Behe conceeds ID is more-or-less a hypothesis, not a theory

Abaddon

Nothing I didn't already know, any comments from supporters of ID or literalistic Creationism?

A key witness for the defence (the pro-intelligent design camp) conceded this week that ID does not meet the criteria, New Scientist reports.
Instead, Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, proposed a definition of theory that he had to admit was so broad, it would include astrology. Under cross examination, he also conceded that his definition of a theory was almost identical to the NAS' definition of a hypothesis.
ID's lack of scientific credibility is central to the argument put forward by Australia's scientists. In their open letter, they say that the core of the intelligent design argument relies on a belief in a supernatural entity of some form. This, they say, cannot be observed, tested validated or falsified.
Australia's News.com quotes the letter as saying: "They are free to believe or profess whatever they like. But not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by making a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for science: that is a theological or philosophical notion."

(added highlight mine)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/21/intelligent_design/

under74

thanks for posting that abaddon....I didn't know there were idiots taking the lead from America's dumbest.

for those of you that might be bothered about what I just typed.....please look up everything before you bother to attack. THANKS!

Actaully, I find it very amusing we have Behe's rubbish regulary spouted on this board by those who neither understand or care why it is rubbish, and how they gamely try but fail to refute the easily available rebutals of his silly theories.

Yet despite this popularity in ID-ot and Creationist circles, when he actually has to answer questions in a court of law and admit he and his colleauges want a hypothesis with no more evidence than astrology taught as fact in school, his supporters suddenly shut up.

Silenece is golden and says more than many words...

texarcanada

Lets face it. No one knows for sure how life began or what started it. Evolution is a theory not fact, however, the process of evolution could easily have been started by a higher power, explaining the gaps in the fossil record. One side supporting the other. It's the people that have to have an absolute one way or the other that drive me insane.

tetrapod.sapien

Lets face it. No one knows for sure how life began or what started it. Evolution is a theory not fact, however, the process of evolution could easily have been started by a higher power, explaining the gaps in the fossil record. One side supporting the other. It's the people that have to have an absolute one way or the other that drive me insane.

evolution is a fact. in science, a theory is not some guess that some guys at a pub came up with one night. a theory is as good as a fact. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html and if some deity put it all into action, not only does it create more questions than it can answer, it also makes that god so meaningless and small, that it is almost not worth even thinking about since she hasn't showed her face in 5 billion years. or if she has, she has done a good job of covering up her tracks. don't feel obliged to attempt bridging creationism with evolution, because you don't have to. evolution explains biodiversity without a god, and does not touch on origins. but religion's explanation of origins is so extraordinary and unparsimonious that it becomes an impossibility. there doesn't have to be truth in both camps. it's entirely possible that one camp is simply right and the other is simply wrong. TS