Poor guy. You’re confused and are using the fallacy of composition as though it is an argument. It isn’t. It’s a fallacy.
Everyone isn’t required to accept every word of Behe’s testimony before they can object to those misrepresenting Behe’s testimony. The point is that Behe did not testify that ‘ID is no different than astrology’.
Is that difficult for you to understand?
You posted to the wrong person.
You posted to the wrong person.
[[Everyone isn’t required to accept every word of Behe’s testimony before they can object to those misrepresenting Behe’s testimony. The point is that Behe did not testify that ‘ID is no different than astrology’.
Is that difficult for you to understand?]]
Yes it is too difficult for him to understand- it conflicts with his ‘Behe, Demski are the end-all be-all’s of ID’ lie, and it grates agaisnt his blatant misrepresentaiton of what Behe actually said- The courts bias and blatant agenda are all that matter- TRUTH are of no consequences to hte anti-ID crowd and judges- they allow an IMPOSSIBLE hypothesis of macroevolution into testimony, don’t ask for ANY scientific evidence to support it, call it ‘science’ and dissallow any competing hypothesis, and simply throw it out and rule agaisnt it callign it ‘psuedoscience’, when the plain fact is that it’s easier to falsify ID than it is to falsify macroevolution who simply keep coming up with more and more biologically impossible scenarios to ‘explain away biological brick-walls’ present in Macroevolution