Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: <1/1,000,000th%
"Dr. Behe admits he is not using the standard definition of the word "theory","

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?

71 posted on 09/10/2009 12:19:18 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: GourmetDan

Um you overlooked this part:

Q And I asked you, “Is astrology a theory under that definition?” And you answered, “Is astrology? It could be, yes.” Right?

A That’s correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that’s what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I’m not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Didn’t somebody say something about cherry picking?


77 posted on 09/10/2009 12:50:03 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson