Comments on: Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory

By: Who’s Funding You? | Cosmic Variance

Who’s Funding You? | Cosmic Variance — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:49:53 +0000

[...] Sufficient federal funding for science is one thing that can help in such matters, in principle providing unbiased backing for good science. However, as we have seen recently, vigilance is still necessary to ensure that the ideological biases of individuals in a given administration do not influence how such science is reported and even conducted. [...]

By: The Badass Astronomer | Cosmic Variance

The Badass Astronomer | Cosmic Variance — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:43:48 +0000

[...] Over at Bad Astronomy Blog, Phil Plait reports on his role on a panel at the AAAS meeting, discussing the attack on science. Almost at the last minute, Phil abandoned his original topic and discussed, among other things, the Deutsch affair, finishing up with what sounds like an impassioned plea for scientists, journalists and educators to beat back the assault on reason. You can read more details on his blog, but I particularly liked his advice to journalists To the media, please, donâ€™t simply take what people say and repeat it. Donâ€™t feel the need to get “balance” in your reporting by talking to “both sides”. Sometimes there arenâ€™t two sides! If someone builds a Holocaust museum, would you interview a white supremacist who says the Holocaust never happened to achieve “balance”? When a new vaccine comes out for a virus, would you interview a homeopath so that “both sides are heard”? This administration has put a jack-booted heel to the throat of science for years, and itâ€™s the mediaâ€™s responsibility to shine a light on it. Iâ€™ll admit to not pulling my weight in this issue, but, obviously, that stops today. [...]

By: eLaine

eLaine — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:50:34 +0000

What do you think is the meaning of “theory” then?,,Theory needs to be proven, or has not yet proved. SO how can they say that the Big Bang is correct and true if it is still known as a THEORY? pls. answer me!!! ehehhehe

By: Danger in London’s Science Museum | Cosmic Variance

Danger in London’s Science Museum | Cosmic Variance — Thu, 25 May 2006 17:00:25 +0000

[...] What I am complaning about is the fact that the Science Museum has decided to shy away from using the word “theory” when describing Einstein’s General and Special Relativity. They’ve replaced the word “theory” with “law”. Why? you might consider this to be semantics but it is not. There is a very important misunderstanding of what the word “theory” means in a scientific context. This misunderstanding is dangerous. This misunderstanding has already been exploited for political means, and I am sure that it will be exploited again. Recall the discussion about the NASA administration official saying that the Big Bang is “just a theory”, for example. (See a post about it here, with discussion.) (See also a post about the use of the word in a scientific context, here.) [...]

By: Ich bin Atheist · Nur eine Theorie?

Ich bin Atheist · Nur eine Theorie? — Wed, 24 May 2006 20:32:47 +0000

[...] Der eingentliche Grund, warum ich all das schreibe, ist, dass es jetzt auch die “Theorie” vom Urknall (Big Bang), also der Entstehung des Universums getroffen hat. Ein übereifriger Funktionär der Bush-Regierung will der NASA verbieten, den Big Bang als eine Tatsache darzustellen. Wenn es nicht so traurig wäre, könnte man sich darüber totlachen. [...]

By: Tom Sevigny

Tom Sevigny — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:26:00 +0000

Wow somebody needed there thoughts invoked.

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:27:51 +0000

Spatulated, I would like to build upon your “thought-invoking” comment. If Mr. Deutsch is so adamant about classifying Big Bang as a mere nebulous theory, Christians - who are so eager to incorporate religion into science - should be adamant about classifying God as a mere nebulous theory. Furthermore, as long as these Christians are so eager to play upon the scientific landscape, they must equally abide by the rules of the scientific method. Therefore, as these Christians intertwine religious dogma with the scientific method, these Christians must come to the harsh realization that their almighty God is nothing more than a mere nebulous theory.

By: Spatulated

Spatulated — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:10:03 +0000

I donâ€™t know if something like this was said… but I think churches should be required to reference god as a theory.

According to god theory, he said “let there be…”

By: Tom Sevigny

Tom Sevigny — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:15:31 +0000

It just goes to show you what brilliant minds we have in the executive branch of government today. May God help us…

By: TofuPunk >> Cuz all the good names were taken » Blog Archive » Aladdin’s Cafe on 33rd = yummy

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 06:37:43 +0000

[...] * The 24 old Bush appointee who told NASA to add the word â€œtheoryâ€ after mentions of the Big Bang has resigned. Turns out he never even graduated from college, hee hee hee. [...]

By: tom sevigny

tom sevigny — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:53:26 +0000

Hello,
I do not dispute that the big bang theory pertaining to the creation of the universe as a possibility. The presumption it resulted strictly by a physical force acting upon matter however is still a matter of conjecture.
Intelligent design and the biblical account of the origin of living systems is at odds with evolutionary theory. The book of Genesis is however compatible with the big bang theory as the creation of the solar system and the universe is not exhaustively explained in the scriptures.
The Bible does however stress that God brought into being all that we see. According to these writings, in the beginning the earth was void and without form.
The real issue I would say is that until something is definitively proven, it is still a theory.

By: Timmerblog » Blog Archive » The war rages

Timmerblog » Blog Archive » The war rages — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:39:49 +0000

[...] In this particular case, the deception was aimed at covering up evidence of global warming, an agenda of Bush’s corporate and oil constituencies. But the americans have been equally vigilant in squelching science which threatens fundamentalist religious supersititions, as well. Religious meddling at NASA has extended to attempts to undermine big-bang theory because it conflicts with the bible. [...]

By: tom sevigny

tom sevigny — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:01:47 +0000

Hey Rusty,
Everybody is entitled to believe what they wish. We all should make an attempt to understand the wonders of the universe. The sciences do their best to explore the cosmos and to observe the living systems and geological dynamics of this planet and they do a rather efficient job especially with the advent of new technologies. I take issue with people who would rather keep their head in the sand and simply accept what is than those who seek. Can you honestly say that the “why” is not as important question as how?
Theology is not the antithesis of science. Don’t be fooled. Many of the greatest minds of the last millenium
who made significant contributions to science were theists and many became theists based upon the discoveries they made. Secularism,humanism and atheism are “ideologies” that set forth the presumption that the origin of all matter has come into existence randomly.
The theory of spontaneous generation was another brilliant (sarcasm) concept. This took more faith to accept than Moses’ parting of the Red Sea. Why do evolutionists use the term “design” which is a term appropriately attributed to a thinking living being when describing the mechanics of nature? The degree of complexity of the living systems all around us is evidence of a creator with supreme intelligence.
There, I showed my cards.
As for Christians killing people…Read the “red letters” in the New Testament and show me anywhere where Jesus from Nazareth advocated murder for any reason. Men murder other men despite his teaching not because he condoned it. I cannot however say that about Mohammed. He was kind of partial to using his sword rather than his tongue. In the fifth century he was promoting his faith through extreme violence. It’s no wonder the followers of this Arab prophet are willing to kill people over a cartoon.
Trashing theism in general and lumping all religions in the recycling bin for deletion without regard for their founders intent is not very scientific. Hee Hee.

Regards,
Tom

By: Rusty Shackleford

Rusty Shackleford — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:56:55 +0000

Im afraid I have to agree most with ATHIEST (122) and LIFE_OF_BRIAN (98) on most of these issues. I am not personaly religious, however beleive in the “to each his own philosophy.” What I have a problem with is people who invade other’s personal inalienable rights for the sake of faith such as muslim suicide bombers and christian housewives who kill their children for the sake of a better afterlife.

I also have a problem with religious people who so blindly devote themselves to god or allah or whoever the hell else without seriously reciprocating the possibilities first. Does a god exist? Maybe, I guess you could call me agnostic, but I do know that life everyone should make the best of life and (at the risk of being labeled really gay) you should go out with a positive attitude and make the world a better place.

I know personaly that I am not going to devot myself to a faith just because some random middle eastern guy in a turban said without having some type of rational thought toward my own means of existence. Nonetheless, I belive that our society and gov’t should be totaly secualr and advocate science, space research and stuff like that.

Can’t we all just get along without going to war, killing each other, or providing an environment of intolerance, ignorance, and apathy?

By: tom sevigny

tom sevigny — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:18:29 +0000

Hello,
I read back in a post a while back from a fellow named JW stating that a law and a theory are pretty much the same. What’s that all about? No wonder everybody is so messed up over the classification of a theory/hypothesis
My understanding of what a law is relating to physics or science: a sequence of natural events occurring with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions. In otherwords scientists have observed these events occurring where the conditions were the same and pretty much concur that based upon the uniformity and probability that unless conditions change, the events will occur as expected.
Though both a law and a theory deal with principles of science, a theory is much more speculative based upon verified principle and a law relates more in being the know/verified substantiation for the principle.

Tom

By: tom sevigny

tom sevigny — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:56:22 +0000

Hello folks!

Hey Max. You make some very good points. I don’t think many people even Christians or theists consider science an anathema unless they are completely ignorant. We all come into this world with the question “how” on our lips. You cannot have an intelligent exchange of ideas with such a person nor can you have a discussion on philosophy or religion without first establishing that there is some truth in the writings of the philosophers or theists. Otherwise you have no reference or common ground. In like manner scientists take creedence in many theories that have been accepted in their community but are not yet proven. It is much like a discipline.
I believe that science is a systematic attempt to gather knowledge of the tangible things in the universe through study and observation. Many study and observe the mechanics of matter and energy and leave out the big question of “why”as though it is some sort of stumbling block. The greatest minds always ask “why”.
On the other hand, you have creationists holding to a literal six day creation with one day of rest explanation from the Bible. The Biblical texts expound that God/the Creator transcends time and that to Him a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.
It is more likely describing 6 or seven units of time rather than the period it takes for the Earth to rotate once on it’s axis. Without this understanding you are having an ideological debate rather than a comparison of theorum. The finding of homo sapien footprints in the same stratum of soil as dinosaur remains is another stumbing block for many. It doesn’t however surprise me.

regards,
Tom

By: Arthur HU

Arthur HU — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:35:35 +0000

Intelligent design advocates do support the big bang. Young earth creationists do not.

By: Max Antuar

Max Antuar — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:38:24 +0000

Hi you guys!

thoughts from Australia.

it seems to me that a lot of you delight in showing your learning with your big words and theoretical meandering.
My observations show that the proposed ideas of B.B. are bringing out the religionist intolerance like those who opposed Galileo, Copernicus and others, and the real threat ( to them ) of eternal damnation and excommunication from their religous ideals. Whether one believes or not is ones own choice just as the U.S.constitution decrees and allows ( and we need to be thankful for that). The fact that America developed out of the idea that people need to be free to make their own decisions, and that that freedom is cherished is a great blessing for mankind. The fact of “ex nihilo” is still accepted by some deluded persons, and a “7 day creation” idea is still about, is a pity!

Thinking persons have to agree that there is proven knowledge that pre-Adamic events did happen, that Dinosaurs did exist, Ive seen some of their bones, and that the earth has a long history of developement. At the same time I question Darwins ideas, that,if he had the knowledge of D.N.A.,and other matters as we have today, showing the unlikely event of genetic change to convert a fish into a man in one fell swoop, or whatever link that is put forward to support his theory, that we may give more credibility to I.D. Contrary to the thoughts of some, Science and religion must be in agreement, otherwise the idea of God would fall flat on its face, for if we are to believe in a creation,(how else did we get here ???), how could this happen without the creator being endowed with a knowledge of all the sciences that we presently know and maybe some that we do not yet understand and or that we are not yet endowed with, such as computer technology, which my Grandfather would have revelled in, as he was a radio enthusiast from the days of Marconi. As for the steady solid state before the B.B,where did all this stupendous amount of matter that we know to be in our universe originally come from???. We are obviously in deep water when we try to fathom that one (remember ex nihilo).

I do not totally discredit B.B., but one thing remains to be said, maybe there are other forces that we do not know of as yet that will give us a clearer understanding of the cosmic powers in our universe. Who will be foolish enough to say without trepidation, we know every thing that there is to be known, just like the Religious bigots who threatened Gallileo when he said that he believed that the earth revolved around the Sun.

We have to accept that the religious idea that God made man is no more than a theory to many, just as Darwins ideas which are so fully accepted by many, are only just a theory, so we likewise have to accept that the big bang idea, while seemingly supported by measurement and collation of many ideas accepted by some, is after all only a theory, and after all, is a only a possible chance event, which begs the question why did it happen???

So, I conclude my diatribe with the following quotation of which I do not have the author:-

By: tom sevigny

tom sevigny — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:48:46 +0000

Hello scholars!
I just came upon this site by accident. Well, I can say that there are a lot of people in here that really hate the theist argument and are militantly opposed to the concept of a supreme being creating all of what we see.
I read the posts of many who believe that we evolved from simian ancestors. I thought that most of those theories were already given up on much as the “theory of spontaneous generation” and the concept of “an upward urge in nature” to produce an evolved and supposed better species. Louis Pasteur’s findings and the demonstrable laws of physics disproved these theories long ago. On another note if you folks don’t believe that science and politics should ever cross paths, you may want to go back in time and inform Germany’s chancelor Adolph Hitler that it was not okay to murder
“lesser evolved” forms of homo sapiens.
regards,
Tom

By: Bill Freels

Bill Freels — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:27:05 +0000

I remain truly amazed by the thought processes revealed here, and encountering beings who would literally wish you into non existance because you would dare to have a different opinion! But then again, what is more explosive than Religion & Politics, with Science mixed in for good measure.
25 years ago, an article appeared in “Popular Science” that stated a super computer had determined the odds the Big Bang Theory was correct were one in a “cazillion” (paraphrasing here) A while later, I read about another super computer that had determined that if a human studied all there was written in the Old Testament about the coming of Christ, the odds were one in one with seventy zero’s that he could’nt make it happen by any means.
My belief based on scientific “fact”, & historical “fact”, lead me to believe that both occured. I personaly believe neither can cancel out the other. Both require “fact” and both require “faith” I can think of nothing science could discover that could shake my belief in a “creator”
I am truly awed by the scientific mind and encourage the search for God’s signature. Let’s hope when they get around to creating man, they can come up with their own dirt.