Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Big Bang Opinion Under Political Review
Detractors contend the Bush administration is anti-science, or not interested in science, and so on. Contraire! Science is at the center of national politics and the subject of intense interest.
Just look at some of the recent incidents. George Deutsch, a 24-year-old NASA public affairs officer, a presidential appointee, emailed scientists at the agency to append the word “theory” everywhere next to the phrase “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.... 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."
Dootsie was subsequently dismissed because he had inadvertently claimed on his resume that he had graduated in journalism from Texas A&M. That should not detract from his example of enthusiastic attention to scientific detail.
In another example of attentiveness, NASA headquarters deleted comments about the ultimate demise of the sun from a press release. An email from Erica Hupp said "NASA is not in the habit of frightening the public with doom and gloom scenarios." You would think that the scientists would catch on. On the February 16 post the efforts of the administration to keep from scaring the public (and polar bears) to death about global warming were noted. Pretty soon our elected officials will be spending all their time doing science instead of reducing taxes and other stuff we need.
A lot of people thought that "teach the controversy" applied only to evolution. They forget that when the Kansas school board in 1999 removed evolution from the curriculum, they also removed the Big Bang. The issue is alive, and the administration is paying attention, as they should. How else are we going to get everyone to agree on the past, and for that matter, the future?
Just look at some of the recent incidents. George Deutsch, a 24-year-old NASA public affairs officer, a presidential appointee, emailed scientists at the agency to append the word “theory” everywhere next to the phrase “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.... 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."Dootsie was subsequently dismissed because he had inadvertently claimed on his resume that he had graduated in journalism from Texas A&M. That should not detract from his example of enthusiastic attention to scientific detail.
In another example of attentiveness, NASA headquarters deleted comments about the ultimate demise of the sun from a press release. An email from Erica Hupp said "NASA is not in the habit of frightening the public with doom and gloom scenarios." You would think that the scientists would catch on. On the February 16 post the efforts of the administration to keep from scaring the public (and polar bears) to death about global warming were noted. Pretty soon our elected officials will be spending all their time doing science instead of reducing taxes and other stuff we need.
A lot of people thought that "teach the controversy" applied only to evolution. They forget that when the Kansas school board in 1999 removed evolution from the curriculum, they also removed the Big Bang. The issue is alive, and the administration is paying attention, as they should. How else are we going to get everyone to agree on the past, and for that matter, the future?
