Ed Conrad wrote:

1. Rich Travsky Oct 19, 4:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.democrats.d, talk.politics.misc,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.bush
From: Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:07:12 -0600
Local: Wed, Oct 19 2005 4:07 pm
Subject: LOL; At ID Trial, IDer Admits Astrology Qualifies As Science!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Ref at


Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
“Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.