Intelligent Design promoted over Big Bang theory by 24 year old NASA appointee

February 5, 2006 11:58 AM

Religious Nuttery Wins Out over Scientific Fact 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 résumé 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.
posted by mk1gti (82 comments total)

Heh, was just making an FPP of this.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:01 PM on February 5, 2006

P.S. working link.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:02 PM on February 5, 2006

Ummmmm...

The link is broken, so I can't RTFA, but the Big Bang is a theory. It's been supported by evidence, but it's still a theory.
posted by anomie at 12:02 PM on February 5, 2006

anomie: "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." From the memo.

Watch out gravity - you're next!
posted by Krrrlson at 12:06 PM on February 5, 2006

Yeah the Big bang is a theory, that is correct. I don't understand why we need to identify it as such every time we talk about it though. When I mention atoms or molecules, I don't feel a need to say that the existence of atoms is only a theory.

Here's my compromise. Every time evolution or the big bang is mentioned, I will use the word theory in the same sentence. Every time a Christian, Muslim or Jew speaks of anything to do with their religion, they must use the phrase "ancient tribal myth" in the same sentence.
posted by gagglezoomer at 12:09 PM on February 5, 2006

Well, he's right that it's a theory. He's full of BS on everything else, though. I guess evolution isn't rocket science.

Break out "intelligent falling", folks.
posted by kaemaril at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2006

The Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory. Same goes for evolution.

Of course, biological or cosmological Creationism isn't even a theory. It isn't even a proper hypothesis.

And for some strange reason I personally find steady-state cosmological models more attractive than even the cyclical Big Bang models.
posted by loquacious at 12:12 PM on February 5, 2006

Intelligent Falling.
posted by homunculus at 12:15 PM on February 5, 2006

Hmmm, interesting subject, but a poorly constructed post. The first link is dead, and the second link is the same as the third and is, in practice, just picking some low hanging fruit.

In other news, I wish I was a college republican because they got all the good jobs.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:16 PM on February 5, 2006

Reading about fundamentalist idiots like this having increasing influence over our government, our lives, our employment, businesses, science, the courts, our voting systems, our health care and access to it, etc. makes the thought of religious genocide seem more and more palatable every day. Unfortunately the religious zealots have control of the military, the police and the intelligence agencies. Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all . . .
posted by mk1gti at 12:16 PM on February 5, 2006

Before you can build new theories based on old ones, you have to be able to quickly refer to the old theories. This requires you to assume these theories as fact, and not constantly be qualifying them as theories. Yes, it is a theory. Do you have a better one? If so, please tell us. If not, then let's just move on, shall we?
posted by Laugh_track at 12:16 PM on February 5, 2006

gagglezoomer wins.
posted by odinsdream at 12:17 PM on February 5, 2006

I am continually astonished at Metafilter. The big bang is a theory. just because it is the dominant theory at this moment in history does not make it a fact. just because the motivations of the people referenced in this post happen to be religious that doesnt invalidate their arguments. Ad Hominem circumstantial.
posted by tranceformer at 12:18 PM on February 5, 2006

Sorry about the linkage issues, I added to third in case the second didn't work, which bungled up the first, which . . . *sploogified the whole thing*. I feel. . . so bad . . .
posted by mk1gti at 12:18 PM on February 5, 2006

Another link.
posted by homunculus at 12:18 PM on February 5, 2006

i am tired of seeing "theory" used as a derogatory mark of suspicion. the philosophy of science produces nothing but theories, where "facts" are nothing more than theories with "sufficient" amounts of evidence.

and of course the big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence.
posted by paradroid at 12:18 PM on February 5, 2006

makes the thought of religious genocide seem more and more palatable every day.

Um, no, it doesn't. Thanks for contributing though.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:24 PM on February 5, 2006

Please stop saying things are "just" theories.
posted by glenwood at 12:27 PM on February 5, 2006

tranceformer, yes, the Big Bang is a scientific theory, but the email from the PR guy wasn't shooting for more accurate scientific terminology, the post should have mentioned this quote:

“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.”

and the fact that the change was insisted on web site material being prepared for middle school kids.

It's an attempt to discount the result of a hundred years of research to push a more religious-based story.
posted by mathowie at 12:30 PM on February 5, 2006

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted
- last words of Hassan I Sabbah, master of the Order of Assassins
posted by destro at 12:32 PM on February 5, 2006

Yeah the Big bang is a theory, that is correct. I don't understand why we need to identify it as such every time we talk about it though.

The Big Bang Theory is the only appropropriate nomenclature.

Along the same lines, if one wants to refer to Intelligent Design it might properly be called The Intelligent Design fantasy because it has none of the hallmarks of a theory.
posted by three blind mice at 12:46 PM on February 5, 2006

Three blind mice, didn't you know that when a scientist wants to invoke a theory, it is demanded that this theory will contain every possible refutation of every possible argument against itself, or that theory is invalid?

Conversely, when a IDist wants to invoke a theory, wild-ass guesses are to be given as much credence as 2+2=4.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 12:56 PM on February 5, 2006

Unfortunately, the George Deutsch money shot was left out of the FPP text. Here it is, so we don't waste any more time parsing the word "theory":


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."


posted by digaman at 12:59 PM on February 5, 2006

Basically, George Deustsch should be cockpunched, repeatedly.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:04 PM on February 5, 2006

Mr. Deutsch's phone number is on this release, if anyone feels like giving him a call.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:08 PM on February 5, 2006

The problem isn't with calling the Big Bang Theory and theory... That's what it is. The problem is with the emphasis on the word "theory." They mean it in the "It's just a theory!" sense of "random ass guess," as opposed to, "a model consistent with all known physical data, useful in making real world predictions, etc..."

At the same time, they're not doing anything to improve education in the sciences, so people aren't gaining understanding about what science is, and so yes, everything remains "just a theory."

Maybe scientists should elect to stop using the word "theory" as long as politicians are using it for political gains, and instead just say something else. Maybe "model."
posted by dsword at 1:36 PM on February 5, 2006

Maybe Deutsch should study the "Separation of Church and State" Theory.
posted by lobstah at 1:37 PM on February 5, 2006

lobstah, that's just a theory.
posted by dsword at 1:39 PM on February 5, 2006

While it may sound correct, it really is a gross error to agree with theocratic neomedievalists like Deutsch that the Big Bang or any other scientific concept is a "theory".

Why? Because these diabolical douche bags are deliberately exploiting the semantic confusion between the proper scientific use of the word "theory" (that is, an explanatory system that predicts and embraces a variety of interrelated phenomena--with the scope of that embrace being a measure of the depth of theory) and the colloquial use of "theory" (that is, something that is speculative and of which one is not quite sure).

So don't give them an inch. ALWAYS attack the deliberately misleading use of "theory". When they say "it's just a theory" tell them they have no fucking idea what the word means.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:47 PM on February 5, 2006

oops. what dsword said.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:50 PM on February 5, 2006

I blame the scientists. I really do. Change the fucking word from "theory" to something else. Make it "supertheory" of evolution - I don't care. Model, construct, paradigm - I don't care. You'll never, ever win the argument by saying that there's a special scientific definition that's separate from every other use of the word.
posted by sachinag at 2:00 PM on February 5, 2006

It's only a model!

(shh)
posted by flabdablet at 2:06 PM on February 5, 2006

>>I don't understand why we need to identify it as such every time we talk about it though.

Because to the layperson it means a hunch or a guess. The ID crowd uses this to their advantage. At this point we might as well use it all the time. Don't say gravity. Say, the theory of gravity. The theory of photosynthesis. Or the intelligent design conjecture.

>>instead just say something else. Maybe "model."

Do you really think any word is safe from such a well funded and well organized campaign? "A model? Yes one built on theory." "Another anti-creationist model." "Its called a model because they know nothing about the real thing." etc

Or they can go back to naming everything "laws," but that'll feed the "and look, science has change so many so-called laws so many times" garbage. Theory is fine, thanks.

If anything this shows a disturbing lack of basic science education in the US.

On the bright side I don't see how any of this is convincing to anyone who didn't believe in creationism to begin with. These people are such transparent evangelists I doubt they're reaching anyone outside their own echo chamber. If 'theory' is science's troublesome word then 'credibility' is theirs.
posted by skallas at 2:06 PM on February 5, 2006

This must be step 2 in the Republican war against science -- they went from a "don't know and don't care to know either" attitude and right into direct warfare.
posted by clevershark at 2:13 PM on February 5, 2006

What a douche.

... Hey, you were thinking the same thing.
posted by Plinko at 2:14 PM on February 5, 2006

You'll never, ever win the argument by saying that there's a special scientific definition that's separate from every other use of the word.

Well, I'm certainly not advocating trying to convince them of anything. What I am saying is to call them out for being lying sacks of shit.

But, your main point still holds: scientists have the responsibility to get pissed off and fight back.

It's not just the so-called "softer" parts of the humanities that are being attacked by the rightist bullies, but the very core of the enlightenment project itself. These assholes understand that Reason is their enemy. Their larger aims depend on recreating a culture of magical irrationalism, in which Truth is the special province only of those annointed by God.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:17 PM on February 5, 2006

Hmm... I don't really think the big-bang theory is as well supported as evolution at all. We don't know nearly as much about quantum physics as we do about genetics -- which mostly operate at an observable level.

Also, unlike the evolution you can't just go look at another big bang the way you can look at diffrent species turning into other species.
posted by delmoi at 2:21 PM on February 5, 2006

orwellian nightmare. Ive read an essay of his on the use (abuse!) of language toward political ends. Its only been recently that ive realized he was on to something.

After i become emperor, this guy gets his balls taken.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:25 PM on February 5, 2006

Come on, delmoi. You're missing the point by a wide margin. The degree of experimental support for a scientific theory does not change its fundamental nature as a theory. There's no question that the Big Bang is still an open issue. But if it does not hold up over time, it will be replaced by something equally objectionable to the neomedievalists.

Are you seriously suggesting that the meaning behind Deutsche's insistence that the Big Bang be called a theory was that he just wanted to emphasize its scientific status vis a vis, say, general relativity or quantum mechanics? If so, you didn't read the whole article.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:29 PM on February 5, 2006

delmoi: It's not as well supported perhaps, but it is phenomenally well supported. It's certainly beyond any reasonable (and probably most unreasonable) doubt.

You don't need to understand much quantum mechanics to understand the evidence for the big bang either.

We can't go and look at another big bang, but that doesn't present us with a particularly big problem. There's plenty of evidence that it happened, we don't need to see more of them to double check.

For anyone wanting to check on the evidence for the big bang, this article was published on talk.origins, and it covers modern cosmology brilliantly.
posted by edd at 2:35 PM on February 5, 2006

delmoi : "I don't really think the big-bang theory is as well supported as evolution at all."

And you are quite right at that - there are even some serious competing theories (unfortunately for Mr. Deutsch, none of them was proposed by ancient tribal leaders thousands of years ago). But in the past few years the mounting evidence of a Big Bang began to tip the scale for this one explanation for the present configuration of the observable Universe.

In the end, this kind of thing should not be allowed to turn into a popularity contest, but I see few options short of fighting these obscurantists in every front available. Anything else means condemning a whole generation to ignorance, fear and slavery, because all these religious fanatics are after is a return to the middle ages, so they can burn and kill everyone who disagrees with their superstition.
posted by nkyad at 2:38 PM on February 5, 2006

(correction, not talk.origins, that's the group. I mean talkorigins.org, as the link itself makes clear!)
posted by edd at 2:40 PM on February 5, 2006

Are you seriously suggesting that the meaning behind Deutsche's insistence that the Big Bang be called a theory was that he just wanted to emphasize its scientific status vis a vis, say, general relativity or quantum mechanics? If so, you didn't read the whole article.

Did I say that I was?
posted by delmoi at 2:40 PM on February 5, 2006

Did I say that I was?

It was a possible interpretation. But that's why I formed it as an interrogative. Cool if the answer is "no".

But I'm still wondering, then, what the point of the comment was--that Deutsche is sorta right? Because he's not. Not at all. Not one tiny bit.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:43 PM on February 5, 2006

The more fundamentalists you put into government, the more automatons you control.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:46 PM on February 5, 2006

the Big Bang, gravity, DNA -- all theories. the only proven fact is that dark-skinned men who believe in a false god crashed those planes into the WTC

so take your Christian fundy Kool-Aid and shut up
posted by matteo at 2:55 PM on February 5, 2006

delmoi: We don't know nearly as much about quantum physics as we do about genetics...

The standard model is the most successful scientific model ever known to humans. Period. Here, try a Google search: "The most successful theory".

It still has some problems, yes, but it's made predictions that are accurate to 7 significant figures. Such accuracy simply may never be attained by chemistry, biology, or any other science. In short, we perhaps know more about quantum physics than about anything in the Universe.

edd: You don't need to understand much quantum mechanics to understand the evidence for the big bang either.

Perhaps not to be convinced that it likely happened, but to understand the physics of it, you certainly do need quantum mechanics.

On preview:
matteo: the Big Bang, gravity, DNA -- all theories. the only proven fact is that dark-skinned men who believe in a false god crashed those planes into the WTC

Bush didn't really have a problem with the whole "Saddam has WMD" thing being "just a theory," did he?
posted by dsword at 3:01 PM on February 5, 2006

dsword: well, yes. I understand what's involved. I'm a cosmologist.
posted by edd at 3:04 PM on February 5, 2006

This is an usual misconception , a theory isn't necessarily a concept based on conjectures I made while sitting on the John.

Let see a few words ..words are less important then facts, yet if jdsjdsj lkasssa if we don't agree on words ndsj laaa fuckafucka we cannot communicate effectively GNAAAA.

A thesis is a position I hold : for instance I have got this thesis that all Mefites are ghey homersexuals.I now need to substantiate, give some support to my thesis, otherwise Matt will come and tell me to fuck off because I spew bullshit more then a tabloid in a busy summer.

To substantiate, support my thesis I offer some Hypothesis which is an ancient greek work , combined by two words that are hypo which means under and of course thesis. What is under the basement of any solid house ? Good solid concrete , the foundation ! So the greek that were smartasses tought to take the two word and make one hypothesis to represent the ideas and arguments I use to reinforce, maintain my thesis.

I make the hypothesis " because God told me Mefites are the gheyest around" ...and take the thesis and say

Hypothesis : God told me Mefites are ghey
Thesis : I sustain Mefites are ghey

Without ANY hypothesis my thesis would be a mere statement like "The sun is yellow" or "Fuck I'd like me a cold beer" ...pretty impressive.

Now a Theory is an attempt to look at, a construction, a speculation regarding some idea. Some have theories saying mefites are liberal, some that are ghey, some that they are fucking intelligent and a good representation of the best of internet...all these theories can exist at the some time, but ideally only one would approximate facts better then others.

Now making theories is fun ..if you don't have to prove your hypothesis..so I can say God is delicious and some will say "yay" and other "nay" and that will be it. Try doing that with natural phenomenon, offering solid causal chains that can be proved by somebody else indipendently in very similar conditions.
posted by elpapacito at 3:13 PM on February 5, 2006

Georges LeMaitre, Catholic monsignor.
posted by raysmj at 3:25 PM on February 5, 2006

Personally I'm not a fan of the Big Bang. It seems too restricting. I'm more inclined to believe in a Big Bounce or some kind of oscillating universe. Still, either view is much better than believing in gods, leprechauns and other delusions.
posted by movilla at 3:41 PM on February 5, 2006

I hate these people.

And I'm profoundly disappointed in some MeFites who should know better being so (purposefully?) dense as to not grok what is going on here.

theocratic neomedievalists

What a fantastic phrase. Consider it stolen.

Here's my compromise. Every time evolution or the big bang is mentioned, I will use the word theory in the same sentence. Every time a Christian, Muslim or Jew speaks of anything to do with their religion, they must use the phrase "ancient tribal myth" in the same sentence.

Best idea I have heard this year.

Also, those of you who think this is over the word "theory", please re-read digaman's post, please.

I remember what I was like when I was 24. Having a 24 year-old appointee at NASA is simply embarrassing to our nation.
posted by Ynoxas at 3:53 PM on February 5, 2006

Well here is an interesting theory by Alex Mayer. He claims the universe is steady state, not expanding, and there was no big bang.

Instead he claims that time runs in different directions in different places and if we observe some part of the universe where time's direction is different than ours (caused by the curvature of space)it will appear that time is running slower there. This slow running time is normally explained as doppler red shift which implies the universe is expanding.

And also rotating masses give off energy, which explains the cosmic background radiation.

And black holes are hooked to white holes on the opposite side of the universe and the traversal of matter through such connections is responsible for the synthesis of light elements.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 3:54 PM on February 5, 2006

MonkeySaltedNuts : It's an intriguing hypothesis, certainly.
posted by kaemaril at 4:05 PM on February 5, 2006

People: don't get caught up in the semantics game over "theory."

The Big Bang theory is a theory, of course. And thanks to the generally pitiful knowledge of science by Americans, saying the Big Bang is just a theory means it is just as valid or invalid as the Genesis creation myth.

That is what the Heritage Foundation fuckwad was asserting -- he does not know science from his asshole, and he was insisting that NASA make sure that the Big Bang was put on the same level as the Bible.

This journalist-trained PR flack kid is censoring the words of PhDs at NASA.

Welcome to the Great Soviet America, people. Congratulations, Republicans.
posted by teece at 4:40 PM on February 5, 2006

Well, I'm certainly not advocating trying to convince them of anything. What I am saying is to call them out for being lying sacks of shit.

That's great and all, but the only people listening are people who already agree with you. We can pat ourselves on the back at how smart we are and stuff like that, get really indignant, and fill the screen with text. The enemies of science don't care - they're the ones in power, they're the ones who get cushy gigs at NASA at the age of 24 because they're party hacks, and so on.

They're winning. Or rather, they have won. The rest is just the foreseeable machinations as they tighten the screws on the rest of us. I honestly don't know what we can do about it - open our own schools to teach real science, and respect for real science? Well, using the internet to help educate kids about these sorts of things would be a great start, I think. But the kids have to want to know, and seek it out. This is tough when school is all about conformity and sponging up what you're told, and our enemies are hard at work getting their bullshit into the schools. They are many, they are in power, they have shitloads of money, they are angry as hell at us, and frankly, the poll numbers don't look good for us. Average Americans seem to think teaching ID alongside evolution is a good idea, at least if I am recalling correctly some of the poll data I've seen.

Having a 24 year-old appointee at NASA is simply embarrassing to our nation.

I find it to be more than that. It is ostentatiously *obscene* and an affront to all competent people everywhere. It is a testament to the total abject failure of our system of leadership to be able to put competent people in positions of importance. I wish it were uncommon, but it is anything but.

I'm feeling especially cynical today. Please, someone say something that will give me some small glimmer of hope. As it is now I worry we'll be commiserating in some sort of work camp in a few years... (ok, ok, I am a doomsayer, but I like to be wrong about things like this. Really.)
posted by beth at 5:15 PM on February 5, 2006

Also, those of you who think this is over the word "theory", please re-read digaman's post, please.

With pleasure

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."

So let' see Mr. Deutsch opinion is that Big Bang is an opinion as opposed to a proven fact ; yet he offers no explanation about why the Big Band theory is an opinon nor offer any exaplanation on it's not being a "fact".

Actually his statement is void of hypothesis , so it's pretty much..an article of faith ? A Belief ? Or maybe it is just another electoral "victory" (whoa, a fundie at NASA!) to convince the fundie electorate voting again for this gubment is doubleplus good.
posted by elpapacito at 5:19 PM on February 5, 2006

Ops should have been on preview

beth: Average Americans seem to think teaching ID alongside evolution is a good idea, at least if I am recalling correctly some of the poll data I've seen.

Please, someone say something that will give me some small glimmer of hope.

There you go. Did you know poll data is routinely manipulated to show whatever you please ? It's done in many ways, some rude like telling outright bold faced lies, some more sophisticated by hinding under layers of math that prove meaningless assumptions.

Don't assume that somebody really knows what "people want" ...look at how big was the demonstration in U.S. before the Iraq war started ..a lot of people showed up disproving statistics.
posted by elpapacito at 5:24 PM on February 5, 2006

Ummmm, wasn't the Big Bang one of the religionists favorite parts of science? Because it supported the whole "let there be light" jazz?
posted by telstar at 5:53 PM on February 5, 2006

Ugh, this makes the Chinese Space Program a lot more attractive now.
posted by Citizen Premier at 5:56 PM on February 5, 2006

looks like the USA is wasting it's time on the "war on terror" when all along it is being eaten away at from within by it's own taliban.
posted by zog at 6:24 PM on February 5, 2006

as of Fall '06 Texas A&M doen't offer that major anymore... just the minor.
posted by graham1881 at 6:53 PM on February 5, 2006

24 years old? Wow, they are really picking their fall guys young these days. This will get buried just like the scores of damning stories that preceded it. And science will continue to get ignored ...
posted by intermod at 7:51 PM on February 5, 2006

This is like insisting that (for example) Condeleeza Rice be hereafter referred to as "Condeleeza Rice, a Negro" when her name appears in print. It is offensive not because it is untrue, but because it is an emotionally-charged irrelevancy introduced to distract and derail.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:36 PM on February 5, 2006

Gee, I wonder where it's all headed ?
posted by troutfishing at 8:45 PM on February 5, 2006

Gee, I wonder where it's all headed ?
---------------------------
Well, here are some historical possibilities:
6 million jews exterminated in Hitler's concentration camps.

World reaction: Maybe if we try to reason with them it will work out.

30 million russians exterminated in Stalin's purges.

World reaction: Maybe if we try to reason with them it will work out.

70 million chinese exterminated in Mao's purges.

World reaction: Maybe if we try to reason with them it will work out.

1.5 to 2 million cambodians dead in Pol Pot's purges.

World reaction: Maybe if we try to reason with them it will work out.

180,000 dead in East Timor

World reaction: Maybe if we try to reason with them it will work out.

Iraqi civilians killed and wounded during Gulf War I, II and the sanctions in between: 2 to 3 million.

World reaction: Maybe if we try to reason with them it will work out.

Google is your friend. Look it up.
posted by mk1gti at 9:04 PM on February 5, 2006

Did you know that alcohol and drugs really increase the chances of having sex and geting a disease?
posted by pwedza at 10:21 PM on February 5, 2006

Having read the NYT article, words can't express how angry and disgusted I am.

Mr. Wild declined to be interviewed; Mr. Deutsch did not respond to e-mail or phone messages. On Friday evening, repeated queries were made to the White House about how a young presidential appointee with no science background came to be supervising Web presentations on cosmology and interview requests to senior NASA scientists.

The only response came from Donald Tighe of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "Science is respected and protected and highly valued by the administration," he said.

The Bush administration: At war with reality.
posted by russilwvong at 10:30 PM on February 5, 2006

mk1gti: Of course with respect to East Timor, Suharto and Kissinger had already worked it out.
posted by beerbajay at 3:24 AM on February 6, 2006

Without science, America is doomed. In this world, science is the supreme power. If the science isn't happening in America, it will happen somewhere else. It is what makes us human!

Between bankruptcy, lawlessness and dumbing-down, America is weakened by this administration. The perfection with which they drive us downward, so fast, makes me think it is deliberate. This administration wishes to see America become a nation of ignorant slaves. But slaves to whom? Whoever can keep us warm and light the night, and protect us from monsters we are too stupid to recognize as men or our own imaginations.
posted by Goofyy at 4:00 AM on February 6, 2006

beerbajay
It's because of Kissinger's support for East Timor, Chile, etc. that he has to check his 'international arrest warrant index' every time he leaves the U.S. now.

I hope he has to look over his shoulder for the rest of his natural life.
posted by mk1gti at 4:28 AM on February 6, 2006

Welcome to Idiot America. However, hope reigns eternal.
posted by sfts2 at 8:05 AM on February 6, 2006

More hope. At least, with mainstream media attention, perhaps some Heartlanders will wake up.
posted by sfts2 at 8:09 AM on February 6, 2006

Um, dare I say it?

This reminds me of the politicization of Soviet Biology.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:55 AM on February 6, 2006

If one reads historical accounts of stalinist bolshevism or mao 'communism' it readily becomes apparent how similar republican conservatism resembles those ideologies far more than liberalism does. The parallels are striking.
Be a good comrade. Do not question dear leader, he knows best. Have faith in the homeland. . . Onward into the fog. . .
posted by mk1gti at 9:40 AM on February 6, 2006

And thus continues the American decline.

I'm going to learn Mandarin while there is still time.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 9:54 AM on February 6, 2006

"If one reads historical accounts of stalinist bolshevism or mao 'communism' it readily becomes apparent how similar republican conservatism resembles those ideologies far more than liberalism does." - Well, the architects of the new ( religious ) right have talked openly of studying the revolutionary tactics of Maop and the Bolsheviks.... So, state mandated ideologically driven Lysenkoist science is not too far of a stretch.

Grover Norquist used to have a poster of Mao up in his office. Who knows, maybe he's become self conscious and taken it down by now..
posted by troutfishing at 10:14 AM on February 6, 2006

“ "ancient tribal myth" in the same sentence.”
- posted by gagglezoomer

I’m all for that.

I don’t have a problem with the Big bang being called a theory, I do have a problem with it being called an “opinion” by Deutsch. They’re both loaded terms - although ‘theory’ seems to be getting co-opted.


“...Big Band (sic) theory”- elpapacito

And lo Glenn Miller looked upon the surface of the deep and said ‘let there be swing!’
posted by Smedleyman at 10:33 AM on February 6, 2006

mondo dentro: theocratic neomedievalists

Awesome.
posted by ryanrs at 2:32 PM on February 6, 2006

George Deutsch did not actually graduate from Texas A&M
posted by rxrfrx at 1:35 PM on February 7, 2006

As I was saying:

1. Deny the problem.
2. Identify the fall guy.
3. Kill him off.
4. Bury the story.
5. Continue to ignore science.
6. Profit!!!
posted by intermod at 8:21 PM on February 7, 2006

Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
posted by Ynoxas at 9:07 AM on February 9, 2006