You’ve heard, I hope, about NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who the Bush administration tried to silence when he called for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Cosmology, as it turns out, is not exempt from the radical anti-science agenda. The New York Times, via Atrios:
In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.
…
The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose resume says he was an intern in the “war room” of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen’s public statements.
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”
It continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.”
Emphasis added. Draw your own conclusions, I’m feeling a bit of outrage fatigue at the moment.
Update: Phil Plait has extensive comments at Bad Astronomy Blog. Also Pharyngula, Balloon Juice, Stranger Fruit, Gary Farber, Mark Kleiman, World O’ Crap, and Hullabaloo.
Update again, for our new visitors: Folks, of course the Big Bang model is a theory, and of course it is also correct. It has been tested beyond reasonable doubt: our current universe expanded from a hot, dense, smooth state about 14 billion years ago. The evidence is overwhelming, and we have hard data (from primordial nucleosynthesis) that the model was correct as early as one minute after the initial singularity.
Of course the initial singularity (the `Bang’ itself) is not understood, and there are plenty of other loose ends. But the basic framework — expanding from an early hot, dense, smooth state — is beyond reasonable dispute.
It’s too bad that scientific education in this country is so poor that many people don’t understand what is meant by “theory” or “model.” It doesn’t mean “just someone’s opinion.” Theories can be completely speculative, absolutely well-established, or just plain wrong; the Big Bang model is absolutely well-established.
I agree with Deutsch, it IS JUST A THEORY! And as for the college admissions fellow who was flustered because someone who applied had a Christian background, that’s plain discrimination. It would be no different if he were to refuse admission because someone is black, to refuse admission because someone is a Christian. I am suprised so few people who agree with Deutsch have written in response to this nonesense, but I suppose they are busy working hard so that the rest of you “Thinkers” don’t have to do so. There is a reason Bush won both elections and maintained a higher popular vote total than Bill Clinton in each election. Kooks like you are in the minority and day of Liberal hippies running the country are long gone. That’s precisely why Republicans control both houses of Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. Face it, the country has spoken and you are and your crazy beliefs are in the minority.
That atheist fellow is a moron. He/she believes we should imprison someone because of their beliefs-
“This guy should be sent to prison for even THINKING we shoudl teach intelligent design in equal parts with the truth.”
What an idiot. I didn’t bother to read the rest of the post, because he/she proved themselves to be not-so-intelligent.
Andy said:
“lol, admittedly, Mr Bush is not very intelligent (unsupported theory is that his IQ is 91, half of Clinton’s 182), but the fact that an idiot speaks a fact doesn’t make the fact false.”
Can we please not resort to such obvious and verifiable nonsense, even in jest?
And by the way, it’s “Hawking,” not “Hawkins.” You’ve just earned yourself five points on the crackpot scale.
While I understand the reaction people are having to this whole thing, the fact remains that the Big Bang is, in fact, a theory. It has not been proven, nor can it be proven. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not correct, just that we can’t prove whether it’s true or false unless somebody invents a time machine. All the extrapolation in the world can’t establish the initial conditions of the universe. Furthermore, any attempt to prove the Big Bang that I’ve ever seen was reliant on uniformitarian philosophy. To me, the idea that the only processes that have ever existed in the history of time are the ones that we can still observe today is absurd. On what basis do we assume that we can accurately extrapolate anything beyond recorded history, beyond what we can actually measure? That’s voodoo science, in my opinion.
Take plate tectonics, for example. We know the Earth’s plates move today at particular speeds, but the uniformitarian philosophy that governs current plate tectonics assumes that they have always moved at those speeds. They can’t have ever moved at different speeds because we don’t observe any processes today that could suggest a variable speed. My question is, how are we to prove that they have always moved at those speeds, and not faster or slower than we observe today, without having actually been there. Could they have moved at some catastrophic speed 5,000 years ago to create a global flood as some Creationists would suggest? I don’t pretend to have the answer to that question, but I do know that we can’t prove it one way or the other because we can’t make direct observations. We can only extrapolate based on data we can actually measure, and like it or not, extrapolation is flawed because it necessitates assumptions of initial conditions and constant processes.
I wonder about the idea that simply because the Republicans run the federal government that suddenly science must be given over in favor of some mystical hoodoo. Science isn’t about elections; it’s about observation, speculation, and experimentation.
It is precisely the blind faith in a divine protector that creates the serious misgivings I have about putting Christians anywhere that might have some kind of scientific involvement. I mean, do I really want the guy installing the lightning rod on my new skyscraper to worry more about how he’s going to keep Jesus from striking it down than the precepts of electrical engineering? Do I want a doctor that would rather invoke the sacred name than give me the round of antibiotics for that infection?
But really – let’s split the difference. Christians, I give you everything that happened before the universe began. Hell, I don’t even *pretend* to know what happened then. Just give us science-types everything after the Big Bang; we understand it well enough to make Coc-Cola, light up Las Vegas, and give the world the very internet you’re looking at today. Mana from heaven, indeed.
dearest Ben-
let’s see.. which of your idiotic remarks would i like to most kick in the nuts..
heres one.
” It would be no different if he were to refuse admission because someone is black, to refuse admission because someone is a Christian ”
well actually there is a difference.. just because a person is black does not mean he or she:
1) has an IQ less than your age
2) is completely and utterly challenged in terms of reality
3) has a sheep mentality
4) cant count beyond 2006 when it comes to history.
all of the above are qualities i find in the christian right.
i could go on, but suffice it to say that being a fundy christian makes you unqualified to breath, much less enter a graduate program in the sciences. you cannot assume that about a black person.
if they had only killed Constantine when he was a child, we would have none of this crap.
arf
coyote
Ben, ben, ben…*sigh*
Let’s see…The difference between being born a minority and choosing to be a “Christian”? Hmmm.. Could it be that one of them is immutible and genetic and one of them is flexible to the point of being meaningless and based on current social mores?
It’s really obvious that you need to learn to think…Oh wait, that would be against the tenents of your “faith”.
Listen, little boy…Stay away from the adult commentary. It only makes you look foolish and irritates people who actually have critical thinking skills. We’re already irritated to the point of distraction by your intellectual peers in the White House.
It’s far more nuanced than that. And it is likewise far more nuanced than Coyote’s defense.
The point I was attempting to make was that 10 years ago, I would not have thought twice about admitting this person. However, the pervasiveness of christian-fundamentalist movements that seek to discredit, undermine, and explain away overwhelming scientific evidence increases my awareness that this student might be completely unwilling (or unable) to come to terms with multiple lines of evidence that point to the Universe being more than 10 billion years old. I don’t care at all if he thinks the Universe was created by intersecting branes, by the FSM, by God or by Yaweh. I do care that he can reason like a scientist, even when the evidence contradicts a strictly literal reading of his particular theology. I have no obligation to admit him if he can’t, in the same way that a biology program is not obligated to admit someone who rejects basic conclusions of genetics due to a religous text.
IF ID or Creationism is the truth then why doesn’t the bible mention dinosaurs? Fossils prove they existed. Soooo if all the life forms were created at once then why doesn’t the bible, koran or whatever mention them? You would think something the size of a brontasauraus would get at least some text eh? Of course that could explain why they all went extinct….. Noah didn’t build the Ark big enough. He only took the wee creatures. hehehehe But seriously I think religion plays an important part in many peoples lives. But that is where it should stay. In their personal life. It should not be forced into the sciences or into the lives of people who believe differently and especially NOT into a government that was founded on the precepts of freedom of religion. Too bad the Bushites were soo terrible in their History lessons they did not learn about Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli. That pretty much says it all.
Hmm. By Ben’s logic — that someone who chooses to be Christian should not be discriminated against, much like someone who is born black — he’s just invalidated the right wing Christian argument that someone who’s gay should be discriminated against.
I think that any argument that throws logic and reason out the window –whether it be discrimination against a certain person or persons; or the damning of fact-based science in favor of faith and belief–is automatically suspect.
I’m not wholly convinced about the big bang theory either and I’m as far from being Christian as you can be. A scientific model may fit all of the evidence and still be wrong you know.
That does not justify attaching the word ‘theory’ only to the elements of the scientific orthodoxy that most deviate from the scriptures. That’s just silly.
But perhaps it’s better not to fight on this battlefield just in case…..
Hey, you guys got FARKed (www.fark.com). I got bogged down from links as well, digg.com slammed me. Looks like there is a LOT of interest in this story. I’ll be very curious in deed to see what NASA does in the next few days; the budget is to be announced tomorrow.
Yeah – the traffic is quite amazing Phil. Welcome to all our new visitors. We hope you’ll come back again for some of our other science/science policy/science and the media/science and politics/fluff posts.
So, science types can be just as strident as religious people??? Who knew?
Schmucks.
I think “intelligent design” and the big bang theory could complement each other very well if people were more reasonable. The big bang is all but proven, but what made it happen?? IDers are not fighting the right battle. Fall back and defend the defensable.
I’m with you Rich. I’ve known plenty of scientists who had faith, and were able to reconcile the two with no problem by putting God outside of science. Science cannot, at this point, explain what caused the Big Bang, just that it happened. Those of faith can put God as that cause without contradicting science.
The problem is that science can’t explain the BB’s cause yet, but may be able to do so eventually. I think this is what scares the religious people, and makes them fight against science. Science has been pushing religion further and further out, and the religious fear that eventually science will be able to explain away God. (If science can ever do it, it’ll probably be well after we’re all dead, so don’t worry so much people.)
More of the same on the ‘theory’ confusion, though the extension to one of the fundamental tenets of 20th century cosmology is disturbing.
The various idiotic comments, here and elsewhere, attempting to draw a distinction between ‘theories’ and ‘facts’ are more in need of correction from philosophers than from from scientists.
Here’s a brainteaser for you: what precisely is the difference between a ‘theory’ like evolution or inflationary cosmology and a ‘fact’ like, say, that I just finished drinking a beer. After all, neither can be ‘proven’ (important side-note: ONLY mathematical and logical propositions can be ‘proven’)-I could, after all, be dreaming. In fact, as Bertrand Russell argued, I have, in fact, precisely no reason at all to believe that the world was not created exactly five minutes ago, along with my memories and all other traces of the ‘past’ (how would I tell the difference?).
No one (or hardly anyone) actually believes these skeptical hypotheses, of course. What these cases bring out is that purportedly obvious and unquestionable facts (about ‘medium-sized dry goods’ like chairs and beer bottles) are often more like ‘theories’ than one might think- both require various assumptions, of varying degrees of credibility, in order to be justified. I have evidence that I drank a beer ten minutes ago. I have evidence that a big bang occured many years ago. There is no difference in kind betwen the two cases. Both are either true are false, and, fortunately, in both cases I have every reason to believe they are true.
What this suggests is not a problem with either ‘theories’ or ‘facts’, but rather only the observation that these are not really sharply defined categories at all. Thus, to claim that ‘the big bang theory is not a fact’ is to make a distinction without a difference. Both ‘theories’ and purported ‘facts’ (as that term is ordinarily used) can be true or false, strong or weak, justified or unjustified. But to say ‘X is a (strong) theory’ need impugn X no more than to say that ‘X is a (well-established) fact’.
I stand by my original comments, though I do thoroughly appreciate and understand the intelligent rebuttal of the poster about post-graduate admissions. The coyote fellow is, however, a fool. I assure you, my IQ is quite a bit higher than you alluded to and my arguements are accurate. You have simply not thought your own arguements through to the point that you can have an intelligent discussion without resorting to liberal party propaganda and biased comments against Christians. To the poster who made the comment about the ultra-conservative issues with the gay lifestyle and gay marriage, I would tend to agree with you, believe it or not. Unfortunately, we are in the vast minority in that regard, based on the last election. In ever single state that had a ballot question about legalizing gay marriage, the voters overwhelmingly rejected it. I personally, don’t much care about a person’s sexual orientation or physical inclinations, but again, I am in the minority. As far as the current discussion, I again point out that the “big bang theory” is just that, a theory. Nobody was around to document it and there is no indesputable proof that it ever happened. Because some scientists say they believe it is the truth doesn’t mean I will follow their findings blindly. To me, it will always be a theory and I choose to follow my own beliefs in the creation of the universe.
In some ways I am becoming quite saddened by how any science post becomes a fight between ‘scientists’ and ‘creationists’ and then small sides with people who want to stand in one camp but listen to the other.
This one is a bit of an exception because it started as a fight between them but in the end it became a name calling fiest as ‘Ben’ and others started.
I personally would like to see all of humanity move to the point where we no longer need an all knowing all powerful father figure to send us to our rooms for the rest of creation if we don’t do the right thing. The church used to be the Law, the News and the political system all wrapped into one package. You lived, learned and often died within the same package. Much of the churches actions and behaviours fit within the MEME’s theory of social evolution (sorry I don’t have a link for that). Today the very thing that caused the religous groups to survive and spread are whats causing them to clash with each other.
As information became more and more available to people we started to question the need for it. We also saw the corruption of religion spread. The two events are not linked directly, but as people became more and more able to share information, the one event reported the other. It also caused the church to try to unify it’s own teachings, to make them better able to be spread and shared. All religions of the world have had voilence between it’s own followers because the others didn’t believe the right thing. If it wasn’t for the spread of the information neither side would have known.
That is why I will personally never follow a specific church, I can look up the history of it and see all the ways that it went against it’s own faithful, how it changed becaused on politcial needs.
Good science is different in that it teaches us to always question what it shows, to try to find out the little bits of false in what it presents as true. To pry down to the next level. To Think. It is always changing, and if you read almost any one scientist they will have had aspects of their theorys changed later, or at least yet unanswered questions about some of their statements asked.
If we could simply get the people who have closed their ears to read the science and then ask the questions that scientists haven’t seen yet, it would be a victory of sorts.
The problem right now is that we have a poltical will existing to use science as a tool to fight, and science isn’t a good tool for war. The old joke goes that you should never have scientists on your juryboard, any new fact and they go and change their mind. So any time a scientist is put forward to defend something they will give up a soundbite that can be spin to work against them. This has caused scientists to be afriad to speak to the public. I know I wouldn’t want to be the voice heard trying to explain the big bang may be a theory but unlike the ID theory we have attempted to prove that it may be true and have many reasons to believe that even if it isn’t 100% correct it is close enough that we can use it for now to ask more questions.
One last thought before I’m done here, people are always saying that the public doesn’t understand ‘this’ or ‘that’ and something should be done. No one, as far as I know, as ever come up with a good plan to explain anything to the public. I know that I don’t want to ‘dumb down’ the theories I learned in junior high so that a public that watches tv will be interested for the 30 second soundbit we give them, but can we see any other way to start giving the public the education that almost everyone agrees they need?
(Of course the question is why don’t they learn that in their own schools could be asked, but I fear that most of the supporters of ID and other religous believes came from seperate school systems and have at least their high school if not college degrees.)
This has got to be the funniest story today. A Bush appointee ensures that Big Bang, the theory, is referred to as… a theory… and liberals get upset.
Does being anti-Bush really blind you to the fact that the Big Bang is “just a theory”? A theory can nonetheless be quite true, but as any scientist would still assess, it is still a theory.
Deutsch might have wanted to have it called a theory for all the wrong reasons, but he was still right.
Even funnier is that the NASA website .
Read the link if you seek to be informed, and not pushed along on the latest anti-Bush knee-jerk exodus of the day.
Ah damn, where did the link go?
The NASA website has said that the Big Bang is a theory for a long time, ever since the Clinton administration.
Read all about it.
What does that have to do with anything?
Big Bang cosmology is a “theory,” just like Plate Tectonics is a theory and Quantum Electrodynamics is a theory and (yes) Evolution is a theory.
I don’t give a rat’s ass whether you choose to believe in Quantum Electrodynamics or not. And feel free to believe that færies blow the continents around, like soap bubbles in the bath, if you find that more theologically-congenial.
Just don’t presume to tell scientists that these are the subject of controversy, and that they must, therefore, listen respectfully when you bring up the Færie Theory of continental drift.
For the record, Christianity is not about an all powerful father figure condemning us for eternity for not doing the right thing. We do all stand condemned for our sins, but the good news of Christianity is that this all powerful father has sent his son to pay the penalty for us so that we will not have to suffer for eternity. To those who will accept this undeserved gift, Christ will stand by them on the day of judgement, and Christ’s righteousness will be credited to them who believe. That is the grace of God, and the message of Christianity.
Re: Ben : I agree with Deutsch, it IS JUST A THEORY!
Obviously, you would have no problem with the appropriate labelling being used everywhere, right? If you feel it’s necessary to label every theory as such so as to remind yourself to dismiss it, then we should be equally dilligent with the terms “Intelligent Design Fiction“, “Creationist Fiction“, etc.
You may choose to believe in them for your own personal reasons, but that’s all they are and all they ever will be, unless of course some thinking Christian were to put them to even the tiniest measure of scientific scrutiny, at which point they would cease to exist.
The sad truth that so many religious zealots exist within this country and around the world is something that you should be ashamed of. Too bad you seem to be one of them or you wouldn’t waste that IQ you claim to have by defending them. A person of strong faith need not attack others to prove it.
I saw this discussion linked off of fark and I agree that everything beyond observable data must be termed “theory” and should be viewed as cirmumstantial evedince.
The reason for this reply is that I am interested in what the people who may have read about the scientist who recently published his data of a sattelite they sent out i believe in the 50’s or 60’s. That has reached the outter rim of the galaxy and left it for dead. Yet, they have been still recieving basic information such as speed.
Anyway this scientist has found out that it has been slowing down at a rate inconclusive to the rate that physics would predetermine.
So for the past 20 odd years he has tried to find something wrong with the data, like a glitch, yet has found nothing. He says if the data is accurate it will change everything from black matter to the physics of gravity.
I am just an “average joe” and so I am sure I screwed up alot of the facts. this is just the gist of what I read about a couple years back.
But if what he says is true wouldn’t it change the big bang theory also?