Re: ID leader (Behe) admits that astrology would be a scientific theory if ID is

VBM wrote:
> Here is a short article about Behe on the stand:
>
> "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... admitted his definition of 'theory' was so broad it would also
include astrology"
How about: natural selection, [Rosen]"ether, phlogiston, and noxious
vapors"?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Donn Rosen was/is with the Department of Ichthyology at New York City's
The American Museum of Natural History. In a 1978 _Systematic Zoology_
book review, Rosen announced his intention to "consider what seems to
me
the demise of" the theory of natural selection. He continued by saying
the theory "is so entrenched in the fabric of evolutionary biology that
its axiomatic nature has been virtually overlooked." By "axiomatic
nature," Rosen refers to the ability of "Darwinian selection theory" to
"explain everything, and therefore, nothing."

I personally find uninteresting Rosen's claim that the theory of
natural
selection is tautological. I do, however, find interesting his
agreeing
with me that, in his words, "natural selection theory fails to explain
the origin of evolutionary novelties." Rosen also thinks the phrase
"'natural selection'" ought be "stripped from our technical
vocabulary,"
and the theory "sen[t]... off to join the ether, phlogiston, and
noxious
vapors."

To close out this post, some more from Rosen's essay:
Remarking on the current criticism of evolutionary theory, he
[Stansfield] wrote: "This is a healthy situation, for [the critics]
[Rosen's bracket-df] bring to light many of the unresolved problems
that are a source of embarrassment to evolutionists. Scientists,
perhaps more than other professionals, should try to remain
unbiased; .... this demands that they display for public
consumption not just the strengths and successes of their theories,
but also the weaknesses and failures of same [sic] .... any
profession that does not supply its own criticism and iconoclasm
will find that someone else will do the job, and usually in a way
it does not like." A warning to be heeded, for pointed and
penetrating criticism of the synthetic theory and its practitioners
by a philosopher (Bethell, 1976) and a lawyer (Macbeth, 1971) has
opened a door to a general but unwarranted denunciation of all
evolutionists--in the spirit of Thompson's (1958) and Lewontin's
(1972) accusations quoted at the outset.

Bethell, Tom. "Darwin's mistake" _Harper's_ (Feb 1976), 70-5.
Lewontin, R.C. Book review "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection"
_Nature_ 236: 181-2 (1972).
Macbeth, Norman. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason_ (1971).
Rosen, Donn. Book review in _Systematic Zoology_ 27: 370-3 (1978).
Stansfield, W.D. _The Science of Evolution_ (1977).
Thompson, W.R. Introduction to Darwin's _Origin_ (1958).

> The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania,
> against their local school board. The board voted to read a statement during
> a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggests ID as
> an alternative.
>
> The parents claim this was an attempt to introduce creationism into the
> curriculum and that the school board members were motivated by their
> evangelical Christian beliefs. It is illegal to teach anything with a
> primarily religious purpose or effect on pupils in government-funded US
> schools.

"It is illegal to teach anything with a primarily religious purpose or
effect on pupils in government-funded US schools."
Is teaching secular religions there OK?

the courts on the secular religion of secular humanism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127528146.999596.314660%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> Supporters of ID believe that some things in nature are simply too complex
> to have evolved by natural selection, and therefore must be the work of an
> intelligent designer.
>
> Peer review
> 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.
>
> Hypothesis or theory?
> 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.

"Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's
definition of a hypothesis"

ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Popper's 1978 article, page 346, a paragraph:
The theory of natural selection may be so
formulated that it is far from tautological. In this
case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not
strictly universally true. There seem to be
exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and
considering the random character of the variations
on which natural selection operates, the occurrence
of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all
phenomena of evolution are explained by natural
selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a
challenging research programme to show how far
natural selection can possibly be held responsible
for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioural
programme

> The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local
> members of the public and the school board.
>
> Behe maintains that ID is science: "Under my definition, scientific theory
> is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical
> inferences."
>
> "You've got to admire the guy. It's Daniel in the lion's den," says Robert
> Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is
> interested in science. "But I can't believe he teaches a college biology
> class."
>
> The cross examination will continue Wednesday, with the trial expected to
> finish on 4 November"
>
>
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178&feedId=online-news_rss20

.

Relevant Pages