NASA Should Allow for Intelligent Design

[Soulforged]

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.

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.

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.