In addition to my disagreement with PZ on some things, I absolutely agree with his post about the administration's many attempts to subordinate good science for political considerations. Many other people have written about this around the blogosphere, based on this article in the New York Times that contains a rather stunning segment about a NASA memo:
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."
Mr. Deutsch is a 24 year old journalism graduate who clearly has no idea what the word theory means in a scientific context and has no business being in any position to tell anyone what to say about it. The fact that he is technically correct that the big bang is a theory doesn't chang the fact that he clearly has no understanding of how science operates. To his feeble mind, a "theory" just means an "opinion" rather than a well validated explanation. Allowing political hacks to influence how science is presented is very, very bad for science. If you don't believe me, ask the victims of Lysenko.
- Log in to post comments
somewhat askance, but pertains to the "administration's many attempts to subordinate good science for political considerations."
Change the phrase "good science" to "constitutionally given rights" and you find that the GOP simply refused to put Gonzales under oath today to testify about the illegal and unconstitutional spying on US citizens. That simply makes the entire effort to get reliable accurate information wasted and useless. Sounds like there are Deutsch's all over the place back there, protecting the W.
Does this mean that we shall soon have another theory to teach in science class? Perhaps "Appearance of Age" or AoA would be a good title. An Intelligent Designer created the universe recently, say seven thousand years ago, but the Designer formed the universe so that it actually looks billions of years old. He created images of the events so that we could admire His creation. He even left us the cosmic microwave background radiation, and now we can estimate how old he made the universe appear to be.
I am certain we can get several scientists to sign on to this theory and then demand equal time in the classroom. In fact, I would go so far as to say whoever opposes this theory is hampered by their materialistic biases and want to turn our children into atheists. AoA makes testable predictions. For example, the Designer would make a planet perfectly positioned for His creations to notice the universe, and one can merely look around to see evidence supporting this position. Also, AoA is falsifiable, for if you could show that the universe was actually old rather than being made to appear old, AoA would be disproven. In conclusion, the Appearance of Age is a scientific theory that deserves equal time in the classroom. Teach the Controversy!
Here's the part that baffles me:
What the heck? Is he actually saying the NASA has a responsibility to promulgate religious teachings? Or am I misreading it?
Sounds more like he feels his religious beliefs are threatened by NASA's and scientists' findings.
background on Deutsch reveals he is as suspected--a wingnut\
http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/
Irrational Entity | February 6, 2006 11:34 AM
Teach the Controversy!
I wouldn't mind if they taught a controversy, but that isn't the controversy that I would have taught. Up until 1963 there were two competing theories of cosmology, the Big Bang Theory and Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory. Both theories were supported by a wide range of evidence, but there was a prediction of the BBT that could not be explained by the SST: the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). In 1948, George Gamow proposed that the BBT predicted the CMBR, but it was not discovered until 1963. After the CMBR was discovered, the SST pretty much faded from the scene.
That is the controversy that I would have taught: two competing theories, both of which explained the same phenomena for most of their lives, until a phenomenon was discovered that one theory (the BBT) could explain, but the competing theory (the SST) could not.