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.
Just wanted to deter for a minute, while holding Jacques protest in mind.
condensedmattertheoristUltimately, the ideas used in any one field of physics permeate all the other ones. I have trouble imagining reasonable scenarios where we might have screwed up understanding the signatures of a hot, dense universe in the past and still understand how all of our technology works now.
For instance, what one can hope for in what arises from situation in Gold ion collisions, sets the stage for, how we can now look at “two sides of coin?”
Yet, such states created from such action would have been more telling to you as the “emergent properties,” then what every other science person might have recognized. They didn’t know the value of models that would help lead them too?
Laughlin, still entrances me with what ever you like to choose, from “drunk sargeant majors or to bricks.” Where did this materialize from?
So the theory then, would be the hope of condense matter theorist raised along logical/consistant thinking, from a certain time?
oops I meant “dark matter” where it counts.
I think what everyone is missing is that it doesn’t really matter that the Big Bang is “just” a theory. The fact is that it is the prevailing theory among scientists. NASA, a scientific organization last time I checked, has no business debating ID vs. evolution. They operate under currently accepted scientific practices and principles until such a time as those principles are proven wrong or a “better” theory is accepted by the scientific community. Religious belief used to be that the earth was the center of the universe. Clearly science has done all right with its “theories” over the last 500 years. Perhaps religion should butt out.
pigwood, you’re thinking of the Pioneer anomaly — purportedly anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft as they drift away from the Solar System. It’s very likely to simply be some unknown systematic effect that nobody has yet found, although there is some chance that it is a sign of some interesting gravitational effect. It is certainly not evidence against the Big Bang model. Again, some things in science really have been tested beyond the point where they are worth doubting any more, and the Big Bang is one of them — we’ll continue to fill in the details, but we’re not going to find any evidence against the general framework.
Ben:
It’s sad that the applicant referenced by “anonymous” had to be subjected to additional checks because of his background. It’s sadder still that it was necessary because of the death-grip the lunatic fringe of the Christian Church has on this country socially and politically.
And another thing: just because Bush and Company managed to convince the majority that they were in the right doesn’t necessarily make it so. No one has a monopoly on the truth, and the more certain you are that you have absolute truth, the more likely you are to be horribly, violently wrong.
PS: Quit borrowing talking points from Sean Hannity.
This Salon link investigates previous writings by Deutsch and how he endeared himself to the Christian Right and the Bush admin.
One thing I think is getting lost in this whole kerfluffle (hear and at other blogs, such as Mr. Plait’s excellent site) is what the guy really said. He said the Big Bang theory is “opinion, not fact”. It is “just a theory”, but a theory is more than just an “opinion”. That’s wrong. Also, he’s the one that injected religion into the discussion where it had absolutely no place. It is not NASA’s job to provide people with any sort of religious thought or education whatsoever. That’s why we have churches on every street corner. Given the recent hoo-hah about the administration’s leaning on the climatologist inre: global warming, I also thought the young man’s note had something of a threatening tone to it, but I honestly don’t think it was done with the intent of “destroying science in the name of GAWD!!!”
I just think it’s another example of a woefully underqualified political apointee overreaching his boundaries (and learning) and looking rock-stupid in the process. And, no, having problems with a 24-year-old journalism grad who’s only qualifications are, apparently, working on the Bush re-election team put into such a heavy position is not a “knee-jerk anti-Bush” reaction. Making such an excuse, however, might could be construed as a knee-jerk defend-Bush-at-all-costs reaction, but that is debatable.
Great blog. I’m fascinated by modern physics; I just wish I could understand most of it.
Ah two questions…where did the stuff that “big banged” come from? And would those that want the nonemclature of theory attached to the “big bang” also embrace that any mention of God be referred to as a theory?
Pingback: Blogressiv » Nur eine Theorie?
Pingback: ã€æ ¼å¿—】 宇宙å¦å®¶çš„愤怒
I think scientitsts should explain Karl Popper’s paper on what makes a theory scientific and well estabilshed, to journalists and public. The big bang is a theory but it passes with flying colours. ID theorys fail (Because they are not falsifiable) This kid is correct in saying that Big bang is a theory but it is a widely accepted theory. NASA should tell people about the big bang its has no remit to give the ‘other side of the story’ and therefore should not be gagged
Sagger:
It seems to be, again, that the people who need to explain the demarcation problem (i.e., what’s science and what isn’t) are the people who think seriously about that problem- nameley, philosophers of science. Scientists know what good science is, but they know this tacitly, as reflected in their practices. Philosophers, on the otherhand, have been dicussing falsification and demarcation much more explicitly for decades, and, BTW, are rather pessimistic that Popper’s criterion can serve. Contra ID/anti-big-bangers, the ‘debates’ around these issues are largely philosophical rather than scientific- scientists would be best served (and have been best served) expressing their judgments about what is an is not good science rather than wading into the murky waters of what constitutes science at all.
Sean, Mark, or someone…
You might have already done this, but maybe it would be worthwhile to write a post explaining precisely the current evidence for big bang cosmology, perhaps pausing carefully to explain a couple of points:
1. Big bang cosmology is about evolution of the universe and its contents from a hot dense state to the present
2. An initial singularity is not really part of the theory – we know we need new physics to describe the universe at sufficiently early times.
3. Numerical predictions: abundence of light elements, cosmic redshift, CMB, etc. Some of the posts above suggested a lack of awareness that big bang cosmology makes quantitative predictions about nucleosynthesis for example that agree well with observations.
I don’t know enough of the details to do this justice myself.
Hey guys! I’m a devout Christian, but also highly interested in science. I don’t see how there is even an issue here.
As you know, the Bible is the premier Christian manuscript. However, Genesis 1:2 says,
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
…”and the earth was without form…”
That means that the earth was there. Before the creation story.
It is my interpretation that the Big Bang theory is in fact a truth. However, I believe that the process was set off by a higher power. Then the creation story proceeded from there. Please post any agreement/disagreement you may have on this issue, as I am very interested to find your opinion.
Bush is such an idiot. Apparently his interns are too.
I’m glad Tim came along and wrote that. The reality is most Americans are like him; they may be pro-religion, but that doesn’t mean they’re anti-science. Science and Religion don’t conflict, it’s when they try to be things they aren’t that they do. ID/Creationism/whatever isn’t science, but it could be taught in some philosophy class. And just because things like evolution are sound theory does not mean there is no god. Science is about facts and verifiability, religion is about faith in things that cannot be proven one way or the other. Scientists, if you want to get out of the doghouse with the American public, drop the ‘science trumps religion’ mumbo-jumbo. When you say that you’re claiming to have all the answers, and you’re no better than the fundies. You’re smarter than that…stop it.
As for Ben…no. Clinton got a lower percentage of the vote because of a guy, you might have heard of him, Ross Perot? He got about 10% in 96, and like 20% in 92…for the record, 3rd party candidates got like 3% in 2000, and only 1% in 2004…if you really want to compare popularity, why don’t you check out approval ratings for the two, I’m pretty sure Bush’s is lousy right now.
IMHO, the reason Bush won is because the Democrats are retarded, and are so completely disorganized and messed up that they can’t figure out anything, and the American public realized this. This is why the Republicans were able to effectively focus on the ‘morals’ argument, because they have the upper hand, and they’re better organized and can more effectively swing the debate their way. Basically, the Dems need to unf**k themselves, and soon.
Pingback: Les annales du FAS » Blog Archive » Big Bang is just a theory.
You know, as someone who believes in both God and science, I get distressed when people in authority reveal worldviews that seem uncomfortably shortsighted. I’m a big fan of Stephen Jay Gould’s notion of “non-overlapping magisteria”. Belief in the Almighty is for me a matter of faith. If a divine and omnipotent power did indeed create the universe, it may indeed be flawless and free standing according to rational laws. Therefore scientific discoveries would be equally valid with or without the element of spiritual belief. I also find attempts to label creationism as science offensive to both science and religion; there is something very 14th century about the whole idea of saying “Well, we can’t possibly understand why this happened, so God must have gone ‘poof’.” I don’t see much difference in this line of thinking from the days when man didn’t know where flies came from or how water becomes ice, and thus applied purely theological explanations to natural phenomena. I have to conclude that there are likely provable explanations for the development of the human eye and other “holes” in current theory. Inasmuch as I respect it as a neat contemporary interpretation of the traditional creation story, from a scientific perspective, Intelligent Design seems remarkably lazy. The more I know of science, the more I am aware of its intricacy and innate harmony, the more I stand in awe and wonder of this world and the Almighty. So, while I find attempts to incorporate ID into hard science misguided, as religion, it seems downright insulting. Just what are they getting at by pushing creationism past the bounds of theology into science? The universe is God’s creation, so you’re hoping to find where he signed his name? Do you need something solid to wave at unbelievers? Jesus refused to perform miracles in order to prove his divinity to Herod, so if you’re looking for proof of the divine under a microscope or in a canyon wall, it seems to me you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Simon (88) check out Evidence for the Big Bang at talkorigins.org, which I added as a link to the post in the last update. It’s only flaw is that it gives so much evidence that one might get the false impression that there is some controvery to be addressed, otherwise why bother? The truth is, there isn’t any scientific controversy, just as there is none about natural selection.
Tim (89) — a short time after the Big Bang (or whatever was the actual beginning of our observable universe, we don’t pretend to know), the temperature was so incredibly high that atomic nuclei themselves couldn’t exist, much less atoms and planets. So no scientist believes that the Earth was there before the creation, in any ordinary sense.
This is why I don’t agree with Gould as quoted by Rhymes With Silver (93). Science and religion do overlap sometimes; they both make claims about how the universe works. And I will definitely choose the ones suggested by science, as they seem to have a much firmer foundation.
It is nice to see that not everyone who is faithful and devoted to a specific religion (in this case, Christianity) isn’t a qack-job. Tim and Rymes With Silver, bravo. You have shown that there ARE brains among the truyl faithful.
I find it immensely offensive that the administration would pull a move like this, for pretty much the same reasons that RymeswithSilver stated. I am not religious, however. But I do respect the fact that a person has a right to believe whatever they want, especially when it comes to spiritual aspects. The theocratic lean of the bush administration has be worried for many reasons.
While I do not live in america, I do live right next door. As a result, the policies and decisions made by said administration directly affect me in numerous ways. Trade, military, law and countless other areas are highly impacted.
Intelligent Design is, simply put, flawed at its very root. It is a not-so-cleverly disguised ruse, a more than obvious ploy to enforce a christian dogma on everyone in the nation, even those who do not have any interest in christianity (Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Taoists, Bhuddists, Atheists, Agnostics and Deists, and all the rest). Every time one of its supporters open their mouths it becomes a trying task to not laugh out loud.
However, so far, they have been utterly unsuccesful in their rather ridiculous attempts to force their blatantly idiotic concepts into the educational and scientific communities. We can only hope they keep it up.
This is proof that science needs a public face, much like a president of its own. someone liek Brian Greene perhaps? Anyone that can appeal to the masses and at least get people to understand that science:
a)does NOT ever state that there can BE no god.
b)has absolutely nothing to do with the bible, save for whatever flimsy ties there may be at the very basic level
c)is more than “ideas” and “unsubstantiated thoughts”
Apples to Oranges, and yet the fundamentalist idiots do everything in their power to push their stupidity on the masses, who, for the most part, arent listening.
I see it, simply put, as a post sept. 11th bout of insanity. One that has spread like a plague among the idiotic and is little more than propaganda designed to enforce christian beliefs on those who are the “enemies of america”
And so far, it seems to be working. Except for one tiny little flaw. Forgive the snideness of this message in general. Im just a bit …overwhelmed by the degree of idiocy im seeing lately….
Dramatization:
“lets go to war in Iraq. They have oil we need. However, we will use terrorism as a mask despite the fact that we will find no evidence whatsoever to support this claim after we illegaly invade and obliterate teh country”
“good idea, lets do it. THEN well force them to change their entire government structre to be more ilke america!”
“GOOD idea!”
and then the vote happens. And oh my GOODNESS. They happen to vote in an anti-america bunch (Hamas) in the process. Didnt see THAT coming a mile away. You carpet bombed their country for fREEDOM! How DARE they not elect a pro-america group!
“what should we do about this, guys?”
“why, lets threaten to screw them in the rectal cavity and other fun stuff!!!!”
“GREAT IDEA!”
*huff*
anyhow. Nuff of that. You get the idea. I am rather dissapointed in north america in general the last while. My own countries recent election of the Conservative party only strengthens this feeling. The party itself is atempting to go ass-backwards on the Kyoto protocols..somethign that should NEVER happen. Misssile defense is also part of their agenda. Which is totally pointless and a waste of cash. The list goes on and on.
We soon will not jsut be JOKED about being “americas retaerded cousin”…..we will be the United States of Canada.
hope to god that never happens. Or I am moving to iceland.
gah, typos. oops. My apologies.
This is my first post on a topic like this, so bear with me. I am not a religious person and i know there are serious holes in the scince behind the BB, but people need to realize is that all religions have such large holes that they become unrational, unlogical, contrived and assinine. ALL RELIGIONS try to get us to believe something or act some way, and every religion has believers that seem to think theirs is the best and only true faith, the incas and the mayans worshipped animals and the sun, the native americans had an all powerful nature-god, the greeks and romans had an entire pantheon of gods with human-like motives/agendas/bodies, than not coincidentally we as humans got a bit smarter and we started monotheism, which is what most religions and a majority of people belive today-ONE GOD-ALL POWERFUL-LOOKING DOWN ON US-ETC ETC, THROUGHOUT TIME WE HAVE BELIEVED WITH ALL OUR FAITH THAT “OUR” RELIGION WAS THE RIGHT/CORRECT/TRUE AND THE OTHERS WERE WRONG/ILLOGICAL/EVIL. Now if intelligence and organization pushed us on our path towards one god, what will further intelligence/advancements lead us to?! IF ANYONE HAS ANY PROOF OF ANY GOD OR DEMIGOD OR CREATOR- NOW IS THE TIME TO BRING IT FORTH. The Bible is a good moral tool/guide-but not filled with literal truths. When the corrupt and moneyhungry church edited the BIBLE so that it fit their money machine, they left us a shell of what would have been a wonderful text to teach us how to live morally. Instead we got a book filled with gaps, errors, and contadictions.
The job of science is to observe, describe, and then predict, or guess. You can not observe what happened during the Big Bang. The fellow who drank the beer was a first-hand observer of the event, and, indeed, was a party to the action. Nobody alive, nor anyone in recorded history, was either a party to the Big Bang or an observer.
Why would we need new physics to describe what happened before and around the Big Bang time? Would that indicate that current laws of physics don’t properly describe what would need to happen for a Big Bang to occur?
This link makes me laugh because of the second sentence: “In one single instant, all matter and energy were created.” That’s passive. Something created “all matter and energy.”
I started reading the talkorigins.org link presented earlier. Interestingly, early on it distances itself from describing the actual origin of the universe, but rather states that it only attempts to describe the workings of the universe after it was already created. I have to read more on this before I can discuss it.
The “Law of Gravity” is a “law” basically because it describes what happens when you drop things. It is not a law that we have made but simply states something that always happens. We’ve learned more about how gravity seems to exist, in relation to large masses. We have been able to measure decreases in this gravitational “force” as distance from the Earth increase. And we’ve also measured that same force on the moon and elsewhere in the Solar System with various spacecraft. So far, the “Law of Gravity” seems to hold in all environments we’ve encountered.
But LoG is something we’ve observed and measured and shown in repeated experiments.
If it is something we can not observe and describe, it tends to be more philosophy than science.
Hamas was elected to the Palestinian leadership, not that in Iraq.