Any presidential appointee who starts trying to tell NASA's people what they can and cannot say--especially if religion is introduced into the equation--needs to be fired on the spot, no questions asked.

"You are the weakest link. Goodbye."

This adds such a wonderful dimension to the story of the Bush Appointed NASA Inspector General who is squelching complaints, has no background in auditing, and is covering up safety violations and misappropriations of funds.

Heresy!

I think I have this shit figured out, fine-ly


God told dubya not to talk about how the universe came into being

therefore bush thinks god doesn't want anyone to talk about it

But... in his haste, dubya failed to realize one thing

God probably speaks to each person individually, and probably wants NASA to spill the beans

That goofy dubya has it all wrong, I betcha

reposted to correct a confusing typo

i hate to agree with bush people, especially when their reasons [i.e., contradicting religion (!?!)] are suspect, but the statement that the big bang theory is exactly that--a theory--is correct. furthermore, unlike the theory of evolution, the big bang theory is not nearly as universally accepted by scientists and cannot be observed in motion as can evolution. (we can observe certain phenomena, but they may be explained by other theories.)

wikipedia's "big bang" entry offers a compendium of stumbling blocks encountered by current big bang theorists under "features, issues and problems," and florida state university's physics department offers a concise description of these problems here.

again, like the theory of evolution, big bang theory is not "mere" theory (i.e., hypothesis), but neither is it as well-attested.

personally, i prefer this cosmology: bush and his lackeys are idiots.

okay, that's not a cosmology, but it's a theory that's been well supported.

So, a genuine rocket scientist does not know what he's talking about, and morons like Kurt "Dr. Dino" Hovnid are given equal credibility? God Bless the Bush administration...

if you suggest that this is the attitude of the bush administration, i'm inclined to agree. it's a dangerous proposal and yet another way in which the administration has blurred the ideologoical line between our theocratic enemies and our own administration.

if you've inferred that i personally support this position, you're quite mistaken.

incidentally, there's a christian group called "fusion" at my university who are doing a presentation passing off hovind's junk science as a viable. i've debated these people before. they can't logic their way out of a wet paper bag. dangerously ignorant and begging the question, these people.

The big problem today is that everybody is a freaking expert. There's nothing resembling proper credentials in the world of public opinoin. At least back in the day you could tell the idiots hanging around the town square with the sandwhich boards saying"repent! the end is nigh"

i agree. this has been raised to an art in the bush administration where "expertise" is not based on actual mastery of a subject but loyalty to the party line. this might not be so bad if the party line weren't so wrongheaded.

this country is in trouble, and bush is not the solution. he's symtomatic of the problem.

Sure, it's a theory, that's not surprising, since it seeks to explain something that probably happened 15 billion years ago. I'm sure the fact that it is a theory would in any NASA presentation -- you almost can't discuss the big bang without getting into the theoretical aspects of it and the parts that are as yet unexplained. The comical part of this is the idea that "the word 'theory' needed to be added after every? mention of the Big Bang." Could you imagine how silly that would sound? How insulting that would be to any student's intelligence? That reminds me of a job interview I had once where they told me about 800 times that they had a drug testing policy. Tell me once or twice, I get it, but don't try to work drug-testing policy into showing me where the bathrooms and photocopier are, OK?

Here, check this out, this may be the "NASA ... Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students." http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Einstein_5-8.html

I'll quote every instance of Big Bang: "Einstein's theories about light, motion, gravity, mass and energy began a new era of science. They led to the big-bang theory of how the universe was born. ... Scientists are using their minds and NASA instruments to answer three important questions: What could have powered the big bang? What is dark energy? What happens at the edge of a black hole? ... There are different theories for how the universe began. The big-bang theory says that it began when a tiny but dense mass of energy exploded. ... The picture shows what the universe looked like less than a billion years after the big bang would have taken place. Bennett and others are trying to figure out what could have caused the big bang. ... That's not long after the Big Bang would have taken place."

There's so many qualifiers already -- there's two uses of 'theory," a statement that there are still questions about the big bang, a statement that there are other theories, a couple 'would have taken place"s -- do we really need to add "theory" after every single one? In the name of respecting "Intelligent Design"?

The comical part of this is the idea that "the word 'theory' needed to be added after every? mention of the Big Bang.Could you imagine how silly that would sound? How insulting that would be to any student's intelligence?

at this point, i quite agree. it does need to be pointed out early on that big bang cosmology is theoretical, but after a while it is not only redundant but insulting.

There's so many qualifiers already -- there's two uses of "theory"....

ah, but this is where i.d./creationism often cleans up! equivocation is their stock in trade. i see little difference in their equivocal manipulation of ambiguities inherent in use of the term "theory" and the following equivocal fallacy from lewis carroll's through the looking glass:

"who did you pass on the road today?" the king went on, holding his hand out to the messenger for some hay.
"nobody," said the messenger.
"quite right," said the king; "this young lady saw him too. nobody walks slower than you."

do we really need to add "theory" after every single one? In the name of respecting "Intelligent Design"?

one needn't support the intelligent design hypothesis to recognize it is necessary to differentiate between theory--no matter how well-developed--and empirical fact. these distinctions need to be made to support the scientific process, not to undermine it. again, the big bang theory is still controversial because many responsible scientists contest its overall validity. no responsible scientist contests the theory of evolution--only its details.

much empirical data seems to support big bang cosmology--therefore it deserves recognition as a grand theory. however, the same cannot be said for intelligent design, which is a hypothesis upsupported by robust data. scientists have another phrase for such hypotheses which are forwarded as viable theories: junk science.

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."

I'm going to go bang my head against a wall for awhile, now. The thing that bugs me the most about so-called "intelligent design" is that it's such a blatant cover for Xstianity. What makes them think their creator myth is any different from any other culture's creation myth?