Behe defined "peer review", and he defined what he meant by saying it was "probably" more "critically, fully (detailed, whatever...)" peer reviewed. His testimony matched that statement. The details match his definition. Other scientists who know the definition of "peer review" testified that it was peer reviewed.
More of his own definitions? Like atstrology=science? Like "quantitative aspect" doesn't mean we have quantitative criteria? I'm not sure any scientists testified that it was peer reviewed, but at least one has informally said so, inasmuch as the term can be applied to a book in the Trade Press.
I'll admit that this whole subject is a pretty small nit to pick, when his ideas are full of many other fat, juicy ticks. It's being used to demonstrate that this man is trying to give his ideas the appearance of acceptance and passing a certain amount of scrutiny, which is dishonest, or at the very least (in Dr. Morrow's words) disingenuous.
Point Made
Back on point, and the main point I want to make.
Behe defined "peer review", and he defined what he meant by saying it was "probably" more "critically, fully (detailed, whatever...)" peer reviewed. His testimony matched that statement. The details match his definition. Other scientists who know the definition of "peer review" testified that it was peer reviewed.
More of his own definitions? Like atstrology=science? Like "quantitative aspect" doesn't mean we have quantitative criteria? I'm not sure any scientists testified that it was peer reviewed, but at least one has informally said so, inasmuch as the term can be applied to a book in the Trade Press.
I'll admit that this whole subject is a pretty small nit to pick, when his ideas are full of many other fat, juicy ticks. It's being used to demonstrate that this man is trying to give his ideas the appearance of acceptance and passing a certain amount of scrutiny, which is dishonest, or at the very least (in Dr. Morrow's words) disingenuous.