NASA Should Allow for Intelligent Design

If there's one place in our government where people should make space for I.D., it's clearly NASA.

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.

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."

The memo also noted that The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual specified the phrasing "Big Bang theory." Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's boss, said in an interview yesterday that for that reason, it should be used in all NASA documents.

The Deutsch memo was provided by an official at NASA headquarters who said he was upset with the effort to justify changes to descriptions of science by referring to politically charged issues like intelligent design. Senior NASA officials did not dispute the message's authenticity.

[edit]

There's a good Slashdot discussion on this topic.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

A little background material on George Deutsch, the wunderkind 24-year-old who gets to tell NASA folks how to integrate I.D. into their presentations.

"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."

Well this sounds reasonable to me really.

I always thought that it was sort of the point for the public education system to provide the reasonably-neutral "scientific" version ("neutral" as in "not tied to any single religion in particular"); people are quite free to explore the alternative religious explanations on their own if they feel like it.

Labeling it a "theory" is simply the correct approach. As with the General and Special Theories of Relativity posited by Einstein, the Big Bang theory has not yet been fully tested and explored, and has not, as yet, achieved the status of a scientific "Law."

Yes, I am well aware that all 3 of the theories mentioned have yet to be disproved by any evidence and have survived a number of specific efforts to test them, and that the Theory of Intelligent Design borders on the tautalogical as it does not admit of testing in the fashion prescribed by the scientific method.

Therefore, the chap at NASA was correct, albeit probably a bit too picky. As to whether he was motivated more by an outside agenda than by a penchant for detail, I cannot say.

NASA should allow for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://www.venganza.org/images/wallp...e1240x1024.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As to whether he was motivated more by an outside agenda than by a penchant for detail, I cannot say.

---

I think we can say with some certainty where appointee is coming from. Check out the secondary materials I referenced in post 3. A stirring example:

Let's say you find yourself fortunate enough to be stuck with a liberal roommate. Then one day your apartment becomes infested with sewer rats. You try to tell your roommate but he laughs it off and calls you a fascist. When the infestation becomes particularly prominent, however, your roommate insists on befriending the rats and begins providing them with generous servings of Swiss cheese. One day you come home and find your roommate lying on the floor and being assaulted by the vicious rats. Immediately, you manage to grab each rat by your hand and throw it into the oven. When the oven is inundated with every single rat that invaded your apartment, you turn it on and they begin slowly suffocating in excruciating heat. Instead of thanking you for your heroic bravery in saving him from the rats, your roommate snobbily remarks that you were just in the right place at the right time.

All of the lad's credentials lie in the political ideology hack department. He appears to have absolutely no scientific credibility at all. To suppose that his main concern lies in the correct usage of scientific terminology is ... credulous.

I loathe the man already after two quotes. Could be a record.

NASA is suppossed to be the jewel in the crown of American scientific endeavour. The ID-movement is just a continuation of creationism by different means.

1-0 for the anti-scientific crusade I guess. :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think we can say with some certainty where appointee is coming from. Check out the secondary materials I referenced in post 3. A stirring example:

Let's say you find yourself fortunate enough to be stuck with a liberal roommate. Then one day your apartment becomes infested with sewer rats. You try to tell your roommate but he laughs it off and calls you a fascist. When the infestation becomes particularly prominent, however, your roommate insists on befriending the rats and begins providing them with generous servings of Swiss cheese. One day you come home and find your roommate lying on the floor and being assaulted by the vicious rats. Immediately, you manage to grab each rat by your hand and throw it into the oven. When the oven is inundated with every single rat that invaded your apartment, you turn it on and they begin slowly suffocating in excruciating heat. Instead of thanking you for your heroic bravery in saving him from the rats, your roommate snobbily remarks that you were just in the right place at the right time.

All of the lad's credentials lie in the political ideology hack department. He appears to have absolutely no scientific credibility at all. To suppose that his main concern lies in the correct usage of scientific terminology is ... credulous.

---

You know that is a editorial by Christian Hartsock not George Deutsch, and that was just looking at the byline of the linked article. Still not sure what your point here is, especially since Hartsock is both a different name and his biography has his age lower then Deutsch

Redleg has a point.
Now I hate *both* of the twerps.

Mea culpa, I grabbed the wrong article. Linked it and everything, didn't stop to check. Let this be a lesson to children everywhere -- sleeplessness and posting don't mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Mea culpa, I grabbed the wrong article. Linked it and everything, didn't stop to check. Let this be a lesson to children everywhere -- sleeplessness and posting don't mix.

---

That is why I mentioned it, in the article mentioned in the first link George Deutsch seems to be an over-eager enforcer of the Public Affairs edit button. You know the type that wants all the i dotted, and t crossed before an article goes out.

So I don't know if he is just an over-eager brand new straight out of college public affairs officer, or is he what you are attempting to paint him as with such a broad brush stroke.


First link article only has this to say about the young man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

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.

---

Your other link takes me to a blog, where the linked article refers to the same post that I took this quote off of. So before I go condemning this young man as a religious extremists - lets see more proof of his extremist behavior in more neutral and somewhat more credible press - not the one-side blogs.

In otherwords please provide the link for this complete quote - because the link provided does not have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur's Orginal post

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.

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."

The memo also noted that The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual specified the phrasing "Big Bang theory." Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's boss, said in an interview yesterday that for that reason, it should be used in all NASA documents.

The Deutsch memo was provided by an official at NASA headquarters who said he was upset with the effort to justify changes to descriptions of science by referring to politically charged issues like intelligent design. Senior NASA officials did not dispute the message's authenticity

---

Second edit: I did find this blog - with the New York Times link - but it requires a subscribtion which I won't do.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...e_deutsch.html

Okay actually found it complete at this link

http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/ap...YT02/602040354

Conclusion - knucklehead 24 year old that is both over-eager in making a name for himself as public affairs specialists, and not suited for the job that he has taken. However in his defense asking the NASA scientist to add the word theory was correct - even according to his boss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

The memo also noted that The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual specified the phrasing "Big Bang theory." Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's boss, said in an interview yesterday that for that reason, it should be used in all NASA documents.

---

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."

---

Well, where on Earth has NASA done that?

Red, I think Mr. Deutsch's overall leanings are clear enough. While it is conceivable he might not have the "religous hardcase" part of the package too, it somehow seems rather... unlikely.
Certainly not something I'd bet my money on, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Red, I think Mr. Deutsch's overall leanings are clear enough. While it is conceivable he might not have the "religous hardcase" part of the package too, it somehow seems rather... unlikely.
Certainly not something I'd bet my money on, anyway.

---

Initially I could not find any supporting material that supports the first quote, since the linked article did not contain it. However I have since found several articles that lean toward the brush stroke of Lemur's and have edited my post.

I can agree with the point that scientific theories should be referred to as such, and not as given truths. That sort of stuff is the field of religions.

But then again, I've no doubt there's no shortage of pompous pricks in the scientific community who gleefully take a functionally religious approach to their theories and push them as "truths". The way theories that go against established orthodoxy tend to get treated alone suggests as much.

Heh ID. I've got no issues with Big Bang being wrong, just ID has as much scientific credibility as the universe being created by me earlier today.

It's not NASA's place to put non-scientific religious beliefs on its site to make fundalmentalists feel a bit better.

Maybe NASA could make a huge list of all the world's creation stories so they can include them.

People who promote ID think or claim it is not religiously exclusive, forgetting that many religions, like Buddhism, don't have an intelligent creator. It is not universal.

I would call the "Big Bang" a theory and ID Christianity.

Out of curiosity, are Jews and Muslims also trying to further the ID concept ? 'Cause I only ever hear of various strains of Christian mucking around with it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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."

---

What an absolute deutsch-bag.

1) The Big Bang is not an opinion.
2) It is a theory.
3) What on earth does it have to do with intelligent design? I thought evolution was the scientific version of the myth based ID?

On Evolution... if there are parallel universes the laws and theories of physics are likely to be different. On the other hand the concept of evolution is likely to apply in any universe that has life and experiences change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I can agree with the point that scientific theories should be referred to as such, and not as given truths. That sort of stuff is the field of religions.

---

I agree. I think that the very word 'theory' gets a stigma these days it doesn't deserve. Theory and opinion are very different things and most theories are inherently impossible to prove. Their strength comes from successfully passing attempts at falsification. Theories like ID, on the other hand, have no conceivable means of falsification, so they cannot even be tested, only taken on faith . . . or not. Such theories have no chance of ever displacing legitimate scientific theories because they lack the potential to be proven wrong.

Ajax

This is... way too bizarre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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."

---

Again with the lies heh? It seems that the only country with this problem in the whole globe is USA, it seems strange. Anyway this people are starting to annoy (at least to annoy me). The NASA is a fundation for the development of science. Scientific is something that you call that respects certain method. Also something scientific is something verificable, refutable, nothing related to belief is verificable nor refutable, it cannot even be treated and prooved in controlled conditions to reach any conclusions. So it doesn't matter if anything is prooved to absolutness, wich is in most cases practically imposible, what matters is if it can be prooved, if it can be verificable through expericience, all the propositions of this pseudo-science are improbable. What's a pseudo-science doing in ambients of science development and education? Well I'm hoping for sociologist to give an answer on that, analizing the american culture of the end of the past century and the beggining of this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus

Yes, I am well aware that all 3 of the theories mentioned have yet to be disproved by any evidence and have survived a number of specific efforts to test them, and that the Theory of Intelligent Design borders on the tautalogical as it does not admit of testing in the fashion prescribed by the scientific method.

---

I'm not sure if I agree with this arguement Seamus. A scientific theory by definition has to deal with the verificable reality, wich in the case of Inteligent Desing is absent. The method is absent too. The scientific method starts by observing the reality in an objective way, the "method" used by this pseudo-scientist starts by asuming a Truth and then trying to find proof that supports it, by very definition that cannot be objective, nor a science. But I agree with you in that Intelligent Desing borders in the tautological as many of the type, I think it's a direct consecuence of it's method. It's really an useless asumption at best, it doesn't add anything productive to social activity, it doesn't discover anything new, it's just a phylosophical point of view of the same reality that intelligent concient observant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

Maybe NASA could make a huge list of all the world's creation stories so they can include them.

---

It really doesn't matter. It's useless, the content of the Inteligent Design world is the same as in Evolution, the only difference is that a single invisible Force is behind every phenomenum, so they'll end using the models of Evolution anyway.
It's only a verbal dispute, nothing more trivial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I'm not sure if I agree with this arguement Seamus. A scientific theory by definition has to deal with the verificable reality, wich in the case of Inteligent Desing is absent. The method is absent too. The scientific method starts by observing the reality in an objective way, the "method" used by this pseudo-scientist starts by asuming a Truth and then trying to find proof that supports it, by very definition that cannot be objective, nor a science. But I agree with you in that Intelligent Desing borders in the tautological as many of the type, I think it's a direct consecuence of it's method. It's really an useless asumption at best, it doesn't add anything productive to social activity, it doesn't discover anything new, it's just a phylosophical point of view of the same reality that intelligent concient observant.

---

Actually, you and I are saying the same thing. The three scientific theories posited are based on aspects of observed reality and were developed from there. They are (or at least under some circumstances could be) tested.

The same is NOT true for intelligent design, hence my labeling of it as a tautology. There is no way to verify intelligent design using any scientific or logical inquiry known. It assumes a "given" that cannot be observed.

Mind you, I am fairly religious and do ascribe to the belief that a divine being more or less set everything in motion. I simply don't choose to muddy the waters by referring to this as a scientific theory. I would not go so far as to label such an assumption "useless," -- utility takes many forms when dealing with humans and society -- though I recognize that it would be functionally useless according to the rules of classic logic and the scientific method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Mind you, I am fairly religious and do ascribe to the belief that a divine being more or less set everything in motion. I simply don't choose to muddy the waters by referring to this as a scientific theory.

---

Likewise. Two different ways of searching for truth, each very successful and useful in their own realms, but with a tendency to start off fireworks when they step on each others' toes.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

It really doesn't matter. It's useless, the content of the Inteligent Design world is the same as in Evolution, the only difference is that a single invisible Force is behind every phenomenum, so they'll end using the models of Evolution anyway.
It's only a verbal dispute, nothing more trivial.

---

I was using a rhetorical device similar to sarcasm, but meant to put things into perspective, rather than ridicule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The same is NOT true for intelligent design, hence my labeling of it as a tautology. There is no way to verify intelligent design using any scientific or logical inquiry known. It assumes a "given" that cannot be observed.

---

Then we agree.

Quote:

---

Mind you, I am fairly religious and do ascribe to the belief that a divine being more or less set everything in motion. I simply don't choose to muddy the waters by referring to this as a scientific theory. I would not go so far as to label such an assumption "useless," -- utility takes many forms when dealing with humans and society -- though I recognize that it would be functionally useless according to the rules of classic logic and the scientific method.

---

That's the moderation that's needed. Though I'm rather concerned with the fact that this is happening on one of the greatest countries in the world, a sociologic analisys will surely demonstrate something interesting in that fact. As for "useless" I used it in the sense of functionality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

I was using a rhetorical device similar to sarcasm, but meant to put things into perspective, rather than ridicule.

---

Yes I know you were.:2thumbsup:

Talk about shades of "Heck of a Job" Brownie ... turns out George Deutsch didn't even graduate college, which wouldn't be a big deal except he claimed he had. In further news:

A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

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.

Officials at NASA headquarters declined to discuss the reason for the resignation.

"Under NASA policy, it is inappropriate to discuss personnel matters," said Dean Acosta, the deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and Mr. Deutsch's boss.

The resignation came as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was preparing to review its policies for communicating science to the public. The review was ordered Friday by Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, after a week in which many agency scientists and midlevel public affairs officials described to The New York Times instances in which they said political pressure was applied to limit or flavor discussions of topics uncomfortable to the Bush administration, particularly global warming.

"As we have stated in the past, NASA is in the process of revising our public affairs policies across the agency to ensure our commitment to open and full communications," the statement from Mr. Acosta said.

The statement said the resignation of Mr. Deutsch was "a separate matter."

Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington last year after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee, according to his résumé. No one has disputed those parts of the document.

According to his résumé, Mr. Deutsch received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."

Yesterday, officials at Texas A&M said that was not the case.

"George Carlton Deutsch III did attend Texas A&M University but has not completed the requirements for a degree," said an e-mail message from Rita Presley, assistant to the registrar at the university, responding to a query from The Times.

Repeated calls and e-mail messages to Mr. Deutsch on Tuesday were not answered.

Mr. Deutsch's educational record was first challenged on Monday by Nick Anthis, who graduated from Texas A&M last year with a biochemistry degree and has been writing a Web log on science policy, scientificactivist.blogspot.com.

After Mr. Anthis read about the problems at NASA, he said in an interview: "It seemed like political figures had really overstepped the line. I was just going to write some commentary on this when somebody tipped me off that George Deutsch might not have graduated."

He posted a blog entry asserting this after he checked with the university's association of former students. He reported that the association said Mr. Deutsch received no degree.

A copy of Mr. Deutsch's résumé was provided to The Times by someone working in NASA headquarters who, along with many other NASA employees, said Mr. Deutsch played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public.

Such complaints came to the fore starting in late January, when James E. Hansen, the climate scientist, and several midlevel public affairs officers told The Times that political appointees, including Mr. Deutsch, were pressing to limit Dr. Hansen's speaking and interviews on the threats posed by global warming.

Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information.

"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."

"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."

Scientists peer review process and grant allocation has at least prepared them well for politics. Having politicians decide what scientific outcomes are is crap. That is like playing diet coke Taliban.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. What a Deutsch-bag.

Okay, I can get it Bush and the Boys would like to be able to hush uncomfortable noises a little. What I don't get is just how ham-fisted they can be about the attempt...
...
...wait, I just remembered the prewar WMD circus. Nevermind.

I find it interesting that it is at all an issue to the ID crowd.

I mean Big Bang only goes so far back, the ID people could just step in and say "Well, I do not deny that is what might have happened, but God started it." BAM! Case closed.
No need to talk about it. Atheists can go about an believe there was nothing and religious people can beleive someone/-thing was there first and started it. They are not exclusive.

It is like me demanding to be mentioned every time a CD was sold because I happened to be the guy that actually made the oil into plastic.