my post."
Nothing can change a word of your post. It's already posted and is not editable. So, while that is technically a correct statement, that's not to say it doesn't soundly refute your claim that, "Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology." He did not testify so and to claim that he did is a gross misrepresentation of what Behe actually said.
"Especially since Dr. Behe also admits that he doesn't believe intelligent design is a theory in the sense that the NSA [sic] defines the term."
Here's what he actually said, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."
So the NAS (not NSA) definition of 'theory' includes the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. Not very 'scientific' of them, now is it?