This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Should Astrology be Taught in High School?

Would Intelligent Design Proponent Michael Behe consider Astrology a valid high school subject?

Dover, Pennsylvania School Board Court case on the teaching of Intelligent Design
From Oct 18, 2005 Court Transcripts

Michael Behe (Intelligent Design proponent, originator of Irreducible Complexity and the bacterial flagellum as proof against evolution) on whether or nor Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.

Question: Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.
Behe: Yes.
Question: But when you call it a scientific theory, you're NOT defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does.
Behe: Yes, that's correct. (p.34)

 

Question: And actually you said at your deposition, I don't think intelligent design falls under this definition. Correct? (referring to the NAS definition)
Behe: Yeah, and that's after I said -- if I may see where in my deposition that is? I m sorry. (p.35)

Note: Behe had testified the previous day that the NAS was the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States, so one might suppose that their standards are probably relevant. (p.49)

Behe's previous deposition was then entered into evidence.  It stated:

Question: "Let's be clear here, I m asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." (p.35)

When pressed on this issue, he then says that that's not what he intended to say, and that he might argue it either way; but he successfully avoids actually answering the question again.

He then goes on to state that when he calls Intelligent Design a theory, he's using his own broader definition of theory and not the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) definition of theory.

When questioned about what qualifies as theory under HIS definition:

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

 Behe: Yes, that's correct. (p.38)

Does this mean that if we teach Intelligent Design because it is a valid theory, then using the same definition for theory, we must also teach astrology?
(astrology = predicting the future based on the position of the stars and planets)?

Viewer Feedback

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic

2006-11-09 steve roesler, Old Earth Creationist, wrote
So So, Bogus, Biased to Evolution
Behe clearly has set forth a theory of origins, whether it matches the NAS definition or not. NAS bias toward evolution is undeniable, and if allowed to do so, they will set the rules so that nothing else can be taught. Whether or not the NAS is prestigious seems a diversion from the real issue of whether Behe and the Creationists have a valid viewpoint that can be taught in the public forum or whether we'll enforce a new Dark Ages where only one theory is allowed.

epicidiot reply: The primary issue revolving around ID is not whether it can be taught, but should it be taught as science.  The NAS definition is a well-accepted definition of what science is.  Simply creating your own definition of science, does not make what it defines science.