Astrology is a science, Behe claims

Behe agrees that ID doesn't meet the mark of a scientific theory unless we redefine a scientific theory to make it so loose as to include 'Astrology', New Scientist reportsI think that this writer puts it best: It seems the ID movement needs to invent a classroom environment in which every idea can be taught just so they can get their idea taught. Perhaps they can call it 'Pursuit of ideas', or perhaps 'Pursuit of wisdom', or even better, 'A love of wisdom', it would need a fancy Greek name like Philosophy or something.

In the link, it said, "Behe' notion of theory is so broad that it would include Astrology.." (or something like that).Why would it matter that it be this broad and this NOT be a fault.1) Some theorists pefer to write without hypotheses or so claim they have been able to do (of have done so).
2)It is not clear if there is such a thing as post-Copernican evolutionary theory.
3)If the ether in fact can be brought out of Einstein's theory"" into a cognizable materialism in Newton's relation of life to a "central earth" (through repulsion forces in atoms say) then statements that are currently different as to probability might be similar in a community of determinism.
4)It is possible that irreducible complexity only need solve some problem posed by Cantor (either positive or negative) as to the equipollence in the continuum hypothesis.
5)It might be possible to artifically select intelligently such an event but this need not show a "perfect(ly)" functioning design.In other words one might be able to use past astrological divisions in the future to divide biogeographical realities of the present in the same kind of process that science went through lent by sent from Kepler to Hakwing or Penrose. I doubt this will occur but rationally I can not discount the possiblity of it's happening.The NAS's defintion is already hierarchically structured

quote:

---

“Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

---

begging for an hypothesis if not already in SOME so-called theory.
see Mod's link.
What if astrology did incorporate an alien abduction but is in fact a deduction only instead currenly it is inferred as an induction because there is no known intelligence whether indigenous to Earth OR Mars?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-21-2005 10:50 AM

This is interesting but not at all news. Anyone who has read Dembski (one of the key founders of ID) has already stated this, though in perhaps longer wordage.The goal is to change the definition of science, removing enlightenment era restrictions (one might say progress) on scientific investigation. The Kansas board has also discussed this openly.On might even say it is pre 15th century science, as Dembski repeatedly lauds Platonic (deductive) scientific investigation over inductive reasoning.What would be interesting is to know how many people in positions of power within this case laughed at what Behe said.One thing that has gone undiscussed with Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court is what affect she could have on science. She and others might very well legislate from the bench that science can be shaped by political entities in order to open the door to platonic science and officially (legally) reverse everything gained during the enlightenment.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Tch, tch! --Percy

That is an obvious typo, not half as bad as my constantly placing "and" instead of "a" or "an". Can I ask why that specific typo (out of my many errors) merited a notice? Was it a joke or something given the topic?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks,Brad, for your posts. I may not grasp your points, but that`s my problem, not yours. However you always add to my collection of words, so I am grateful. Equipollence, equipollence (goes off muttering into the sunset)

Cute. and Sophisticated?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I thought it would be fair, to put here the words that Behe actually used, to avoid claims of the media misrepresenting them:

quote:

---

6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
19 theories, are nonetheless theories.

---

and at least humour was still evident in the court:

quote:

---

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
1 yes." Right?
2 A That s correct.
3 Q Not, it used to be, right?
4 A Well, that s what I was thinking. I was thinking
5 of astrology when it was first proposed. I m not thinking
6 of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you
7 might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its
8 historical sense.
9 Q I couldn t be a mind reader either.
10 A I m sorry?
11 Q I couldn t be a mind reader either, correct?
12 A Yes, yes, but I m sure it would be useful.
13 Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.
14 THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.

---

Source

Humor indicates to me that the "adults" participating in this "debate" are simply using the wrong tit and tat. Will Provine and Phil Johnson are trying to contrapoint whether we are "under" God, the UN, or "science"! This is NOT funny and yet the tone is all sarcasm, (as) I can even hear that on the evo side. They still insist on framing evo talk as process and pattern (and behavior) and yet reality is individually much more messy than that.Oh, "the definitino that sweeps in"...I see...It was swept under the sky, that is obvious but are we UNDER the carrying capacity of the Earth or are we not? That would be my question.It looks like what happened in this court case was simply the difference that Schummer could not get behind Robert's mind but got out from under Meirs' skirted lace.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-28-2005 03:34 PM

A possible goal in life: Meet Brad McFall.

---

"Turning out pigs for creationists makes me blue and blurry."--Brad McFall

Dress warm. And carry a raincoat.

that is the question rather than to LOL or lull.I am "a priori" in favor of the tendency you depreciate(d)(more deduction climates) but like assets or asses we all have our own opinions. So leaving aside the possiblity of cutting out of red giant starry heaven distributions and morality within irreducible complexity categories as something that would already have been the but and brunt of jokes galore...there does seem to be a place for theory without hypothesis, more than less perfectly.Will Provine revealed his own theoretical predilection when he stated uncategorically that "extinction" is a "corollary" of "cause" in biological change.
EvC Forum: Prof Denies Human Free Will
I had never understood why Mayr had Monod's "Chance and Necessity" in such a place to really stand out in his 82 book "The Growth of Biological Thought" but in his 88 book between chapters on Darwin and Malthus and Creationism through physciotheology I think I finally understand. Will Provine made this obvious in my mind by saying once again in my presence that he, Will Provine, differed from Mayr "all the way down the line". I will explain this later.When, in the mid 70s, Rene Thom was trying to get topology used in morphogeny it was thought (Lewontin (read between the lines in the TRIPLE HELIX) that extinction might be expressed theoretically as a catastrophe set. If that had happened in the history of the structure of evolutionary theory then Will could not necessarily state that extinction is a corollary of causes during evolution. It would all depend on what constraints for hypotheses the tolopoglical conditions would have directions that fluxed fit adaptations no matter the overarching theory. Mayr'a insistence on his version of population thinking and its consequent admonishment of pun eekers that their notions remain within the synthesis population thought would however keep Behe's astrological theory out of biology individually just at the place Will states human/chimp DNA relationships but if indeed the MATHUSIAN individual (not the species) can be PERFECTED in a figure of repulsion and attraction by aggregations of Gibbsian atoms, it seems that Mayr's chance encounter with Monod is null and void where necessity would reign by law formerly thought only by Darwin with respect to God.The perfection OF design is NOT in the tolerance of the genome to an adaptive landscape but in the stochastic figure (ellipse vs circle?) subcellular sized molecular forces of attraction and repulsion retain in the no-God indicated Malthusian sort of thing. Natural Theologians were not simply wrong but were innocent. This is not only theoretical if extinction could in some cases be a priori ascertained quantitively through atomic considerations independent of larger population variances. This idea that will NOT allow one to think of Behe's proteins nor astrology in its place extends Mayr's notion of population thinking but finds a necessity in the individuals not the population due to deaths (most probably programmed cell deaths but also possible are cases where extinction IS NOT a corollary in the THEORY)but if it happens will by induction not necessarily abducted deductions.I hope this is not too far off topic as I will be very sad but I will not cry if Will Provine refuses to get back to me on what little creationism does remain from Gladyshev's spectralization if that failure to communicate is only because of the very closeness of this view above and ICR's as expressed
ICR

quote:

---

If they would read almost any book by creation scientists, they would know that such horizontal variations (or microevolution) and adaptations are accepted by all creationists, who recognize them as evidence of the Creator's forethought. Each creature has been designed with a genetic system that can recombine its components as needed to keep it from becoming extinct when the environment changes. But evolutionists don't want to imply any validity to creationism by debating its advocates or reading their books. This looks like willful ignorance. We stress again and again that it is only the concept of macroevolution (the transmutation of reptiles into birds and mammals, or of apes into men, or other "upward" changes) that we find void of scientific proof.

---

as my own prejudice against species selection a priori not against all good science so-called. In this sense I do not think the "environment" is changing much. I wonder for instance if
http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/...cation/borealtoad/antifreeze.asp
is not an adaptation to life but an anti-death design that is not species or individual specific. I do dont know. Maybe it was not the ice ages that effected this chemical nature in certain frogs but was due to differential extinction independent of temperature. It is hard to keep this straight but sometimes it does seem mentally possible to think where Huxley refused to go.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-29-2005 06:10 PM