The Theory of Astrology, a Materialist Canard

I was looking over the interview with Behe that I just posted about (see below) and I decided to read the comments.  Big mistake, I know, but sometimes you just have to check out what the other side is saying.  One comment in particular, however, really stuck out for me.

Does Behe still hold, as he did during the Dover trial, that astrology meets the definition of “scientific theory”? (That would be Behe’s own definition, which is looser than that of the National Academies of Science or the American Association for the Advancement of Science; loose enough to allow Intelligent Design to pass.)

I think the DI did a good job of debunking this claim long ago (read it here).  It’s actually pretty obvious, if one actually reads the transcript from the trial, that Behe was not saying what the press reported him as saying, yet the Materialists have clung to their misinterpretation and used it to bash Behe at every opportunity.  If any fellow IDers are reading this, don’t let this happen.  If a materialist repeats this dastardly attack on Behe, point out to them how wrong they are.  And, if this is how the Materialists think that science is done, based on made up personal attacks, then the sooner we get rid of the Darwinista, the better.


3 responses to “The Theory of Astrology, a Materialist Canard

  1. Ravilyn Sanders

    When Behe testified he said, “astrology would fit [my] definition [of science]”. He did not say “would have fitted the definition 500 years ago but it no longer does.” Later in the cross specifically this point was made, “you said it fits” not “it would have fitted”.
    And Behe admits that his definition of science would include astrology as a theory today.

    Here is exactly what Behe said under oath:

    Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

    A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
    The point is made again in another 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?
    And he gets

  2. very interesting, but I don’t agree with you

  3. professorsmith

    Welcome Idetrorce.

    Mind being a little more specific about what it is that you disagree with?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s