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.
Hey Rusty,
Everybody is entitled to believe what they wish. We all should make an attempt to understand the wonders of the universe. The sciences do their best to explore the cosmos and to observe the living systems and geological dynamics of this planet and they do a rather efficient job especially with the advent of new technologies. I take issue with people who would rather keep their head in the sand and simply accept what is than those who seek. Can you honestly say that the “why” is not as important question as how?
Theology is not the antithesis of science. Don’t be fooled. Many of the greatest minds of the last millenium
who made significant contributions to science were theists and many became theists based upon the discoveries they made. Secularism,humanism and atheism are “ideologies” that set forth the presumption that the origin of all matter has come into existence randomly.
The theory of spontaneous generation was another brilliant (sarcasm) concept. This took more faith to accept than Moses’ parting of the Red Sea. Why do evolutionists use the term “design” which is a term appropriately attributed to a thinking living being when describing the mechanics of nature? The degree of complexity of the living systems all around us is evidence of a creator with supreme intelligence.
There, I showed my cards.
As for Christians killing people…Read the “red letters” in the New Testament and show me anywhere where Jesus from Nazareth advocated murder for any reason. Men murder other men despite his teaching not because he condoned it. I cannot however say that about Mohammed. He was kind of partial to using his sword rather than his tongue. In the fifth century he was promoting his faith through extreme violence. It’s no wonder the followers of this Arab prophet are willing to kill people over a cartoon.
Trashing theism in general and lumping all religions in the recycling bin for deletion without regard for their founders intent is not very scientific. Hee Hee.
Regards,
Tom
Pingback: Timmerblog » Blog Archive » The war rages
Hello,
I do not dispute that the big bang theory pertaining to the creation of the universe as a possibility. The presumption it resulted strictly by a physical force acting upon matter however is still a matter of conjecture.
Intelligent design and the biblical account of the origin of living systems is at odds with evolutionary theory. The book of Genesis is however compatible with the big bang theory as the creation of the solar system and the universe is not exhaustively explained in the scriptures.
The Bible does however stress that God brought into being all that we see. According to these writings, in the beginning the earth was void and without form.
The real issue I would say is that until something is definitively proven, it is still a theory.
Pingback: TofuPunk >> Cuz all the good names were taken » Blog Archive » Aladdin’s Cafe on 33rd = yummy
It just goes to show you what brilliant minds we have in the executive branch of government today. May God help us…
I don’t know if something like this was said… but I think churches should be required to reference god as a theory.
According to god theory, he said “let there be…”
Spatulated, I would like to build upon your “thought-invoking” comment. If Mr. Deutsch is so adamant about classifying Big Bang as a mere nebulous theory, Christians – who are so eager to incorporate religion into science – should be adamant about classifying God as a mere nebulous theory. Furthermore, as long as these Christians are so eager to play upon the scientific landscape, they must equally abide by the rules of the scientific method. Therefore, as these Christians intertwine religious dogma with the scientific method, these Christians must come to the harsh realization that their almighty God is nothing more than a mere nebulous theory.
Wow somebody needed there thoughts invoked.
Pingback: Ich bin Atheist · Nur eine Theorie?
Pingback: Danger in London’s Science Museum | Cosmic Variance
What do you think is the meaning of “theory” then?,,Theory needs to be proven, or has not yet proved. SO how can they say that the Big Bang is correct and true if it is still known as a THEORY? pls. answer me!!! ehehhehe
Pingback: The Badass Astronomer | Cosmic Variance
Pingback: Who’s Funding You? | Cosmic Variance