Re: Behe testimony at Dover trial

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/90330/

Seems that Behe indeed accepted astrology as a science
under his definitions.
I can't wait to see the transcripts.

His position on ID versus his statements on the big
bang show a certain misunderstanding as to why
scientists reject ID.

The scientific vacuity of ID is self evident.

--- Charles Carrigan <CCarriga@olivet.edu> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I received this message from the Sigma Xi "Science
> in the News" daily email. Does anyone have any
> additional knowledge of Behe's testimony? The
> article leaves several puzzling questions
> unanswered.
>
>
> WITNESS DEFENDS BROAD DEFINITION OF SCIENCE
> from the New York Times (Registration Required)
>
> HARRISBURG, Pa., Oct. 18 - A leading architect of
> the intelligent-design
> movement defended his ideas in a federal courtroom
> on Tuesday and
> acknowledged that under his definition of a
> scientific theory, astrology
> would fit as neatly as intelligent design.
>
> Prof. Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh
> University, is the first
> expert witness for the school board of Dover, Pa.,
> which is requiring
> students to hear a statement about intelligent
> design in biology class.
>
> Under sharp cross-examination by a lawyer for
> parents who have sued the
> school district, he said he was untroubled by the
> broadness of his
> definition of science and likened intelligent design
> to the Big Bang theory
> of the origins of the universe because both
> initially faced rejection from
> scientists who objected for religious and
> philosophical reasons.
> http://tinyurl.com/78hs5
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Charles
>
> <><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
> Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
> Olivet Nazarene University
> Dept. of Geology
> One University Ave.
> Bourbonnais, IL 60914
> PH: (815) 939-5346
> FX: (815) 939-5071
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 19 19:52:45 2005