Hedonist wrote: "National Academy of Science "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."Behe: "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences."
National Academy of Science "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations."
National Academy of Science "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
But that wasn't the issue. His definition of a scientific theory was.
National Academy of Science, from "Science, Evolution, and Creationism"
"A theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
These are two different definitions of theory from your source, the NAS.
Here are some other different definitions of theory used in scientific research today:
Ken Miller's 2007 edition of the textbook "Biology"
"In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."
In the April, 2008 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton uses the phrase "new theory" multiple times. In this case, scientific theory means: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
Archives of Suicide Research:
"Although the study has offered some support for the new theory, future research with more rigorous quantitative data needs to be conducted to further test the *theory* on a more comprehensive level." (J. Zhang, D. Lester, "Psychological Tensions Found in Suicide Notes: A Test for the Strain Theory of Suicide," Archives of Suicide Research, Vol. 12(1):67-73 (2008).) Clearly this study uses the word "theory" to describe a new idea that has not yet been fully verified nor accepted.
Current Biology Journal; "Social Evolution: The Decline and Fall of Genetic Kin Recognition," by Andy Gardner and Stuart A. West of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, contains a subheading which asserts:
"New theory confirms that genetic kin recognition is inherently unstable, explaining its rarity."
How could it be a "new theory", if a theory has to be "well-substantiated and tested"?
Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton:
"Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim."
Therefore, Michael Behe's contention, that the NAS definition of theory, and the one used by the plaintiffs at Kitzmiller, IS NOT HOW SCEINTISTS USE THE TERM IN THE OPERATION OF SCIENCE.
Behe's definition is superior:
"A proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences."
Why do you think scientists in modern research are not obligated to conform to a rigid definition of theory, that the NAS can change their mind on what a theory is, but Behe cannot use a broader definition?
Of course, you cannot answer. I can. It is because zealous Darwinists like you want to exclude ID as science semantically, and not on the merits.
I am glad I was finally able to clear this up with you.
I am sure Dr. Behe would not be interested in your apology, since he has encountered stumbling fools like you before.