Outrage at attacks on NASA science

By Phil Plait | February 4, 2006 5:56 pm

Note (added February 6): due to this being linked from a lot of major sites (digg.com and slashdot, for example), the server was getting hammered. You can comment on this entry, but it won’t get displayed right away; I have to add them by hand to prevent server overload. The permalink to this page is a static HTML page instead of a dynamic PHP page, so that server load is reduced that way too. Sorry about this; I’ll put everything back to normal when things calm down!

I’m slow to anger, I really am. I deal with infuriating attacks on science by the anti-science shysters all the time, so I have learned not to let my anger get the better of me.

But I have never, ever been as angry scientifically as I am right now. Never.

In this blog I have complained about the anti-intellectual, anti-science machinations of the current government (for example here and here). I have also said that creationists would be attacking astronomy soon.

Man, I hate being right sometimes.

I’m so livid I can hardly type straight about this. Because of that, and because of the seriousness of this issue, I am writing a disclaimer:

I want to be clear that what you are about to read is my personal opinion and not necessarily anyone else’s. I have based this blog entry on what I have read in newspapers and blogs. I have also had many discussions with other scientists about related issues, and so I have been able to form what I think is an informed and reasonable position on this.

You may have read the New York Times article on January 29 about a NASA scientist who was gagged by the government about his reports on global warming (the link requires a free registration). Dr. Jim Hansen, a top NASA scientist, had interview requests about his work with global warming denied by a NASA public affairs officer by the name of George Deutsch. While Deutsch works for NASA, he is actually a presidential appointee who worked for President Bush and Vice President Cheney during the 2004 elections.

Got this so far? Deutsch had this position as NASA public relations specialist given to him by the current administration, and according to Dr. Hansen he used it to suppress information about global warming. This issue was important enough to NASA officials that Mike Griffin, NASA’s Administrator, sent an email on Friday, Feb. 3 to all NASA employees (and which is now posted on the NASA website) saying that "It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA’s technical staff."

I agree wholeheartedly, of course, and I also want to make clear that I think that scientific suppression is not representative of the demeanor in general at NASA, nor of NASA’s Public Affairs Office as a whole. In fact, the NYT article makes this clear, stating "[Hansen] and intermediaries in the agency’s 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings [of "dire consequences" if they talked about global warming] came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters" (emphasis mine; in the article Dr. Hansen clearly also strongly disagrees with policy statements by the other PAO political appointee, Dean Acosta).

But now let’s get to the next part. In the February 4 issue of the NYT, the plot thickens (all the following quotations are from that article). Other scientists have come forward and talked about how political appointees have tried to suppress or alter other information from NASA in order to make it conform to the President’s party line.

Here’s the money quote, folks, the part that has me so outraged. Sitting down? You’ll need to be.

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.

Maybe, just maybe, you’re thinking, Deutsch is just being pedantic over what to call the Big Bang, since it is in fact a scientific theory. Maybe you’re thinking this has nothing at all to do with a perversion of science.

But you’d be wrong.

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose resume 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.”

Emphasis, once again, is mine.

Now gee, why would that statement make me angry? Why would a NASA politically-appointed employee suppressing science, gagging a scientist, and trying to insert a narrow religious (and demonstrably wrong– the Big Bang is most certainly not a matter of "opinion" ) viewpoint into government educational activities get me so angry I could hop in a plane right now, fly to DC, and testify before Congress about these insane actions against the core of what we know to be true?

Yet, incredibly, it gets worse:

[Deutsch’s email] 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.”

"Factual information"? A "religious issue"?

Did you just hear a funny noise? It was my irony gland exploding.

According to reports from many NASA scientists in the NYT article quoted above, political appointees have suppressed real science, and now one wants to teach children specific religious beliefs on the taxpayers’ dime — then tries to claim the higher moral ground. And then, after all that, he admits to the issue being religious! As Judge Jones, the federal judge who ruled over the Intelligent Design case in Dover, Pennsylvania last year, said, ID is "a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." If we take Deutsch at his word, then what he said himself condemns his own actions: NASA is not in the business of teaching religion. They should be teaching science, and the Big Bang is definitely science.

This may simply be an instance of one naive person (Deutsch is green, after all, fresh out of college and appointed to a relatively powerful position) grossly overreaching his authority, but I wonder. Reading the NYT articles, and hearing about this happening at more agencies across the government, it seems to fit a pattern of dedicated suppression of science. And this is coming from someone at NASA.

NASA sent 12 men to the Moon. NASA has a probe which is right now taking mind-blowing images of Saturn and its moons. In less than fifteen years, NASA may well put people back on the Moon. To most people, NASA means advancement, means innovation. To many, NASA is science.

So I’ll be very, very clear here. What we’re talking about here is scientific McCarthyism; the pressuring of scientists to toe the party line. Anyone in the government who does this to someone else — especially to a scientist, whose goal is open discourse and the uncovering of truth — should be removed from their position, immediately.

NASA can ill-afford this at any time, let alone right now (the NASA budget comes out on Monday, and the Inspector General of NASA — another presidential appointee — is under serious fire as well). Therefore NASA administrators should seize this moment. Griffin’s email was a good start, but it’s only a start. An attack on science as described in the New York Times articles is an insult not just to scientists at NASA, but to all government employees, and to all Americans.

We must not tolerate this.

I have more to say, plenty more. I will be very eager to see what happens in the next few days.

But man, I hate being right sometimes.


Comments (382)

Links to this Post

  1. Pharyngula | February 4, 2006
  2. Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory | Cosmic Variance | February 4, 2006
  3. BlogBites. like sound bites. but without the sound. | February 4, 2006
  4. Wolverine’s Den » Blog Archive » 21st Century? | February 5, 2006
  5. boyruageek » Blog Archive » Don’t Stifle NASA! | February 5, 2006
  6. Creationists turn their sights to Physics at wongaBlog | February 5, 2006
  7. Ytyset :: Outrage at attacks on NASA science :: February :: 2006 | February 5, 2006
  8. Stodge.org » Blog Archive » Bush administration censoring NASA science | February 5, 2006
  9. donsense | February 5, 2006
  10. Douglas D3 » Bad Astronomy: Bush Appointee Attacks NASA Scientists | February 5, 2006
  11. alecjulien.com » The Big Bang Under Assault at NASA | February 5, 2006
  12. The Last Liberal » The Big Bang “Theory” | February 5, 2006
  13. Generalized Nonsense » Bad Astronomy: Bush Appointee Attacks NASA Scientists | February 5, 2006
  14. Generalized Nonsense » Bad Astronomy: Bush Appointee Attacks NASA Scientists | February 5, 2006
  15. I'm the Mama | February 5, 2006
  16. myBlog » Science vs. Religion? | February 5, 2006
  17. Flanker’s Diggs » Bush Appointee Attacks NASA Scientists | February 5, 2006
  18. Beware of the Dogma » The Big Bang: Just another ‘Theory’ | February 6, 2006
  19. A Mind Occasionally Voyaging | February 6, 2006
  20. 【格志】 宇宙学家的愤怒 | February 6, 2006
  21. Bush administration pro-science? I don’t think so… | February 6, 2006
  22. ldopa.net » archive » adding our voice to the fray | February 6, 2006
  23. www.BoerSeun.com » Blog Archive » Bush knows better than NASA scientist. | February 6, 2006
  24. MacHelp from Maui » Blog Archive » Cult Cretens at NASA | February 6, 2006
  25. Les annales du FAS » Blog Archive » Big Bang is just a theory. | February 6, 2006
  26. alexduzik.com : featuring fine textual products | February 6, 2006
  27. Bryan’s Web (.net) » Blog Archive » Bad Astronomy | February 6, 2006
  28. Tankarnas hotell » Intressant vetande | February 6, 2006
  29. •WolfBlog• » Blog Archive » Outrage at Attacks on NASA Science | February 6, 2006
  30. The Fight Against Fraud » Outrage at attacks on NASA science | February 7, 2006
  31. The Podcast Network :: Geeks Of Hazzard » Blog Archive » The Geeks of Hazzard #009 - Google.com/geeksofhazzard?! | February 7, 2006
  32. Ex Cathedra » Blog Archive » The Big Bang? Just a Theory | February 7, 2006
  33. rantavation 3.0 » Funny little things called news… | February 7, 2006
  34. Ex Cathedra » Blog Archive » The Big Bang? Just a Theory | February 7, 2006
  35. Deutchie, you’re doing a heckofa job! at MaxPower | February 7, 2006
  36. The Podcast Network :: Geeks Of Hazzard » Blog Archive » The Geeks of Hazzard #009 - Google.com/geeksofhazzard?! | February 7, 2006
  37. narcissus » Blog Archive » NASA and the bush administration… | February 7, 2006
  38. Coyote Mercury » Blog Archive » Made or Just Happened? Intelligent Design Infects NASA | February 7, 2006
  39. Anthonares » Blog Archive » Two Big Censorship Issues: Mohammed Caricatures and NASA Stifling Science | February 7, 2006
  40. One Pissed Otter » Hark at this “Nas” hole: If it’s not god, it’s a theory. | February 7, 2006
  41. 2020 Hindsight » NASA public affairs guy (the silencer of scientists) quits after revelations that he’s a liar | February 8, 2006
  42. Bushiites are future of Taliban in US @ lowmag.net | February 9, 2006
  43. GeekyChic.com » why can’t i….. | February 9, 2006
  44. Wolverine’s Den » Blog Archive » On Wisconsin | February 10, 2006
  45. spb » Blog Archive » Politics and Science | February 12, 2006
  46. No Dependencies /No Logo » Blog Archive » Internet Journalism | February 13, 2006
  47. CelticBear’s Musings » Scientific McCarthyism | February 14, 2006
  48. Unused and Probably Unusable | February 16, 2006
  49. Testblog 2.0 » Some NASA updates | March 20, 2006
  50. » Time Is Running Out | March 26, 2006
  51. Scriptforge FFS » Times they are a failing. | March 30, 2006
  52. Tony Haile · roving raconteur & ragamuffin | July 24, 2006
  53. Personal loans | July 27, 2006
  54. Payday loans | July 27, 2006
  55. General Sciences » Bad Astronomy: Bush Appointee Attacks NASA Scientists | August 14, 2006
  56. The more they stay the same « Manatee and Gnomes | September 7, 2006
  57. The Otterman Empire | October 5, 2006
  58. silus.net » links for 2006-10-31 | October 31, 2006
  59. Education Futures » Left behind (in the Dark Ages) | December 29, 2006
  60. Astrolink [English Edition] » Deutsch testified before Congress | March 21, 2007
  61. A Test for the EPA - Kamikaze News | May 23, 2007
  62. Democratic Convention Party Political Local Advertising Presidential Campaigns » Blog Archive » A Test for the EPA | May 23, 2007
  63. Articles | July 21, 2007
  64. Democratic Convention Party Political Local Advertising Presidential Campaigns » Blog Archive » Anti-Science Saturday: Haven’t We Heard This Before? | July 21, 2007
  65. Jan Erik Moström / Amazing | August 24, 2007
  66. Yet More Editing of Reality « UDreamOfJanie | July 9, 2008
  67. Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » The Warren Invocation | December 17, 2008
  68. Dangerous Chemicals Found in Tap Water – Shocking Secrets Uncovered | Chemical Agents | May 23, 2009
  1. Michelle Rochon

    This is scary. I can’t find another word for this. In fact, my mind is in such a “What the heck is going on with them?” state that I can’t even think straight. What does religion have to do with the NASA? So the Big Bang is a theory. But there happens to be a bunch of facts in the hands of the Big Bang. And ID is not a search for truth. It’s RELIGION. Something that bases itself on FAITH. Not facts. And their “FACTS” are shaky. So shaky they’re not facts at all. They are matters of faith.

    Separation of the church and state, please. There’s a big need for it. NOW.

  2. TheBlackCat

    I think Douglas Adams said it best:

    “Funny,” he intoned funereally, “how just when you think life can’t possibly get any worse it suddenly does.”

  3. Didn’t Stephen Hawking claim that the Big Bang [theory] leaves room for God (if you want it to)? Whereas a steady state universe doesn’t, because it is infinite (has no cause).

    As an atheist, I can’t understand why you wouldn’t want to believe the first of the two options. Oh, wait, that’s right — God created a universe that just appears to be 15 billion years old at nightfall on October 22, 4004 BC!

  4. OOPS

    That second par should have begun
    “As an atheist, i can’t understand why a Christian wouldn’t want to believe…”

  5. zed

    I’m livid as well, particularly after having to hear Bush’s potentially dangerous call to outlaw “animal-human hybrids” and “buying, selling, or patenting human embryos,” which if taken as worded, would be like putting a ten ton concrete block in front of a bullet train for biology in America.

    I’m currently waiting to hear back from graduate schools, but if this keeps up, I may be forced to do work elsewhere.

  6. I started reading this blog with your first post about creationists coming after astronomy next. I’ve liked it a lot, and in fact just tonight was pointing Saturn out to my wife after learning from this site where to find it.

    But I have never been more impressed than with this post.

    Fight the good fight, Phil. There are legions of us out here in the heartland cheering you on.

  7. “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations; for Nature can not be fooled.” Richard Feynman in the Report on the Challanger Disaster.

    It seems parts of NASA have failed to learn this lesson.

  8. Ozastro

    I am in a state of disbelief. This is an insult to any logical thinking person.

    Phil, Nature have an article online which may not require a subscription.

    “Has NASA’s press office gone too far?”

  9. HawaiiArmenian

    This is what I’ve been saying for far too long. Those of us that accept science for what it is, have always been on the retreat. Even when we’re not retreating, we’re trying to empathize with the other party (understand their religious beliefs making it difficult for them to think critically). We feel sorry for them, thus we’re always on the defense. It’s enough, and BA, among a few others, are spearheading the “resistance”. We must not let this opportunity to attack pass us. The very nature of Science is at a crossroads today, and no empathy, or understanding will cure it of the intelligent design disease. This isn’t a future generational issue, the time is here and now to strike back and end this absurdity.

    For BA, the whole NASA debaucle finally struck close to home, and the very nerve that runs through his system. Those of us in the molecular biology, microbiology, and biological research fields have been living with this nightmare since the severe stem cell limitations imposed by Bush and Co. It won’t stop with Astronomy either, soon, geology, chemistry, even paleoanthropology will suffer the same fate. As for those who think we’re overreacting, their turn will come as well. Sure, you feel safe, and sometimes even laugh when it’s your neighbor’s lawn that the Great Dane across the street craps on; but suddenly, it’ll be your foot stepping in it, and it’s not quite as funny anymore. I’m not one for military analogies (espcially during the current administration’s military record), but we’ve gotta blitz the hell out of these IDers, and make sure they are ALL voted out of office.

  10. Imagine if the young buck hadn’t tipped his hand so clumsily…..he just might have pulled it off.

  11. Coragyps

    Holy. Crap.

    That’s inexcusable, even if Deutsch is a kid.

  12. TheBlackCat

    Not just a 24 year-old, a 24 year old journalism major! There is no indication this guy knows anything whatsoever regarding science (all indications are to the contrary). What the heck is a 24 year-old journalism major doing “correcting” the science of ANY scientist, not to mention the senior NASA climatologist? What is he doing telling every scientist in the agency what the status of the Big Bang is? He is most likely ordering around people twice his age who have forgotten more about the Big Bang or climatology then he will ever know in his entire life. A 24 year-old ordering around senior scientists is one thing, but a 24 year-old with little or no scientific knowledge or background telling some of the best scientists in a given field that the scientific statements they are making on their own area of expertise are wrong is simply absurd.

  13. I agree with you Phil. What I do not understand is how can the Bush administration say they support space exploration yet make attemps to supress data that supports the current accepted theories of the Big Bang and Global Warming? It shows just how uneducated this Deutsch guy is because there is factual data that supports both the Big Bang and Global Warming. Why are these theories so hard to accept?

    I will end by saying this to those pro ID folks: I find it more of a miracle of God that the Universe started from a Big Bang and that we evolved from a single cell organism! Of course, I am Buddhist so I accept the Universe as it is and simply study its beauty.

    I’ll support you Phil. Keep us informed!

  14. Wow, just wow. No words.

  15. Grand Lunar

    “But man, I hate being right sometimes. ”

    Reminds me of Jeff Goldblum’s line in ‘Jurassic Park’.

    Oh boy, now they’re saying the Big Band is “just a theory”? I don’t even think people that say that even know the meaning of the word.
    Insane. Just plain insane.

  16. Tara Mobley

    This is my nightmare coming true. Astronomy was the first science I really fell in love with, and reading this got me crying.

  17. Oh boy, now they’re saying the Big Band is “just a theory”?

    Glenn Miller was not available for comment, but the Count Basie Observatory sent out a note. It was a B-flat.



  18. Caledonian

    These are the same people who want to spearhead a manned mission to Mars as a publicity stunt.

    NASA has a long record of being used for propaganda purposes, with actual scientific research just barely squeezing in around the edges of sexy, eye-catching projects like Apollo. This is the same old, same old – it’s startling only because of the characteristic Bush administration straightforwardness in manipulating spin.

    NASA *might* put someone back on the Moon in fifteen years, but I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how much science that guy’d be doing.

  19. Ryan

    It might be more impressive if this guy had spent four years studying the world’s religions instead of journalism. Maybe then he’d come up with a new, insightful argument instead of just repeating what’s been heard before. He seems more like a puppet than anything else, and I’m afraid I have little respect for someone who believes something for the wrong reasons or no reasons at all. I would respect someone who had done some research and critical thinking and decided that ID was correct; I would have little respect for someone who sides with science but can’t tell me the nature of a scientific theory or give a general outline of the history of at least one scientific field (I am most familiar with physics).

    What is someone with a degree in journalism doing telling everyone what is and is not science? And how is he to know what is and what isn’t a “religious issue”?

  20. AitchJay

    It’s amazing to see such abuse of a position..
    To me, it raises the question of why was he appointed? If you take the view that it was because of his religious beliefs, then doesn’t that throw doubt on all Bush appointees?
    I would love to see the day when presidential candidates flaunt their non-religious credentials, to avoid any accusations of bias..
    Here in OZ, we are not close to this situation – yet.
    But America’s president affects the whole world, (way too many examples to mention) so the choice of an IDiot has ramifications for us all.
    The scary part, for me, is how this kind of fact manipulation happens behind closed doors – and the perpetrators really believe they are doing the right thing.
    It’s insane.

  21. AitchJay

    I want to reiterate the support you have Phil, for fighting this..
    Eventually we will all have to play a part in countering this situation and others like it; because they will not stop.

  22. As a journalism graduate of Texas A&M, all I can say is that Deutsch’s existence goes a long way toward proving all those Aggie jokes are indeed true. If he’s the kind of graduate they were turning out, no wonder the university disbanded the department…

  23. Fermat

    First they came after biology and I didn’t care because I wasn’t a biologist. Then they came after astronomy and I didn’t care because I wasn’t an astronomer… …and then they came after math…

  24. Kevin from NYC


    Phil you are god;ike in you excellance.

    I want to see a pay pal button pronto and I want to see you send thousands and thousands of dollars to the rat ass congressman who will vote the way you want

    I give thousands a year to sierra and nrdc and cbd and onrdc and whoever I don;t give a fussc if you can stoip one fuch from cutting down one tree or stop somepone frp, talomg a cra[ om tje fprest/

    go political or we all die.

  25. Kevin from NYC

    outlaw “animal-human hybrids” and “buying, selling, or patenting human embryos,”


  26. Dan S.

    “Hang tough NASA, it’ll end someday.”

    You know, reading that closely, it doesn’t sound as hopeful as it does at first glance . . .

  27. Un freaking believable.

  28. I’m passing this around to the other members of our department. Those poor biologists have been putting up with this crap for quite a while now, so I suppose it is our turn at the knife. A March on Washington might not be out of place.

    Phil: I’m with you all the way. See you AAAS: you can bet that this will be a topic there.

  29. The Supreme Canuck

    Good God. What is going on down there? Someone needs to clean house.

  30. What is incredible to me is that all of the people around me feel the same way: that stuff like this is incredible in it’s audacity and embarassing in it’s lack of scientific foundation. Bush is an abysmal failure when it comes to appointing people with *any* meaningful credentials.

    So I just hav eto keep wondering – who the *hell* can support Bush and his cronies after reading something like this…who is voting for these fools?

  31. Tom Epps

    Ouch. My head literally hurts after reading this one! Bad Astronomy, indeed…

    Phil, please keep us advised on this one; if we can help in any way to spread the word, let us know!


  32. “shocking”

    The Man: “You have let your own ugly agenda and opinion upset a whole organisation, who’s smarter and more experienced than you.”

    [Junior (IQ=his age), stares at the floor, shuffles his feet]

    The Man: “Further more, you are bringing the future of a whole country in jeopardy by sidelining the scientific community”

    [The Man pouting his lips]

    The Man: “You are fired!”

  33. shargash

    Deutsch is a “political commissar.” Political Commissars were first used by Lenin after the Russian revolution. He assigned political appointees to Red Army units to ensure their loyalty to the party and to ensure they did not do anything “counter-revolutionary.”

    The consequences of failing to heed Bush’s commissars is not as dire as in the old Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the effect on both individuals and the independence of science is dire enough.

  34. Mike Barron wrote: “Bush is an abysmal failure when it comes to appointing people with *any* meaningful credentials.”

    Mike Griffin seems to be a noteworthy exception to that (I’m certainly not trying to defend the president, don’t get me wrong).

    That aside, I’m so disgusted by this that I’m at a loss for words. How does nonsense like this happen in the 21st century?!

    As if this news weren’t already appalling enough, I can just imagine the tinfoil crowd now, citing this as an example of NASA’s willingness to withhold information from the public…

  35. This doen’t surprise me at all. The religious right want to supress all science to their will. And will stop at nothing to get there. They attack the studies by focusing on the variables. If that doesn’t work they attack the individual. They do not believe in objective truth only their subjective truth. The only way to get rid of them is to kick Bush out and then fire ALL of his appointees. Please read the book ‘The Republican War on Science’ by Chris Mooney. He pretty much outlines whats going on with this subject.

  36. Will

    Hopefully the repercussions of dumbing down and dichotomizing America for votes won’t reach too far and wide.

  37. I wasn’t going to comment on this post, there is not much I can add, but I clicked by accident in the link “I’m an adorable little mouse” and guess what, it has a big advertisement asking money for Bush. Talk about irony…

  38. Chip

    Welcome to the Dark Ages – in 2006!

    So can George Deutsch be fired? How? A letter writing campaign?

    Like former FEMA Director Michael Brown, George Deutsch is yet another incompetent crony.

    Then there’s the part of the New York Times story where Mr. Deutsch rejects an NPR request to interview Dr. Hansen. Deutsch is quoted by public affairs officer Leslie McCarthy as calling N.P.R. “the most liberal media outlet in the country.” (His 100% negative definition of “liberal” is of course in line with the political outlook of the current administration.) As an earlier poster noted a latter day American style “political commissar” indeed! Mr. Deutsch is also quoted as saying his job is “to make the president look good.” He evidentially has no desire to bring an appreciation of NASA’s scientific discoveries to the general public.

  39. colorado bob

    I don’t know about the rest of the country, but we have 5 Christian channels on our cable system here….W. TEXAS I some times watch for the comic relief. Last year, there was some item that came out that said to the effect that we were not in the center of the universe. TBN, the primary offender, trotted out their “scientist” to explain that this was all wrong, and assured the viewer that we were in fact in the center of the universe.

    Now, I’m certian that 99.999% of their viewers never even heard of Astronomy, but it was useful to TBN for the purpose propaganda. They all have the theme of “Chirstians Under Attack”, send money to help fight this evil. It’s really very scarey….

    I leave you with John Stuart Mill:

    “Although it is true that not all conservatives are stupid, it is also true that most stupid people are conservative.”

  40. purvis ames

    The Big Bang is a theory and I could mount a reasoned scientifically based argument for an alternative theory but that is not the point. Mr. Deutsch’s wilfull injection of religious dogma into scientific discourse, his censoring of those whose theories and projections don’t adhere to the Bush party line, and his complete lack of any scientific education himself reminds one of Lysenkoism under Stalin. If this clown show weren’t so dangerous, it would qualify as high farce. By the way, since when does a hack public affairs officer get to quash the First Amendment?

  41. Melanie

    Was this lunatic, Deutsch-bag, present and involved in the most recent explosion of the Space Shuttle in 03? Did he have authority to censor information that came from NASA at that time ?

    Did he also have authority to censor the information coming out of NASA regarding the loose tiles/flying foam from the most recent Space Shuttle mission ?

  42. Blake Stacey

    First, it was biology. Now, it’s astronomy. Before too long, it will be neuroscience. In a letter to Nature, Kenneth Kosik points out that the ID debacle was “a relatively small-stakes theological issue compared with the potential eruption in neuroscience over the material nature of the mind.”

    Mind you, that’s the same thing I’ve been saying since I read I, Robot in ninth grade — incidentally the same year in which I took a biology class where the textbook had a special sticker on the inside front cover. The Alabama State Board of Education wanted to assure us all that evolution was only a theory, and a “controversial theory” at that, proposed by “some scientists”. Not all, just a few. . . .

  43. Blake Stacey

    However, it could always be worse. If the Pythagoreans were in charge, they’d skin us all alive for knowing that the square root of two is an irrational number. And let’s not even imagine what they’d do when they learned we know of the dodecahedron! The scenarios start with being trampled under horses’ hooves and scraped apart with oyster shells, and they get worse from there.

    Now that’s irrational.

  44. Hi Phil –

    Science is obviously under attack here. Global warming, forest management, climatology, oil depletion, alternative energy, all of the issues have been spun and re-spun by this pathetic excuse for a government.

    When agenda trumps truth, we have the makings of a revolution. Unfortunately, those most allied with science are often the most “meek” as well.

    It is time that the gloves came off.

    Each of us has the internet to use to find our senators and congressmen’s email addresses, and those of the rest of our government. A concerted, sustained, passionate and emotionally charged response to these people is one of the few actions available to us under the constitution…to demand redress of our grievances.

    I sincerely implore each of you to write a letter to your senators and congressmen and anyone else involved in this government, and express the level of vehemence noted in these comments, without being threatening or rude. Write passionately about your desire for an America that respects truth above politics, science over dogma, and intelligence and knowledge over religious indoctrination.

    This is OUR country. It was won on the blood of our forebears, and we should NOT give it up to these extremist ideologues, lest we besmirch the legacy and sacrifice those forebears left in our hands.

    Stop what you’re doing right now and vent your emotions where they can actually do some good. Let the voice of reason, common sense, and the American ideal of truth ring out long and loud, until the voices of narrowmindedness and ignorance are drowned out, removed from positions of power, and are relegated finally to the annals of failed thinking and politically expedient decision-making. Write it all down and send it. Don’t think about it, just do it.

    Finally, and MOST importantly…vote in November, 2006…and again in 2008.


  45. Steve Cal

    Well, then there’s only one thing left to do. Sue this man, and the Bush administration for attempting to push a religious agenda not only on government, but as a lie to quash scientific progress. Unless people make an effort to attack back at these cretons, they will stop it nothing until the world is seen again as a flat earth middle age idiot’s fascist theocracy.

  46. Laguna2

    Nothing on CNN about it.
    Nothing on ABC.
    Nothing on MSNBC
    Nothing on Yahoo News
    Nothing on USA Today
    Had to search for it at the NYTimes.

    You can shout as loud as you want on this blog. No one will hear you.
    The major Newsservices do not even report about this.
    Science has no lobby in the US.
    Too sad. In Germany I read about it already last week. They continued reporting about it the whole week. Even though we had other major problems to deal with.

    I like this little gem:
    “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.”

  47. KingNor

    I support the notion that something should be done to stop this, but as a non-scientist i’m not too sure what i can do to “get the message” out.

  48. Steve Cal

    Okay, whomever anyone knows in the lead scientific/academic communities, INFORM THEM OF THIS ARTICLE. People must be informed about this enough to become news on the major networks. This absurdity MUST, I repeat, MUST be confronted head on. The severity of it cannot be watered down by any means whatsoever.

  49. vbloke

    Like I said in a previous comment, science needs to start getting political, otherwise, it’s going to get seriously undermined in the public sphere and if nobody is fighting in it’s corner, then this is going to start cropping up time and again, until the quality of the science being done is along the lines of what was done in the 13th century.

  50. RAF

    In this particular case, the obviousness demonstrates how rapidly true conspiricies “fall apart”.

    I AM wondering how the adminstration is going to “spin” this?

  51. I had blogged this earlier, but less well than you.

    Notice the pattern?

    You get outgraged about one item. (big bang)

    I another, (nuclear treaties)

    her, something else (torture, Katrina, eavedropping, salmon, abortion).

    It’s distract and conquor, get us on all fronts at once.

    Make liberal mided people fight for every right and reasonable expectation we ever had, and keep us distracted from the bigger picture by our individual outrage.

    Come to the streets in Washingtone next time, okay?

    The press that tells you the protestors are anarchists and Cindy Sheehan wannabes,

    are lying with the mouth of George Deutch.

  52. Graham

    I am absolutely appalled(sic) at what this Bush (the Younger) appointee has tried to get away with.

    Here’s hoping that someone can find a way to make Judge Jone’s ruling apply in this case otherwise we’ll have to go through the entire thing again.

    Although if it does maybe it’ll result in something that can be applied nationally, with luck such a ruling would not hurt NASA.

    Finally, full praise to Dr Griffin for his memo, these ‘people’ have no right to tell scientists what they can or cannot say.

  53. Laguna2

    What comes in my mind.
    Is it really that bad beeing called a liberal in the US?

    Shouldent it be something positive to be liberal?
    Doesn’t that mean to have an open mind for other ideas, to think out of the box of dogma?

    I get the impression that either you are conservative (which is ultra right-wing from a german viewpoint) or you are democrat (which is right-wing from a german viewpoint). Everything a little bit to the left of this is considered as liberal or communist, if there is made a difference between those two.

    Is this just my impression or (political) reality?

  54. Folks,

    The world if full of ignorant people shouting what they believe. They embarass themselves, and others who have given them positions of responsibility.

    Here are a few comments:

    The big bang is a theory. As a scientific theory, scientists give it much respect. I am a scientist by training, and have been teaching astronomy and physics for over 30 years. I have been teaching the big bang for many years as scientist’s theory of how things were created. Can we prove it? Not entirely. Certainly, we cannot recreate it. We have a great deal of evidence to support it. Yet, if you look back at what scientists thought they knew a hundred years ago, they had no such idea. If you think about what scientist will believe in a hundred years in the future, they will probably think that what we believe today is substantially mistaken, just as we do about what scientists believed a hundred years ago. So, what is the point? Knowledge is a continually unfolding vision of the truth. At any time, we just have a small piece of the truth. Hopefully our beliefs are getting closer to the real truth, but occasionally, human knowledge drifts away from it. The important thing is not to have too much pride in what we know. It is a small part of reality or truth.

    On a separate subject. According ‘to Judge Jones, the federal judge who ruled over the Intelligent Design case in Dover, Pennsylvania last year, said, ID is “a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” ‘ – Nothing could be further than the truth. Intelligent design has nothing to do with any particular religion. It is a belief that the incredible diversity and complexity of the universe is the result of the creator’s purpose. A purpose to create a place for humanity. Can it be proved? No, not entirely. Is it the truth? I don’t think that anyone really knows. It is a hypothesis, and some day may be accepted as a theory. In the meanwhile, we should keep our minds open, study, learn, contend with each other in love, and not anger. Hopefully, our efforts will lead us ever closer to the TRUTH.

  55. Steve Grieshaber

    Absolutely, without a doubt, the most arrogant, yet most idiotic administration ever. If I ever met that obnoxious little brat Deutch….

  56. bestonnet

    DrJPHauck I don’t know where you get the idea that ID isn’t religious from but the way the movement exists is such that it is just creationalism by another name (but with a lot of effort gone into making it look like it isn’t which may be why you were able to be confused by them).

    Not to mention that the idea of an intelligent designer is an inherantly religious concept.

  57. Tambo

    I thought free speech and the ability to do just that was important to journalist? Isn’t that what drives thier business…difference of opinion? I don’t know, I’m just a plumber who loves to go outside and lookup. You can’t help but wonder…twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are…

  58. P. Edward Murray

    If intelligent design really meant what it said, none of us would probably have a problem with it…

    But it does not and anyone that says different is someone who has not common sense at all and I wouldn’t listen to that person or persons.

    It does say though that it’s ok not to think, it’s ok not to use common sense and it’s ok to believe that the Universe that we inhabit doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t matter.

    It’s a kind of “Cafeteria Philosophy” or better a “Cafeteria Science or Religion” that says we can choose to use all the wonderful technology without realizing that the scientific principles behind it are real.

  59. Ok. Get this. God is Superior. even over NASA. Ever heard of the phrase “Supreme Being”? Jeeesh, for science type guy your pretty naive.

  60. I wish I was surprised by this.

  61. Miguel Rodriguez

    The Big Bang is a theory. regardless of your narrowminded anti-intellectualism. You fear religion may somehow worm its way into the issue, which clouds your judgement. Leaving religion aside, the Big Bang is still a theory. There are evidences suggesting its occurrence, but no facts, no photos, no ego-serving blogs of witnesses to read.
    Get off your high horse, anti-religious tirades and simply look at the issue.
    You can’t because of cant. And you accuse the President and his administration of McCarthyism?
    Poor unscientific fellow.

    Miguel Rodriguez

  62. mark duigon

    We should not rest until it becomes common to hear on the six o’clock news, “In another example of abuse of science by the Bush Administration…”

    I don’t mean I wish for there to be more examples, only that the “mainstream media” report the numerous examples already occurring and provide an indication of how common the practice of deception is.

  63. Astrologer

    Miguel Rodriguez:
    I think the issue here is not so much with the wording but that a polically apointed PR man ordered the changes and warned of consequences if the orders were not followed.
    Politization of science is something that typically happens in totalitarian countries, where a regime wants to control every aspect of public discourse.
    I.E it’s a known “bad sign”.

  64. Steno

    The Big Bang is a theory. regardless of your narrowminded anti-intellectualism. You fear religion may somehow worm its way into the issue, which clouds your judgement.

    The intent of Douche IS to worm religion in, which IS anti-intellectualism, and very unscientific. There are no scientific journals on ID, because there is no scientific evidence for ID. Contrary to your assessment, there IS evidence for there having been a big bang. The only ego-serving happening is stemming from George Bush’s unscientific religious agenda, and of course, yourself, apparently you proud ignorant sap.

  65. Evolving Squid

    TBN, the primary offender, trotted out their “scientist” to explain that this was all wrong, and assured the viewer that we were in fact in the center of the universe.

    I wouldn’t say that the statement is technically wrong.

    From what we can see of the universe, it’s probably fair to say we can see equally far in all directions.

    From what we can see, we are, in fact, at the centre of the universe.

    Of course Xasqdfa48z9 and his astronomer associates on a non-descript planet orbiting a non-descript star in the Sombrero galaxy can rightfully make the same claim.

  66. Evolving Squid

    The Big Bang is a theory. regardless of your narrowminded anti-intellectualism. You fear religion may somehow worm its way into the issue, which clouds your judgement. Leaving religion aside, the Big Bang is still a theory. There are evidences suggesting its occurrence, but no facts, no photos, no ego-serving blogs of witnesses to read.

    Another person who doesn’t understand how scientific “theory” differs from colloquial “theory.”

    BA – a suggestion – perhaps a writeup somewhere where people can see it easily, that explains the difference between scientific theory and the colloquial term “theory”. Then, rather than rehashing it every few entries, we can just point folks like Miguel to the link and they can read it if they feel like learning something? It really does seem that the religious folk get hung up on “theory”, and it’s due to ignorance. Science owes them a bit of education, I think.

  67. Evolving Squid

    Politization of science is something that typically happens in totalitarian countries, where a regime wants to control every aspect of public discourse.

    That’s why the UK, Canada, Australia, USA control so much more of the public discourse than Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria… Of course, it’s science that makes dictators, not religion.

  68. Evolving Squid

    Bleah, please delete my last post. I apologize. I shouldn’t write so soon out of bed… foggy eyes make for bad reading, which makes this squid look like a bozo. Sorry Astro, you’re right, I just had a mental flat tire there.

  69. Troy

    PBS’ NOW had an episode that dealt with the Bush administration attempt to rewrite scientific findings, it isn’t limited to ID or astronomy;global warming and forestry issues were also mentioned. (Bush is serving two masters here corporate interest and the religious right.) Science progresses by daring unflinching accepting of the facts and thinking outside the box. The reality is that when politics (in this case) or any adherance to dogma becomes the primary concern rather than getting to the best fit for the data science suffers. My tendancy with Bush is just to roll my eyes and take pride in my vote for Kerry. I suspect the pendulum will swing sooner or later. It is frightening how easily it has been for Bush to push the United States toward theocracy.
    A comment about Dr J.P. Hauks comment about I.D. I think it can be demonstrated it isn’t a theory, it isn’t even a hypothesis, it is a falsified hypothesis. A detailed analysis of living systems pretty convincingly demonstrates the overwhemling amount of proof that living systems contain errors that no intelligent designer would make. Here is a good essay by Kenneth Brown on the issue. http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/TR/Lifes-Design.html
    Another example of a falsified hypothesis is that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who had an earlier evolutionary hypothesis before darwin (essentially traits were acquired directly from parents rather than from the germ line). It was fairly easy to put to the test and is now cited as an example in biology classes of a failed earlier hypothesis.

  70. Kaptain K

    The good news: Science goes on.
    The bad news: U.S. science is rapidly headed toward marginal status!

  71. Fred Hoyle would definitely consider the BIG Bang to be a theory.

    I am glad that this appointee is honest enough to say that I. D. is a regilious view.

    My favorite tactic is to start discussion about the discrepancies between I.D and various observations, Like the universe is really only 4000 years old and everything that indicates otherwise was “created” that way. At this point I put a horrified look on my face and say something like “Oh, so you worship the Deceiver”, And leave.

    This at least shakes them up so that I can escape and might even force a few to think.

  72. Coragyps

    “Science is respected and protected and highly valued by the administration,” he said.

    He went on to say, “We have always been at war with Eastasia!”

  73. neojoe

    Anyone out there who can link us with an email addy to which we can address our greivances regarding Mr. Deutch and company?

    Congressional oversite committee members?

    NASA governmental review board?


  74. JacktheBrit

    Kepp getting angry; learn to shout louder; your vigilance against this dangerous nonsense is the only hope.

  75. neojoe

    Democratic Minority Comiittee Members:

    Bart Gordon, Tennessee, Ranking Minority Member
    Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
    Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
    Lynn C. Woolsey, California
    K Darlene Hooley, Oregon
    Mark Udall, Colorado
    David Wu, Oregon
    Michael M. Honda, California
    Brad Miller, North Carolina
    Lincoln Davis, Tennessee
    Russ Carnahan, Missouri
    Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
    Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
    Brad Sherman, California
    Brian Baird, Washington
    Jim Matheson, Utah
    Jim Costa, California
    Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
    Dennis Moore, Kansas

    Minority Staff
    Minority Office Main Phone – 202-225-6375
    Minority Office Fax – 202-225-3895 or 202-226-0983

    Name Title/Area Of Specialty Phone Number
    Chuck Atkins Staff Director 202-225-6375
    Jim Turner Chief Counsel 202-225-8128
    Dan Pearson Deputy Staff Director 202-225-4494
    Mike Lynch Counsel 202-226-3096
    James Paul Professional Staff 202-226-3639
    Alisha Prather Communications Director 202-225-6375
    Chris King Professional Staff 202-225-7255
    Christal Sheppard Professional Staff 202-225-6375
    Leigh Ann Brown Staff Assistant 202-225-6375


  76. Bluestocking

    Thank you very much for your article spotlighting yet another attempt by the Bush administration to deny and suppress anything that doesn’t fit with their personal view of the world. This is of course the same administration which has been trying to get the National Park Service at the Grand Canyon to make references to the Great Flood…where a book advocating this theory and endorsed by the *White House* (not Bush as a private citizen, but Bush in his formal role as the President) is offered for sale in the bookstore. So to HawaiianArmenian — I’m afraid geology is *already* under attack. I’m almost afraid to ask what’s next — are they going to start disputing Copernican theory and trying to convince us that the sun rotates around the earth? I wouldn’t put it past them. And for that matter — just what is a 24-year-old doing in what sounds like a considerably high-level post, anyway? Surely someone at least a little more seasoned would have been more appropriate…

    And this President is the same one who only a few days ago talked about the need for math and science education so that we would be better equipped to come up with alternate energy sources…how on earth does he expect scientists to actually accomplish this if he’s pulling back on the reins so hard? This just goes to show what an utter crock that speech was…

    P.S. to SuperiorAmerican — Sir (or madam?), methinks it is *you* who are confused rather than anyone here. The focus of science is the study of FACT — that is, what can be demonstrated as true through the use of reliable and valid empirical study (or am I using words which are too big for you?). Unfortunately, there are times when it is not possible to obtain the facts directly — there did not happen to be any human witnesses to the creation of the universe — so scientists are forced to create a hypothetical construct based on the information that is available and attempt to prove the validity of this construct through scientific research. There is always the possibility that the theory is incorrect, but it has the advantage of being to some extent based on factual and observable data. Religion, on the other hand, is the study of BELIEF — and belief need have absolutely nothing to do with facts, or even reality. Believing that something is true in the absence of evidence is not equivalent to *knowing* that something is true…and while scientists may not *know* that the Big Bang actually happened, you likewise do not *know* that God exists but only believe that He does (and I’m saying this as someone who chooses to believe that He does). If it’s silly to accept a theory as fact based on sketchy evidence, it’s equally silly if not more so to reject the factual data for no other reason than it challenges your preferred notions of what the world should be.

  77. Simon

    This is a really profoundly bad development. Science is truth, nothing is more important to our species than truth.

    I’m actually lost for any more words to say.

  78. DL

    Hell I think the government is becoming so anti-science that this maybe happening at a lot of government agencies.

    It is my understanding of local gossip in Boulder, CO where I live, that there have been extensive “cutbacks” within the ranks of ICAR and NOAA of scientists, researchers and executives who lead the research and analyzed the data in and around global warming going back 10-15 years.

    What this says to me is since the administration can’t get the information it wants from the studies, then they cancel the studies and fire the researchers. Ignorance is Bliss. To which I say Ignorance will lose your next election and further divide otherwise smart, and dedicated Americans.

  79. Roger Williamson

    We can prove many aspects of evolution and of the Big Bang. Can anyone prove the existence of god?


  80. brunowuzburned

    So what can we who work for the public sector do! And has anyone else in the education field spied the multiple opportunities to teach and inform our students and the teachers we work with?

  81. Warren

    This is typical of the Bush Administration. They place people in charge who have no qualifications, or people who are simply trying to further the Bush agenda: anti-science, anti-labor, anti-middle class, anti-lower class. They don’t mind free thinkers, as long as you think like them.

  82. Richard

    how about a seperation of Science and State, Research and State and Nasa and State? Where in the constitution does it say Government has ANY place in this? Nasa should be split: privitized out of Government hands and funding, and keep a small piece for military purposes. The government shouldn’t be worrying about science and religion. It should protect free speech, not “validate” any speech whether scientific, religious, or about why people visit prostitutes (there was a study on this). People have the right to say and believe what they want. Why was NASA looking at this ANYWAY? Should it be studied? Yes, but not the Space Program, not matter how well intentioned. Should it have been squashed by the Gov’t? No, and it couldn’t if it wasn’t under the Gov’t. Consider your tax Dollars wasted twice in one step.

    Besides, South Park says Global Warming hasn’t been proven to be caused by Humans.

  83. Linda K

    Laguna2 wrote:
    “Nothing on CNN about it.
    Nothing on ABC.
    Nothing on MSNBC
    Nothing on Yahoo News
    Nothing on USA Today
    Had to search for it at the NYTimes.”

    There’s still hope. Maybe Jon Stewart will pick it up and will have BA on “The Daily Show.

  84. Neil Thompson

    Hey Phil,

    Great work … We’ve been seeing it for a while. Much like Babylon 5 and other great shows the US is becoming what everyone warned us about. ;P

    Now, what’s very interesting is those guys on Jan 30th who openly claimed against 9/11 being anything but a controlled demolition. (Scholars for 911 truth)

    Now the Downing Street Memo II is out… I have to say, I’m very impressed with the publics ability to be deluded by crap.

  85. Neil Thompson

    Laguna2 Says:

    February 5th, 2006 at 5:35 am
    What comes in my mind.
    Is it really that bad beeing called a liberal in the US?

    Shouldent it be something positive to be liberal?
    Doesn’t that mean to have an open mind for other ideas, to think out of the box of dogma?

    I get the impression that either you are conservative (which is ultra right-wing from a german viewpoint) or you are democrat (which is right-wing from a german viewpoint). Everything a little bit to the left of this is considered as liberal or communist, if there is made a difference between those two.

    Is this just my impression or (political) reality?

    Well… Actually, it is funny you Bring Germany up. Germany is the one country to pull off what the US is doing now, which is a fascist take over.

    The villianizing of the other political party and the denouncing of any idea that is not theirs is a sure sign of very bad things.

    This is a series of a long line of corporate manipulations to impose ignoance on Americans.

  86. christian burnham

    The media silence on this is a bit worrying. Google news does turn up a good editorial in the Houston Chronicle, but little else. This should be a major story and I hope it will receive massive publicity it deserves in the next few days. Once again, I’m glad that I read the BA blog every day.

  87. Greg Wilson

    I’m glad I’m not alone–it’s good to see so many people who actually think calling all this crap from the “thief in chief” good ol’ boys what it is: nepotism and cronyism. But who’s going to truly do something about all this? They don’t care what even the majority of scientists think?
    The alternative to this bunch of mobsters, which really and truly gives “mobsters” a band name, is the Democrats—and they have no power and will exercise little outrage consistently. Bush and his whole crew should have been impeached for many, many other things more egregious than this but no one has the guts in DC. Now a few of the Republican crew are trying to distance themselves a bit from this bunch of criminals but everyone should remember: they vote on party lines most of the time and even McCain supported him (even after the way he was treated in the primaries).
    I don’t really know where to turn. The average guy on the street is so easily manipulated and, to tell the truth, just plain stupid and happy to be that way. Maybe when we have to go to war to keep from paying our debts to the countries we continually give away our jobs, our best scientists and students will things become clear to the “man on the street”. I’m just totally disgusted when average folks line up to buy all the vehicles from “american companies” and then watch as they close factories, etc…–never mind the fact that most of the parts in those vehicles have been outsourced.
    I read one of your posts about a good scientist getting ready to leave because the idiocy over stem cell research and it proves my point. How can an idiot backed up by crooks and criminals lead anyone anywhere? How can a person who secretely hates intellectuals ever rely on anyone except “his bestest buddies”? I’m just disgusted and I don’t see things improving unless there’s a new viable third party alternative. Thanks Phil for having the guts to take a stand—most folks, even in academia, won’t do so because they know how tentative their jobs are. I truly appreciate Dr. Hansen taking a stand because he’s doing it also for all the younger researchers and scientists who can easily be fired and who can’t afford to lose their jobs.
    I wish that the good people of this country, many of whom are very religious, would realize how they’ve been sold a bill of goods by these greedy jerks! There is no conflict between religion and science—they operate on different domains. A scientific theory is strong because it makes predictions about the natural world and may be proven wrong. Religion makes no such predictions that are falsifiable but to many, many folks it is a source of strength. We need to get the “man on the street” on the side of science and rational thought.
    I’d like to see CNN, etc…have a continuous stream of scientists speaking out on all this–maybe Phil can be the first! I’d suggest Chris Mooney next. Call them, demand equal time. In the time they spend sucking up to the White House with their “inside” presidential reporter (what a joke–no critical thought nor hard questions), they could talk with a different scientist every week.
    The only thing they fear is public embarrassment. Take your fight to the man on the street—hopefully, with gas prices, loss of jobs, no health care and the added insult to injury of tax cuts for the rich (it used to be called trickle-down or voodoo economics when it didn’t work a long time ago…Wonder why no democrats have mentioned this?), someone might just listen now.

  88. icemith

    I am putting fingers to keyboard for the first time to register disgust at the situation re NASA newboy who wants to throw his weight around. ‘Correcting’ senior Scientist’s papers indeed! I hope by now some responsible supervisor has counselled (sorry Australian spelling) him in the error of his ways. And the American People swiftly counsel their political masters (?) in no uncertain terms. Though I’m wondering if a long held position… theory… opinion … by Noam Chomsky is in operation here.

    I mean, is this a diversion, a bit of business, to whip up, or have the media stir the general populace just for the fun of it? Of course they will deny it, meanwhile going about their agenda, in other departments, other lobbies, other countries, ( and other worlds? ). But who is using whom?

    Here in Australia we have a Bush ‘yes’ man for a Prime Minister, embarassing for us as you can readily appreciate, but I don’t think he has appointed such an inappopriate person to any comparable government agency. I hope not anyway! As for the IDers, yes they have been trying their luck here as well, but they get short shift, and are generally ridiculed. Doesn’t seem to deter them much. In the 67 blogs I read before being moved to comment, there did not seem to be any support for, or even any attempt to justify their position, ( there cannot be a reasonable explanation surely? ) and the assertion that in a hundred years time our scientific decendants will look back at our quaint ‘theories’, the same way as we observe those at the turn of the 20th Century, is illogical.

    Theory and hypothesy et al assert small findings contribute to an understanding of a universal question, and those findings are added to the growing knowledge after testing. Those that are found wanting are discarded, but the sum total is always increasing, as is our understanding. That which we now know is much more than previously known but in the ( distant ) future, they will have OUR ‘building blocks’ as the basis of their endeavours. It’s just that they will have found out that much more, and not changed completely to another line of thinking after discarding the whole of the previous “Beliefs’.

    The pity of it is that the young are taught these ID variations when they have nothing to compare them to, it’s just dogma. Where have I heard that before? And someone must have positioned our luckless young Press Officer in the vunerable NASA Bureau. All I can say now is ” Please explain “! ( with apologies, or not, to Pauline!

  89. For the life of me, I can’t imagine why science is, apparently, being suppressed in the government. The only conclusion that I can reach is that the government is filled with religious evangelists who see scientific knowledge as a threat to their beliefs and the well-being of humanity. If this were the actual case, it would mean that our country is on its way to becoming a 16th Century theocracy. What’s next? Burning scientists at the stake?

  90. TheBlackCat

    Do a Yahoo News search for “Nasa climate silence”. I get 46 articles. 18 of these, almost 40%, are foreign newspapers. Another 15, about 33%, are not real newspapers, they are either blogs or specialty sites (mostly environmental or science-oriented, although there is one cycling newspaper of all things). One is simply an unintelligable RSS feed from a major newspaper. Two are interviews with just a sentence or two on the issue each. The remaining 9 (less than 20%) are from real newspapers or news organization. Of those, there are 2 from Birmhingham, one from Arizona, two from Miami, one from some little town that I can’t seem to figure out where it is, one from San Fransisco, then the AFP and New York Times. I would wager tha only the AFP and New York Times could be considered major national news sources, and The Herald and San Fransisco Chronicle are probably the only other huge local news sources (perhaps people in Alabama might clarify that). Even including the news sources in Alabama, we are talking 13% from major news sources. That is abysmal. That we had to hear about this from a blog is incredible to me (no offense intended Phil).

  91. TheBlackCat

    Oh, yes. Regarding Neuroscience. Luckily for me I do not think we are quite at that point yet. Although it is well-established among those in the field that there is no need for anything immaterial in the human mind, and that the human mind is just a part of the human brain functioning, we do not yet have a high enough level of understanding where we can actually see major, real-world understanding of this fact. Most neuroscience-oriented research seems to be one or more of 4 things: curing diseases like Alzhiemer’s and Parkinson’s, learning how the nervous system operate on a 1-4 or 5 neuron level, looking at general levels of brain activity in different regions during activities, or studying the senses. We are no where near the level that you see in The Matrix or Ghost in the Shell where we are able to interact with the human mind on a large and direct level. Most people probably see this as Sci-Fi, and rightly so. The only commercially available device that interact directly with the human nervous system are cochlear implants that attach to the auditory nerve and allow deaf people to hear. The only ones on the immediate horizon interact with the visual system (retina, optic nerve, or primarily visual cortex), the primary motor cortex, and direct stimulation of muscles. These are all extremely peripheral systems, they are no where near where we understand human conciousness to lie (I am talking probably on the order of 5-10 stages away if not more). Although I am sure the ID/Creationist crowd is somewhat threatened by us, we probably do not currently have enough public visibility to draw their attention away from more immediate concerns like evolution, cosmology, astronomy, and geology.

  92. Peter Einburg

    You know, we also have something called “THEORY of Gravity.” I wonder whether there are people who’d cease on that and start calling gravity an “opinion” as well. I wonder why America seems to be the only nation where politics dictates what is science. Why is it that the media, and hence the general population treats corrupt politicians as trustworthy scientific authorities, while mistrusts and shuns real scientists as activists on scientific questions? Somehow the value system in America got turned upside down such that intelligence and education are frowned upon, while power, money, and politics are trusted above all.
    Recently I saw a clip from The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert (“aggravated assult,” you can find it on the show’s website) where he explains that criminally aggressive pro sport players are honored, respected, idolized in America becuase they can get away with anything. Hence the kids watching the news want to grow up to be aggressive football players as well.
    It seems to me that these days the kids are also taught that being a corrupt politician is also good. Their role models lie, cheat, commit all but the most inhumane atrocities, and still get away with them.
    In either case, Stephen cynically concludes that our kid would more likely aspire to be scientists if we let our scientists get away with murder. “If your kid gets an A in physics, let him shoplift.”

  93. We the people pay Dr. Hansen’s salary through funding authorized by Congress. He is a civil service employee hired many years ago. He is not a political appointee. He is not dealing with military secrets. He was speaking toward anyone responsible for heat-trapping emissions, not necessarily the government. If Hansen has learned something or has developed an opinion within his area of expertise while I am paying him, I demand the right to be told what it is. So should Congress. No ignorant young political hack should be censoring what anyone might hear from senior scientists. Otherwise, our supposedly democratic government is utilizing das Führerprinzip. As a member of a democratic society, I expect tax-paid researchers to provide me with candid reports with which I can make informed decisions before I make policy requests of my elected officials. I’m sorry if that is inconvenient for politicians in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

  94. gman

    Holy moley, get ready for the middle ages again!

  95. Bluestocking

    How about a seperation of Science and State…Where in the constitution does it say Government has ANY place in this? Nasa should be split: privitized out of Government hands and funding, and keep a small piece for military purposes…Why was NASA looking at this ANYWAY? Should it be studied? Yes, but not the Space Program, not matter how well intentioned. Should it have been squashed by the Gov’t? No, and it couldn’t if it wasn’t under the Gov’t. Consider your tax Dollars wasted twice in one step.

    Besides, South Park says Global Warming hasn’t been proven to be caused by Humans.


    A couple of good questions, which at least shows that you’re actually *thinking* (unlike one or two other posters on this board). I don’t work for NASA nor am I even an astronomer — but I do read a good deal (hence my handle) and so I’d like to contribute some thoughts if I may. My memory, while quite excellent, is not always 100% and so I may be incorrect on some of these conclusions — but I’m usually fairly accurate…

    Firstly, while privatization of NASA would largely solve the problem of government interference, the fact unfortunately remains that it takes a *tremendous* amount of money to put a man in space and do all the other kinds of research that NASA does. In order to privatize any industry, one of the factors which must be taken into consideration is how it will turn a profit or at the very least break even — even nonprofits have to bring in more money than goes out if they want to continue operating. At this point in time at least, it probably would not be feasible to privatize NASA unless it were at the hands of an extremely wealthy and generous philanthropist willing to donate his money without caveat in the interest of science rather than with the expectation of some sort of monetary return on investment. If you know of someone like that, please let us know…

    Secondly, it’s true that the issue of global warming on the surface of it might seem like one better suited to scientists at the National Weather Service or the Environmental Protection Agency — but one can argue that it’s a legitimate part of NASA’s purview as well. Most laymen might be inclined to think of NASA’s focus as being restricted(!) to “outer space” — i.e., everything beyond the limits of our atmosphere. However, the study of astronomy includes the subcategory of what might be called planetology — and understanding the nature of our own planet is a good first step towards understanding the nature of other planets. Not only that, Earth’s planetary forces such as gravitation and atmospheric change also have an impact upon one of NASA’s other areas of specialization — astronautics. In this capacity, global warming could potentially come under the jurisdiction of NASA because global warming could potentially affect the composition of the atmosphere which in turn could affect such things as rocket ignition or satellite re-entry…

    Thirdly, it’s actually true that global warming is a historical planetary phenomenon and not *solely* attributable to the actions of humans. However, evidence is appearing which suggests that the industrial and technological advances of human beings have been contributing to it — and it is important that we consider the consequences of what we do, since anything we do that has a serious impact on our ecosystem will inevitably also have some impact on us. If sea levels rise and flood the coasts, large numbers of people in the United States will be driven further inland which will in turn affect housing — the same flooding wold also affect food production. If global temperatures rise, this likewise may have an impact on food production — and even an increase might have its potential drawbacks as well as its advantages, since increases in food supply historically often foster increases in the birth rate and/or decreases in infant mortality. So you see, science isn’t quite as simple and straightforward as it appears on the surface — or as some people would have you think it is!

  96. Bear in mind, folks, that I heard about this from the New York Times, so the media is not exactly ignoring it. It was also published on a Friday night, before the Superbowl, so it’s not going to get much ink. That’s why I’m writing my congresscritters now. :-)

  97. PK

    I don’t believe that Bush is anti-science. I think he does not give a f**k. Sorry for the expletive, but it’s the only appropriate term here. Now let’s hope that Mike Griffin has the guts and decency to stand up for the organisation he is supposed to serve, and fire this punk!

  98. bestonnet

    Yeah well if there’s an issue on which the scientific consensus is something that Bush likes then I’m sure he’ll look pretty proscience on that.

  99. TheBlackCat

    bestonnet Says:

    “Yeah well if there’s an issue on which the scientific consensus is something that Bush likes then I’m sure he’ll look pretty proscience on that.”

    That may be a purely hypothetical scenario, though. I have never heard of any scientific issue on which Bush agrees with the scientific consensus. It doesn’t mean no such an issue exists, but I wouldn’t be suprised if it doesn’t.

  100. Don

    “It seems parts of NASA have failed to learn this lesson.

    Yeah, the 24-year-old, political appointee, creationist part.

  101. Steve B

    Governments fight wars for power, whereas soldiers fight for a cause. All this is just a rouse, diverting us from the real issue. This is simply about power. Deutsch is a pawn. While he naively fights for his cause; the government’s true purpose is to suppress knowledge and information. With knowledge and information comes the questioning of power. It is a doctrine of modern communist and fascist states. How similar to a Soviet Political Officer is having a Public Affairs Officer being present whenever Dr. Hansen makes a public statement?

    The use of religion is simply another tool of control. One that is as old as man. For example, the early Catholic Church used fear and ignorance to control the populace. The “party line” was that the afterlife was all important, and there was no need to attempt to understand the physical world. Yet, where was that written in the Bible?

    The church used to condemn any questioning of their authority as heresy. They would put to death those who dare translate religious text (Bible) from Latin to the common language of the people. Why would a religious institution want to repress the dissimilation of religion? With knowledge comes questioning and with questioning, potential descent. Before you know it, the Reformation happens and your power is diminished. Yet, to the masses, it all appears to be about religion.

    So all the while we’re fighting for our causes in the trenches, the government is consolidating power.

  102. neojoe

    Here’s Deutsch’s email…obviously fair game, don’t you think?

    Email link deleted by The Bad Astronomer — no, it is not fair to flood this guy with emails.

  103. Hardie Johnson

    While NASA put 12 men ON the moon, they sent a lot more TO the moon.
    “To the Moon, Alice, To the Moon!”

  104. The Supreme Canuck

    Time to say something controversial:

    The problem in the US is the two-party system. As long as the Democrats are more liberal then the Republicans, all liberals will vote Democrat and all conservatives will vote Republican. Fine, you say.

    Now here’s the problem.

    The two parties could be nearly identical, with only minor policy differences. You’d still get the vote split. Or one party could shoot off into extremism, and you’d still get the vote split. A Democrat will not vote Republican, and a Republican will not vote Democrat.

    Get some more parties! In Canada, we have a bunch of wacky, extremist parties. BUT NO ONE VOTES FOR THEM. The two main parties (the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada, ironically enough) both fall into the just-right of Democrat to just-left of Republican range. We generally end up with a conservative financial policy and a liberal social policy. We end up being centrist.

    Then there’s the notion of minority government. We have one now. What that means is that if the ruling party screws up, the other parties can bring down the government and an election is called. That’s what happened to our last government. The minority Liberals were involved ina scandal ($100 million CAD was stolen from public funds) and the government fell. Election, new government.

    But in the US, the only way to do something like that is to impeach the President, which is rare.

    You guys need more parties.

  105. Bill

    It’s made FARK, the link is already put of bandwidth, but at
    least the word is getting out.

  106. dypeptic grad student

    Nasa should be split: privitized out of Government hands and funding, and keep a small piece for military purposes . . . Should it have been squashed by the Gov’t? No, and it couldn’t if it wasn’t under the Gov’t.

    Privatizing scientific research is a really, really bad idea.

    Do you really think that it would be impossible for a private company to sit on newly-discovered scientific information? Or have I fallen victim to a troll?

  107. Bill

    Sorry – I meant out of bandwidth.

  108. Bluestocking

    To The Black Cat — I’m afraid that I wouldn’t be quite so sanguine with regard to the neuroscience issue if I were you. For the past decade, psychology has been leaning rather heavily towards a biomedical model in which genetics and/or changes in biochemistry are being given primary attention as the underlying cause of mental illness. It’s also no secret that the pharmaceutical industry has a considerable amount of weight to throw around politically. Is it purely a coincidence that the last decade or so has seen an upsurge in the administration of Ritalin to control ADHD in children, or Prozac for comparatively moderate forms of depression? Mind you, I’m by no means one of those people who’s opposed to the administration of psychiatric medication (Tom Cruise, anyone?) — but I’m of the opinion that it should be considered only one of the possible treatment options and not the automatic first choice, at least with disorders which are primarily emotional in nature such as depression rather than those which are primarily kinetic such as Parkinson’s.

    While the current Bush administration is not responsible for this paradigm shift, what I do find disquieting are proposals such as those put forward by the Pharmaceuticals Researchers and Manufacturers of America (a lobbying group) advocating the universal screening of *all* Americans for psychiatric ailments — proposals to which Bush is reportedly favorably inclined…


    On the surface, of course, such measures appear to be wholly benevolent and in the best interests of the general public — but if you’ll excuse the phrase, it hardly takes a rocket scientist(!) to know that things aren’t always what they appear to be on the surface or don’t always end up being what they were designed to be. It’s true that such screenings could be greatly beneficial for people who may be suffering and yet resistant to seeking treatment. However, without at least some sort of confirmation either from my own experience or those of my family and friends, I myself would be deeply skeptical about receiving a diagnosis of mental illness under these circumstances — and especially if the treatments offered were produced by the very same people conducting the screen! To my way of thinking, policies like this open the door to some very disturbing and dangerous possibilities — ranging from simple efforts to erode individuality in favor of a more uniform societal ideal, to diagnosing any political dissenters as “mentally unfit” and removing them to inpatient treatment centers “for their own good”.

  109. Don

    Because of this hullaballoo – and everyone should continue making it a hullaballoo – yesterday at the NASA web site, NASA Admistrator Mike Griffith issued this statement on NASA’s commitment to openness, with emphasis added by me:

    I want to make sure that NASA employees hear directly from me on how I view the issue of scientific openness and the role of public affairs within the agency.

    First, NASA has always been, is, and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public. The basis for this principle is codified in the Space Act of 1958, which requires NASA to “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.”

    Second, the job of the Office of Public Affairs, at every level in NASA, is to convey the work done at NASA to our stakeholders in an intelligible way. It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA’s technical staff. To ensure timely release of information, there must be cooperation and coordination between our scientific and engineering community and our public affairs officers.

    Third, we have identified a number of areas in which clarification and improvements to the standard operating procedures of the Office of Public Affairs can and will be made. The revised policy, when complete, will be disseminated throughout the agency.

    I want to encourage employees to discuss this issue and bring their concerns to management so we can work together to ensure that NASA’s policies and procedures appropriately support our commitment to openness.

    Mike Griffin
    NASA Administrator

    It can be found HERE

  110. Whim

    Whatever you do, don’t resort to name calling. The fact is that the average person is a believer in a God that he can turn to in time of need. I seriously doubt that he can grasp the highly technical math and logic that is required to be a scientist. But when a concept as simple as ID is presented, it is easy to accept. Because it is an easy concept that is right in line with his existing beliefs. It can and will be accepted because most people are not prepared to understand the present outpouring of knowledge we have about, for example, the expansion of the universe that the Big Bang requires. We can see it, he can’t even imagine it. But if he is put on the defensive about his beliefs, right or wrong, he will go to the one that he can find comfort in. That will be the God based one.

    As far as writing to your representatives, have at it, but don’t expect much action from them. I can’t tell a republican from a democrat anymore. Both parties seem to be more interested in getting or staying in power above the well being of their constituents. Certainly above science. Only votes matter and now with the candidates selected for us to vote for, I wonder how long that will matter.

    Anyway, as I said in the beginning, don’t offend those who can help us at the ballot box. Court them with simplified explanations of our knowledge like George Gamow and Fred Hoyle attempted. Hopefully when they understand that we work for them, and not against them, we can overcome some of the radical elements in political office. I hope so.

  111. Joel

    Good for you for bringing this to people’s attention, Phil. Just another example of Bush Administration incompetence and cultivation of ignorance.

    A note to The Supreme Canuck: Actually our political parties are quite a bit like you describe yours. If you look at a presidential election ballot, you’ll see the Libertarian Party (our largest 3rd party), The Green Party, perhaps an Independent, and maybe even a Communist. As you said, they don’t get nearly as many votes – it all comes down to who has the most money to get their advertising and political hype machine going – and right now it happens to be the Bushies, unfortunately.

    For anyone who disagrees with this administration, and wants to read articles and op-ed pieces by like-minded individuals, I recommend the following links:


  112. TheBlackCat

    The Supreme Canuck says:
    “Get some more parties! In Canada, we have a bunch of wacky, extremist parties. BUT NO ONE VOTES FOR THEM. ”

    Actually, that is the case in the US as well. We generally have 4-7, maybe more, different presidential candidates, many of which can only be voted for in one state and most of which only get a few percent of the popular vote, if that. Generally only one of the two main parties (at various times Federalists, Democrat-Republicans, Republicans, Democrats, and Whigs, among others) generally get a significant amount of the popular vote for presidency or more than a few seats in congress.

    The Supreme Canuck says:
    “Then there’s the notion of minority government. We have one now. What that means is that if the ruling party screws up, the other parties can bring down the government and an election is called. That’s what happened to our last government. The minority Liberals were involved ina scandal ($100 million CAD was stolen from public funds) and the government fell. Election, new government.”

    That is not so much a difference between the US and Canada, but between a congressional/presidental and parlimentary government in general. In the congressional/presidential, the executive and legislative branches are completely independent (in theory). The executive branch is not supposed to be able to boss around the legislative branch and vice versus. Now this sometimes breaks down when there is a strong-armed executive who is of the same party that control both houses of congress, but the executive cannot legally force congress to do anything and nor can congress force the executive to do anything. This is why removing the president from office is so difficult, they do not want this used as a tool by which congress can try to simply remove a president they disagree with. On the other hand, in a parlimentary system the executive is simply the leader of the legislative branch. The party or alliance of parties that can get the most votes chooses their executive branch. The legislative branch can also do away with the executive at any time. This means the executive must do exactly what the legislative wants him to do or he or she is out. In some such countries, there are so many different parties that no one party can get enough votes, so unstable alliances are formed between parties. The problem becomes pleasing a large number of groups with often conflicting interests. This is not the case very often in Canada.

    The US system has its advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage is that it can be very hard to get anything done. It is very likely you will get disagreements between the two branches, where the legislative refuses to pass the executive’s bills and the executive refusing to sign the legislative’s bills. This can greatly slow efforts to do things. On the other hand, the advantage is that is can be very hard to get anything done. Unless both groups agree, or there is a 2/3 majority in congress supporting it, the bill will not pass. This helps filter out many bills that may be good, but it also helps filter out many bills that may be had. So really its greatest strength and greatest weakness is in the two branches’ inability to cooperate.

    The Supreme Canuck says:
    “But in the US, the only way to do something like that is to impeach the President, which is rare.”

    Impeaching the president wouldn’t do didly. He would have to actually get removed from office. I know this is semantics but this misunderstanding is a point of some frustration for me. Under the US Constitution, an impeachment is sort like a grand jury trial. The House of Representatives basically decides with a simple majority vote whether there is sufficient evidence of, at least for the President, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” that he can be formally tried for the offense of offenses. This is what it means to be “impeached”, and has happened twice. If the House does decide to impeach the President, then the actual trial begins. In this, the senate must muster a 2/3 vote in order to remove the President from office. This is not impeachment, this is removal from office. They are two entirely different things. No President has ever been removed from office

  113. The Supreme Canuck

    I’m aware of third-party candidates in the US. I probably should have said that the problem is the result of having only two mainstream parties. We have four. My mistake: I should have phrased it better.

    And I’m not saying that a parliamentary system is flawless. A big problem is the fact that party members are expected to vote along party lines, not to further the interests of their constituency. Anyway, all I’m saying is that a system with more than two mainstream parties clamps down on extremism. If one of the bigger parties drifts too far, they hit an extremist party and can’t go further. There are limits. If, for example, there were a party in the US with the stated goal of returning to the Dark Ages, it is unlikely that a mainstream party would drift far enough that their policy would resemble that of the Dark Ager Party. The simple reason is that anyone who wants to pursue that agenda will enter the Dark Ager Party, not the Democrat or Republican party. Also, if one of the parties drifts too close to the Dark Agers, they lose votes to them [i]and[/i] to a more centrist party. A multi-mainstream party system favours centrism.

    As for impeachment, I was unaware that the process was so complicated. It’s been a few years since I studied the US Constituion. Thanks for reminding me.

  114. Nigel Depledge

    Chip said:
    “Like former FEMA Director Michael Brown, George Deutsch is yet another incompetent crony.”

    Interestingly enough, I learned a new word soon after moving to the North-East of England a couple of years ago. That word is “fema”, and it means weak or ineffectual (but is perhaps not quite so polite).

    DrJPHauck said:
    “On a separate subject. According ‘to Judge Jones, the federal judge who ruled over the Intelligent Design case in Dover, Pennsylvania last year, said, ID is “a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” ‘ – Nothing could be further than the truth. Intelligent design has nothing to do with any particular religion. It is a belief that the incredible diversity and complexity of the universe is the result of the creator’s purpose. A purpose to create a place for humanity. Can it be proved? No, not entirely. Is it the truth? I don’t think that anyone really knows. It is a hypothesis…”

    Sorry, but you are wrong and Judge Jones was right. ID is not scientific, it is a political tactic, motivated by fundamentalist Christian idealism. Have you not heard of the wedge document? Do you not know that the Discovery Institute, principal advocate of ID, is funded by evangelical Christians? And can you not accept the possibilities that either (a) the universe has no purpose, or (b) if it were created with a purpose, the purported creator would be able to do so using the mechanisms we have discovered in nature, i.e. the Big Bang and evolution and so on.

    Miguel Rodriguez said:
    “The Big Bang is a theory. regardless of your narrowminded anti-intellectualism. You fear religion may somehow worm its way into the issue, which clouds your judgement. Leaving religion aside, the Big Bang is still a theory. There are evidences suggesting its occurrence, but no facts, no photos, no ego-serving blogs of witnesses to read.
    Get off your high horse, anti-religious tirades and simply look at the issue.”

    Oh, boy, where to start? The big bang is the only theory that explains what we observe of the universe (recession of distant galaxies, the microwave background radiation, the temperature of the background, the fact that it is perfect black-body radiation, the universal abundances of hydrogen, helium and deuterium and so on). We know there are things it cannot explain, but any replacement theory must explain MORE than BBT. Until a better theory comes along, the Big Bang is the best we have. Because it explains so much, we know it is at least an approximation of the truth. We do not fear religion – what we fear is religious fundamentalists telling naive members of the public that what science has discovered is wrong. There are many reasons why a healthy science community is of huge benefit to any society – scientists believe (through experience) that science will benefit humanity. If science is suppressed and misrepresented, we may eventually return to a mediaevel world view, with all of the injustice and foolishness that goes with it. We have looked at the issue. The issue is that people are trying to suppress scientific knowledge because it is inconvenient or unpalatable. What do you think the issue is?

    Too many posts to read, too little time. Sorry if I’m repeating what’s already been said.

  115. TheBlackCat

    Bluestocking said:
    “To The Black Cat — I’m afraid that I wouldn’t be quite so sanguine with regard to the neuroscience issue if I were you. For the past decade, psychology has been leaning rather heavily towards a biomedical model in which genetics and/or changes in biochemistry are being given primary attention as the underlying cause of mental illness.”

    Uh, I know that. I am doing my PhD on the nervous system (neural-oriented biomedical engineering research). I am well aware of the biochemical roots of neurological disorders, these are very well-established within the scientific community. This “biomedical model” of mental illness is being leaned so heavily towards because it is TRUE. In fact, the chemical and neurological roots of many psychiatric disorders are very well established, and the roots of other disorders are being discovered all the time. This is not some pharmaceutical conspiracy, this is independent researcher in universities studying how the nervous system operate, what can go wrong with it, and what causes such things to go wrong. The pharmaceutical companies simply make medicines based on such discoveries. People who deny the biochemical root of psychiatric disorders are no different than people who deny the evolutionary root of biodeversity. It is extremely well-established. I know because I have studied it extensively in my coursework. And what is more, my research isn’t even on pharmaceuticals or neural biochemistry, I don’t like those subjects, but you cannot really learn about the nervous system with learning about such things in great detail. We are coming from completely different directions. I support, and in fact actually do, the research into the neurological properties of the brain.

    Bluestocking said:
    “Is it purely a coincidence that the last decade or so has seen an upsurge in the administration of Ritalin to control ADHD in children, or Prozac for comparatively moderate forms of depression?”

    No, it is no coincedence. These have been used because they WORK. That is like blaming biotech companies for the success of evolutionary theory. Biotech companies are not pushing for acceptance of evolution and genetics. Evolution and genetics have become well-established and biotech companies are now using them for commercial purposes. Likewise, pharmaceutical companies are not pushing for the acceptance of neurochemical model of the nervous system and disorders of the nervous system, these have become well-established and the pharmaceutical companies are now using them for commercial purposes. That is how it always works. Something starts out as pure science but once scientists get a certain level of understanding of what is going on people begin using it for commercial purposes.

    Bluestocking said:
    “but I’m of the opinion that it should be considered only one of the possible treatment options and not the automatic first choice, at least with disorders which are primarily emotional in nature such as depression rather than those which are primarily kinetic such as Parkinson’s.”

    People use chemicals to treat mental disorders because mental disorders are chemical problems. They are due to too much or too little or something. Parkinson’s is largely due to a decrease in the neurotransmitter dopamine, while schizophrenia is largely due to an increase in dopamine. Epilepsy is due to a decrease in the neurotransmitter GABA, while Depression appears to be linked to a number of neurotransmitters (primarily seratonin and norepinephrine). Disorders in the cerebellum are linked to a large number of diseases, including schizophrenia, autism, a specific type of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, not to mention a very wide variety of motor deficits. Just telling you what neurotransmitter is high or low, if you didn’t know what that particular neurotransmitter did, wouldn’t tell you whether you are dealing with a psychiatric disorder or a motor disorder. They usually have the same fundamental problem: too much or too little of something. Saying one can only be treated with chemical but the other can be treated by other means is to completely make up a non-existant fundamental difference between them. On the surface they may seem very different, but the fundamental cause is very, very similar, if not identical.

  116. Jj

    “The intent of Douche IS to worm religion in…”
    Now I read – re-read and then RE-READ – even on different sites, other than this. Here is the question: Where do we have it scientifically documented, with solid proof, evidence and such that “Douche is to worm..” where do we have that clearly ‘spelled out’ from him and his “intentions”?

    My profession forces me to look at facts – not just “emotional hearsay”. Intent has to be proven – in what I call “court room facts” not “coffee room facts”.

    I do NOT agree with ‘sensor’ – or biased reporting. But give me a break. NTY – CBS – NBC – ABC – CNN – FOX have all biased reporting – look at the times certain ones have had to ‘appologize’ and even let some people go!

    I can site you MANY times where the leading New Reports have more than slighted or “omitted facts” because they did NOT wish to deal with the ‘true picture’.

    So the point is – we accuse the “other side” of emotionalism – but in soem of what we’ve said, “are we not also a tad ‘guilty’??”

    I know if I went into a courtroom – or even a Highschool Debate class with so little evidence of “he said, they said” (and nothing is really in ‘print’ – it would be ‘laughed out of the room’.

    Just a thought. Jj

  117. JiggleBilly

    Anybody else find it funny that the Admin talks so much of how technology will save us while simultaneously endorsing this crap? I mean, if God is going to straighten out NASA, why cannot he fix the DoD?

    I almost forgot, science can only be used to kill more effectively, never to save. Thanks Jesus!

  118. hawaiiarmenian

    It’s great to take action into your own hands. E-mailed both Senators and House members of Hawaii, with this attack on science. Got a response back from Congressman Abercrombie (one of two House members), stating that they will do their best to fight for our right to think critically, and defend science. Unfortunately, out here, it’s preaching to the choir, because they know all too well the pitfalls of this Conservative, anti-science dominated government.
    Anyway, on a lighter note everybody, enjoy the Super Bowl, give yourself for a few hours of distraction (If it works for you), and may the fight for science and critical thinking generate the greatest movement in this new Millenium.

  119. P. Edward Murray


    It appears as though you have no valid reason for talking about mental illness; you don’t seem to have a family member that has it because you would know these things and you are not in the medical industry.

    LEARN please because it really does effect all of us because most of the severe mentally ill are walking the streets untreated ( and they even have the right to refuse treatment ) when they should be in some type of care.

  120. Caledonian

    “I am well aware of the biochemical roots of neurological disorders, these are very well-established within the scientific community. This “biomedical model” of mental illness is being leaned so heavily towards because it is TRUE.” – from Black Cat

    Oh really? Would you care to share with us the physiological tests that can be used to diagnose mental disorders? Or maybe you could tell us what evidence has just been produced that permits us to finally isolate a cause for schizophrenia, depression, manic depression, and so forth?

    But, you can’t – because there are no such tests, and there is no such evidence. Parkinson’s Disease is one of the few conditions where a) there is a distinct biochemical anomaly in each case of the disease and b) it’s possible to diagnose the condition through physiological evidence alone, even before symptoms begin to appear.

    People have tried modeling mental disorders as excesses or dearths of various neurotransmitters, and it simply doesn’t work. Drugs that produce wild changes in those neurotransmitters simply don’t produce conditions that match the mental disorders, although the symptoms produced are often similar.

    In short, Black Cat, although it may certainly be true that various mental disorders may be the result of identifiable neurochemical problems, your statement that we know this to be true is completely wrong.

  121. yardy

    Second time I have been referred to your site from other blogs and both times I have found yor entry to be informative and entertaining. As a fellow scientist, I respect your insight. Keep up the good work.

  122. aiabx

    Can’t these people have their Rapture and get out of our way?
    We don’t force them to teach science in church, why must they keep getting religion in our science?
    -Andy B

  123. Lucifer of TSF


    That one’s great. What want this guys, demolish the USA brick after brick? Seen from Europe, sometimes the religious crackpots in the USA look funny. Sometimes they look scary. Yet when this troglodites mess with the NASA about the Big Bang, something must be going seriosuly wrong with the USA. I mean, SERIOUSLY wrong. Hold on tight, Doctor Platt, and everyone who can a stand against this outrage, PLEASE stand up.

  124. M.J.

    I hate to sound like a troll, but cripes, you are all just as bad as creationists you hate so much. You’re just as vitriolic, just as blind with rage, and just as utterly convinced that you hold supreme truth in that 3 pound lump of grey matter lodged in your evidently thick skulls as every creationist I’ve ever run across.

    The whole argument is philosophical at it’s core. It comes down to whether or not one beleives the evidence that the other side is presenting. Scientists don’t want to acknowledge the intricacies of believing in what cannot be seen because it goes against the scientific method, which is the core of their WYSIWYG worldview. Creationists don’t want to believe in the Big Bang because most of them do not understand and will never understand the hyper-complicated, seemingly contrived maze of calculations and theoretical physics underpinning the idea. In short, both sides will hold utterly fast to their own ideas until someone presents new ones in a better light without being a condescending jerk about it.

    Getting your dander up and going on a long-winded rant that ends in self-righteous pap like “I hate being right” and iron-fisted statements of belief acceptance such as “we must not tolerate this” is definitely not the right way to go about beginning to change people’s minds. Angry science nerds and smug creationists alike need to know when to shut up. Yeesh.

  125. TheBlackCat

    Lets see:

    Epilepsy is caused by a deficieny in GABA-ergic inhibitatory neurons. Sometimes this is a general deficity, other times it is localized in specific areas. Most, if not all, anticonvulscents enhance GABA-ergic inhibition in some way (although the exact mechanism varies). Selectively blocking particular GABA-sensetive channels can create results that mimic epilespy. Animal models of epilespy have selective loss of particular classes of GABA-ergic neurons.

    Autism is related to significant changes in the cellular makeup of the cerebellum, including less purkinje cells and those that remain produce less GABA and thicker climbing fiber. These problems have been reproduced, along with autism itself, in rats by giving them cocaine neonatally. This prevents the migration of certain types of neurons to the cerebellum during development.

    Lesions in the cerebellum mimic a wide variety of mental and motor disorders, including both ADHD and OCD.

    There are a wide variety of agnosias that are caused by specific lesions in specific regions of the brain.

    Obsessive-compulsive disorder is linked to hyperactivity in GABA-ergic inhibitatory projections from the caudate nucleus to the globus pallidus.

    Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Panic Disorder have been linked to hyperactivity in noradrenergic neurons, and a drug called yohimbine that activates central noradrenergic neurons triggers both panic attacks in people with panic disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder but has no such effect on normal people and drugs that reduce noradrenergic synaptic activity help with both disorders.

    One problem is that there might be several problems that all are needed to trigger one disorder, or several problems that each independently can cause a similar problem.

    For instance, there are a wide variety of genetic defects that cause schizophrenia, generally linked to paternal (not maternal) age at time of conception. Most or all such mutations occur at a region called a “fragile site” that is particularly prone to mutation.

    These are only a few examples, I know there are more but I don’t have the time to continue looking right now.

    In the end, though, the proof is in the medicines themselves. If there was no chemical root of mental disorders, then giving people chemicals wouldn’t work. If an increase or a decrease in a neurotransmitter doesn’t cause mental disorders, then a drug that increases or decreases the activity of a neurotransmitter would not help with the disorder.

  126. Hello Phil

    I cannot believe what I read here. Well, sadly I can.

    Personally, I don’t get this religion thing. At best I’m agnostic, but only because I won’t be that arrogant do deny the existence of something I know nothing about. That’s maybe not scientific either; it’s a means of not getting mixed in endless discussions with religious people (luckily I don’t know any).

    How a country with so much potential as yours, can in some ways still be so ‘backwards’ as to let personal world views mix with societal structures, education, government and even science, I cannot begin to understand. Pity your revolution was rather more based on practical issues, as compared to the French one; where everybody now first is a ‘citoyen’ and personal opinions and state matters are rigidly separated.

    Anyway, I don’t want to rant about religion or politics too much, but I do want to point out that in Europe we’ve also had our so-called ‘close shaves’ regarding this issue.

    In neighbouring Holland the education minister of the Christian-Democratic party also tried to ‘open the debate on ID’. Luckily this ended in a sizzle, rather that a bang. A quick search only resulted in one mention of this in English. The link in full: http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/1/10/663/87131
    and snipped:
    http://snipurl.com/verhoeven_ID). Hope these work.

    Here’s a quote from what actually is a comment on this site:

    “The blunder of the [CDA] Minister of Education, Maria Verhoeven to consider Intelligent Design was hailed by national newspaper ‘de Volkskrant’ as the fifth biggest blunder in science of 2005. It generated an endless stream of scathing op-eds until she wisely let the subject rest. But such moves are also to be expected from the jarheads still hovering within the VVD [liberal party, ed.].”

    I have forwarded a link of your post to a friend of mine who is a journalist at our progressive ‘quality newspaper’ De Morgen. Maybe they’ll pick up on it. I can’t settle with the statement of Laguna2 that ‘no one will hear’.

    Glad to see the amount of reactions to this post, even if some seem to be from the ‘other camp’.

    Good luck

    Few-weeks newbie to your blog

  127. Bill Smythe

    Maybe somebody can explain to George Deutsch why his behavior is wrong. He appears to be an arrogant knothead, but maybe somebody can get through to him.

    He can be reached at work at phone number deleted by The Bad Astronomer – posting his number is a very, very bad idea.

  128. Rita

    MJ Said: “just as utterly convinced that you hold supreme truth in that 3 pound lump of grey matter”

    I did read the 134+ posts, and while you’ve got _some_ facts, I don’t think you’ve got some _points_. The above quote makes me think you DIDN’T read the above posts. There is a might bit of difference between denying that someone else’s “supreme truth” works for you, and claiming you’ve got it all worked out. Many of the above posts point out that yeah, big bang is a theory, and so is gravity – they aren’t saying this is the be-all, end-all, even if it’s a mighty well accepted theory, it could be wrong – which is still a lot different then an opinion. I wish the mainstream news would do a week-long segment explaining what scientific theory entails, as those who’ve forgotten their high school classes need the refresher

    It would be nice if everyone could state their cases calmly and rationally and not go into vitrolic language, but in the World of Perception, which is where our politicos live, if it ain’t stirring, it ain’t getting any attention. Passion is required. Name calling may be undignified, and counterslams may not seem to be necessary, but if you walk into a pulpit-thumping sermon, with the paternal figure at his alter raining down hellfire at the top of his lungs, a cleared throat and dry recitation of a counter view is not going even be heard.

    So far, Science has avoided “dropping to that level”, but at some point, you’ve got to use a fight that works.

    I wish more people read Sci Fi novels – there are tons of examples of where this could lead If This Goes On.

  129. I hate to bust your bubble, but the Big Bang IS THEORY. And by many accounts it’s a bad theory. Consider Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”, in Chapter 8, where he discusses the model of the universe. Instead of illustrating it (this is book written for a popular audience, so pictures are necessary to get some of the points across) as a cone emanating from a fixed point (the big bang), the shape space-time is a sphere, with the big bang being at it’s south pole, and the inevitable big crunch being the north pole. There’s one problem anyone with calculus can recognize: if the big bang represents t0, and the big crunch represents tfinal, then the acceleration of space-time at those points is undefined. Think about that for a second – the big bang didn’t exist, and the big crunch won’t exist.

    Now follow that into some ALTERNATIVE theories of the universe, such as the Steady State theory (Gold, Bondi, Hoyle, and notably the model preferred by Einstein), or the Quasi-Steady State theory (Hoyle, Burbridge, Nalikar).

    Now, this is the part where I’d stoop to your level and begin with the ad-hominem attacks on your intelligence the same way you attack the Bush Administrations alleged anti-science attitude with connotations of fundamentalism and suppression. All that is being done is allowing ALTERNATIVE theories to compete fairly, without promoting government sanctioned scientific dogma. I’d think a political hack (and I don’t mean that in the derogatory sense – you’re obviously a science commentator first, and a politician second… or maybe even third) such as yourself would appreciate a first amendment separation of science and state kind of policy such as this.

  130. I wish that US scientists would go on strike over something like this. It’s not as if they are easy to replace with mindless religiomatons.

  131. Bill

    The FARK.com link works again, check it out.

  132. Dean

    I can’t believe this. While I don’t actually believe fully in big bang byitself (i also believe M-theory and the colliding of branes) i cant stand for someone to be so anti-scientific, it like were going back to when galileo was put under house aresst for his scientific ideas. While you cant know 100% that a big bang like incident happened, the evidence points strongly towards it.
    I believe that there can be a symbitoic union of science and religion, as long as we realize the holy books in the world were written by men and not god and that they have had years of human manipulation in them, especially to explain the big questions, like why are we here and how did we get here. We find out somthing new about the unverse in general every day, and i believe it is to massive and beautiful not have a creator of some sort.
    Even M theory has room for a creator, and im only a high schooler and i understand this. If only the, and pardon me for saying this, old one tracked minded unimaginetive and non theoretical thinkers would move out of the way and stop trying to influence us to think like you all and to let us make our own discoverys based on the information you have provided, and even on information we discover ourself.

    I do not mean my last phrase in a truly offensive manner, just telling my opinion, if there is an issue pleae contact me at Dean4050211@insightbb.com


  133. Justin

    keep up the excellent work, and i’ll try to get your message out. truly appalling!

  134. They were correct …”Big Bang” now refers to the defunct theory of the creation of the universe.

    When you examine the incredible detail of things in this universe and amazing ability of all things to work together..as if by design…..to even insinuate that it all happened by accident is an insult to any half-way intelligent being.


  135. Bored again

    Bush is destorying the world, and obviously meant for this to happen when this pissant functionary was appointed! Religion is evil and the source of all of the world’s problems! Everyone but me is stupid, this is self evident!

    This has to be the most pathetic post and thread I’ve seen in a long time.

    …And given the state of the internet, that is truly saying something.

    Y’all just keep enjoying your paranioa and rigid self-involved orthodoxy, at least as long as you’re busy here the rest of us don’t have to listen to your idiocy.

  136. Melusine

    “KingNor Says:
    February 5th, 2006 at 3:41 am
    I support the notion that something should be done to stop this, but as a non-scientist i’m not too sure what i can do to “get the message” out. ”

    It would be better if more non-scientists did speak out about this, because this is about lack of integrity in our government, not just science. As a taxpayer I should expect that government agencies will engage in the honest and open exchange of information that affects us all. How can I or Congressman X make an informed decision to support something if I’m not given all the information? Nothing good comes from a stifling, suppressive work atmosphere–our scientists deserve better than to be subject to political special interests and we deserve to be treated without contempt, which is how I feel the Bush administration treats us. Why? Because this kind of business has been going on for years with impudence–it’s been right in front of our faces all along, and not just with science and the environment. I don’t care whether someone is a Republican or Democrat or neither–we need to speak out for integrity, intellectual honesty and free speech in our govt or else we just leave the door open for the next administration to do the same…because they can, because they can get away with it.

    So, I say let people know you’re not a comatose citizen who doesn’t care about the integrity of science; that NASA should be kept out of partisan politics; that this administration has the ethics of a mollusk (Ok, not nice to clams). Really, lots of people have no problem speaking out about emotional issues like abortion or gay marriage-I wish they would feel the same passion about science matters that have an impact on our understanding of the world and beyond.

    The Houston Chronicle had an editorial about this today. See here:

    Write to them! This is Bush country, NASA people will read it, if enough people talk about it the Chronicle will know people care and pursue it further. You can email to: viewpoints@chron.com

  137. OH MY GOD! And people wonder why so much of the rest of the world sees us as a hypocritical joke! I just hope we can hold on for another 3 years without this dumb SOB blowing us all up. George W Bush is about to do what the USSR couldn’t. Distroy society as we know it.

  138. Joel2

    These are mere words. If you want the response of government, take it to the streets MLK style.

  139. dwhitbeck

    I thought that there has always been argument for and against the big bang model. The latest theory against the big bang I have read is by Alex Mayer of Stanford.


  140. Caledonian

    “In the end, though, the proof is in the medicines themselves. If there was no chemical root of mental disorders, then giving people chemicals wouldn’t work. If an increase or a decrease in a neurotransmitter doesn’t cause mental disorders, then a drug that increases or decreases the activity of a neurotransmitter would not help with the disorder.” – Black Cat

    That’s… incredibly stupid. Many, many treatments for disorders of all kinds are effective despite not having anything to do with the immediate cause of the problem. Especially the treatments that are involved in symptom reduction and mitigation.

    As for your list of ‘evidence’, those are hypotheses drawn from our limited ability to detect various kinds of damage. Generating a hypothesis isn’t at all the same thing as learning the actual explanation for a condition.

    There needs to be a casual relationship established. It’s obvious that an individual with different emotional and cognitive reactions will demonstrate different patterns of brain activity – the key is showing that physiological changes in the brain are the cause. Demonstrating that a person with OCD is likely to have unusual levels of activation in the brain regions associated with threat detection and the reward system in itself is pointless. Of course they do! They feel an overwhelming need to repeat actions to prevent something horrible from happening. So which is the cause and which is the effect?

  141. Caledonian

    The Internet gnomes seem to have stolen my post. Well, let’s try again.

    BlackCat: “In the end, though, the proof is in the medicines themselves. If there was no chemical root of mental disorders, then giving people chemicals wouldn’t work. If an increase or a decrease in a neurotransmitter doesn’t cause mental disorders, then a drug that increases or decreases the activity of a neurotransmitter would not help with the disorder.”

    That’s… incredibly stupid. There are many, many treatments for all kinds of disorders where the treatment doesn’t actually affect the underlying problem at all. Most of our treatments in psychiatry involve controlling or mitigating symptoms – arguing that the drugs must be affecting the underlying problem is like claiming that diuretics cure high blood pressure or painkillers cure migranes. There are a very few cases where the treatment is directly related to the condition (Type I diabetes, Parkinson’s, and a few others).

    The brain is also incredibly good at compensating for neurotransmitter levels that are higher or lower than normal. That’s why we can become addicted so easily, and why (for example) more than 90% of the dopaminergic neurons need to die off before the clinical symptoms of the disease arise.

    It’s not enough to show that there are unusual brain activation states in people diagnoses with mental disorders – a causal link must also be established. Are the brain changes the cause or the effect of the condition?

  142. excellent article. The point that really needs to be driven home is the difference between Theory (which big bang and Evolution both are) and conjecture (which ID struggles to qualify as).

  143. Paul

    I didn’t have time to read the comments here, but I have no words than can express my anguish at the current administration’s frighteningly successful attempts to limit the information we have to that which falls within their narrow religious views. I have always been open to the possibility that there is more than we can ever understand going on around us and that that may leave room for an intellegent being beyond our knowledge, but certainly not one that is limited by OUR ignorance and opinion. The way man manipulates the claim of God for his own purposes is the best evidence I have ever seen for the argument that God is man’s creation and not the other way around. It is sheer hubris for man to claim that any “God” could be explained by man and the actions of “God” limited by what man could explain and understand. I have come to doubt the existence of God more from the action of the believers than form any other source. If I am forced to choose between God and science, I will choose science. It is just a shame that I must make such a choice.

  144. Nigel said:
    >Until a better theory comes along, the Big Bang is the best we have. >Because it explains so much, we know it is at least an approximation of >the truth.

    Didnt you just agree with Rodriguez?
    Seems to me that is exactly what he said.


  145. I share the outrage in the blog. What fries me is the arrogance of this wet-eared member of the Bush Jugend instructing scientists with actual education and brains that they must conform to the Party Line. This is pure Lysenkoism. And if not checked, it will destroy our country’s technical superiority and therefore our standard of living and our way of life.

    On the subject of the status of ID, in the probably vain hope that one of the supporters of ID who has posted may read and understand, and with apologies to all the scientifically literate posters who already KNOW this:

    Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because there is no way to DISprove it. A scientific theory is a constructed explanation of reality from which you make predictions about what you can find, or can do. Then you go and try to find it, or do it; if you succeed, you’ve supported the theory. If your predictions fail, you have DISPROVED the theory. If a theory can’t be disproved, then It. Is. Not. Science. ID is deliberately stated in a way that makes it impossible to disprove.

  146. Scott Mooney

    Good grief.

    I’ve said this before: The Creationists don’t just have a problem with biology…it’s with the entire field of science. Anything that runs afoul of their religious preconceptions has to go. Physics, astronomy, geology, etc…

  147. Mike

    And yet, the big bang *is* a theory, right? So, while he may have the wrong motives, is he incorrect in requesting that they place the word “theory” on something that is indeed unproven and unproveable?

  148. So what am I missing here guys?

    Deutsch told the NASA web designer to make sure that Big Bang is referred to as a theory, because, well it is a theory, and… eh… Huh?

    Even funnier is the fact that the NASA web pages already referred to Big Bang as a theory, as they have ever since the web pages went live back during the Clinton administration.

    But don’t keep all that information from letting the partisan tornado in a teapot keep roaring.

    For a summary of the latest yawn, check here.

  149. Kit

    Okay, I’m somewhere between a skeptic and a spiritualist. I’m open to all ideas, and I certainly don’t dismiss those ideas that I disagree with. If new info becomes available to support any thought, I’ll be glad to sit down and listen.

    This Bush appointee is, by quotes only, merely reiterating the fact that the Big Bang is ONLY THEORY. Yes, it’s are best guess at the physical evidence; it happens to be convincing enough for me to buy. But just because it is the strongest supported theory does not mean that the government must approve it. The people of the US voted Bush in this past term. His beliefs have not changed. Are we surprised? If you don’t like the job he’s doing, don’t vote for a similar candidate in the future.

    Bush believes in God, and does not like the atheistic stance the government has taken. I tend to agree with him. Though there is a separation between church and state, this does not mean that spirituality can play no part in our government. Afterall, is it not a government for the people, by the people? This is whom we have chosen as a collective nation. Therefore, these are the ideas that the government will implement. It isn’t unconstitutional, nor illegal.

    So, again, there is nothing wrong with what Deutsch did. He was merely using the power of language to be more specific. This allows for more interpretations. Afterall, the government can no more stand for a particular religious belief than it can stand for a particular scientific theory. That would be the identical fallacy for science is in religion. Should the government show particular bias for one theory over another? No more than it should show one religion over another.

  150. Seixon, you seem to have missed the point about why Deutsch wanted the word “theory” there, which is why I’m angry. You may have also missed the point on how Hansen says Deutsch is suppressing scientific information.

  151. Bluestocking

    I grant you that psychotropic drugs *are* indeed effective with regard to the treatment of mental illness. In all fairness, I can’t find anything in what I originally wrote which claimed that they are not. In fact, if I may quote myself — “I’m by no means one of those people who’s opposed to the administration of psychiatric medication.” I very much doubt that I would have said that if I felt that these medications were of little value. Indeed, drug therapy is still the best first line of defense for the most serious forms of mental illness such as bipolar disorder and the various types of schizophrenia — especially since there is plenty of research to demonstrate a significant correlation between these disease states and various genetic as well as biochemical factors. It’s also the best treatment for kinetic disease states like Parkinson’s, a point which I conceded. What I have problems with is *automatically* advocating drug therapy as the primary line of defense even for comparatively mild forms of mental illness. (For the record, my academic background is in psychology from a social science perspective rather than a a biological one — contrary to what some people might think, that *does* qualify as a science — and although I don’t have a Ph.D., I did complete a master’s degree). There is at least some difference, after all, between someone who’s experiencing a reactive depression after the breakup of a romantic relationship versus someone who’s endured a pervasive and chronic depression for years.

    I’m of the opinion that at least in the long run, encouraging Americans to pop a pill at the first signs of physical or emotional discomfort is not necessarily in everyone’s best interest. For one thing, pill-popping (at least by itself without supplementary forms of treatment) does absolutely nothing to encourage introspection and self-awareness — two things which appear to be falling rapidly out of fashion in this country but which I personally think may have contributed a good deal to some of the problems we’re seeing now. I think pill-popping also contributes to a zeitgeist of immediate gratification, but the easiest and/or quickest solution is not always the best one and especially not if it prevents people from becoming aware of larger problems either in their own lives or in society as a whole. There are times when anxiety and depression may be symptoms of something greater and not merely disease states in themselves (if you want an example, just read this board). Drug therapy, like everything else, has the potential for a dark side — one illustration, albeit fictional, is “Brave New World” in which widespread usage of a psychotropic drug is used as a political tool to suffocate individuality and enforce conformity to societal norms.

    Even if we must agree to disagree on the subject of the cause of mental illness, the point I was originally trying to make — and the fact that you made no reference to it at all in your rebuttal did not escape me — is that the Bush administration is showing signs of encroaching on the American people’s right to make their own decisions even within the area of neuroscience. The question that I would put to you is whether you would feel comfortable permitting the government (or more specifically, this administration) to make psychiatric evaluations a requirement of all citizens regardless of whether or not they showed any signs of mental disturbance — also whether you would feel comfortable essentially allowing the government to have the final say as to whether or not you qualify for a diagnosis of mental illness, what factors that diagnosis was based on, and what forms of treatment you might be required to undergo. I don’t know about you — but particularly based on what I’ve read and seen of the results thus far from most of the policies enacted by this administration, my own answer to both questions is most resoundingly and emphatically in the negative!

  152. Charles S

    I see this article and the point that someone had to search for it to find it on the NYTimes. Well it has now become the victim of the digg effect, im sure we will be seeing it on the news sometime soon. Bush needs to back off, we need no more religious policy within the scientific field and for that matter in the Government. Separation of Church and State was created for a reason. To keep religious zealots from forcing their views on others. im not against religion just those who force it upon others because they think its in their best interest. Those people should die violent deaths.

  153. Adam

    Hi All

    What’s idiotic in the extreme about all this is the amount of fundamentalist ink that has been spilt claiming the Big Bang is proof of God’s existence – then along comes some idiot undercutting their whole house-of-cards.

    OTOH if they’re that disorganised well they’re not exactly the threat we might think in our first knee-jerk reaction – I felt like spewing myself.


  154. You know what, religion and science should never meet. They have nothing to do with each other. Science strives to increase knowledge by testing theories, religion strives to mute knowledge by blindly adopting completely unbelivable dogmas. One has not to do with the other in any way shape or form. They should just leave each other alone and we will see who inherits the earth. My money is on the genetically superior race of warrior poets created by science.

    I’ll lay out odds 1000 to 1 against the meek.

  155. Bad Astronomer,

    Whether or not Deutsch reasons for putting “theory” there were misguided or not, he was still doing the right thing. Big Bang is a theory, and him ensuring that it was referred to as such was within reason. Even more, the NASA web pages already referred to it as a theory, so there was actually little reason for Deutsch to even mention it.

    In other words, no harm done.

    The New York Times, obviously trying to strengthen its case against Deutsch and Bush appointees trying to meddle with NASA, came up with two duds in this newest article.

    They came up with two examples of Bush appointees trying to meddle, and what did they have for us? One where a Bush appointee actually was on the right side of science and there was no harm done, and another where a scientist went along with a supposed push to mention the space program, where he eventually decided against it and the NY Times tried to make it seem more sinister than it was.

    Weak, weak, weak.

    It would seem wiser to spare your outrage for the outrageous because otherwise no one will take you serious anymore when you cry WOLF! for the 10 billionth time.

  156. beskeptigal

    First NASA is not to comment on the politically troublesome evidence that we indeed have a growing problem with fossil fuels heating up the Earth. As if global catastrophe was not enough, NASA must now not comment on science that contradicts the Bible! Scientists are reminded that science is merely their “religion” and they must therefore give the Christian religious view equal weight to their scientific views. That is really hard to believe, but clearly that is what has been stated as new official policy.

    I would comment on just this single event but as it turns out, it isn’t a single event. It’s very hard to use the term, “vast right wing conspiracy” without fearing I’ve fallen into the trap of fools we so often argue with on the regular BA forum. But I stumbled upon some information as I was looking into a Bellevue, WA, (my home town), Christian think tank I recently heard about. It was hard to find their website and their mission so I went to link after link of organizations with similar names. I Googled various terms as well. So what did I find to my horror that pertains to this blog?

    Hundreds of right wing Christian “Institutes”, “Foundations”, “Groups”, “Organizations”, and “think tanks”, all with missions to fund propaganda campaigns, rapid responses, host web sites to counter anything heard on the media that contradicts their world view, influence politics, stack the judicial posts in every corner of the country with judges that mirror their views, and any and everything else possible to change the nature of our government and our public educational system to one that fits their religious ideals. Many of these groups started back in the early 80s during the Reagan era. The Discovery Institute is not unique. The wedge strategy is not limited to a small movement.

    If you doubt me and think I exaggerate, I challenge you to look for yourself. Search the net for right wing Christian think tanks/Institutes/Foundations. Look for Alito and right wing Christian or wedge and right wing Christian. You will be overwhelmed with the number of different hits, and most are well funded well organized influential groups. The Bellevue group actually put both Alito and Roberts’ names onto the short list Bush chose candidates from. A religious group in my hometown has been stacking the judicial benches across the country for years and I only heard about them a couple days ago!

    It is no coincidence we are seeing appointments to every political post of persons with extremist religious views. It is no coincidence these appointments are beginning to be made in every possible field from the K Street Project where the quid pro quo was, “you hire all Republicans for you lobby staff from the housekeepers on up and we’ll pass whatever legislation suits your fancy”, to the director of PBS which has had a lot of programing the fundamentalists would like to see censored.

    Yes, I am equating extremist religious views with Republicans. The religious extremists have invaded the Republican Party. I don’t think it’s a Republican issue, any more than I think the Democrats are all atheists. I have no doubt there are Republican scientists who are not happy with the religious interference in the scientific fields. But it is a Republican issue until they take their own party back. Republicans that aren’t religious extremists need to be speaking out the loudest.

    It is indeed time to do more than register shock and awe. We need a campaign to bring this to the public’s attention. I trust the public to have a rational mind most of the time. I don’t trust them to always be paying attention. The public needs us to let them know how much energy is being put into spreading one religion into every school, laboratory, government office, and from there one can only shudder to think. Write CNN, and the other news stations. Write the NY Times and your local papers. Hey, if moveon.org can organize a letter/phone campaign, so can concerned scientists. My letters have already been sent and I will be sending a few more in the days to come.

  157. beskeptigal

    Seixon, you seem to have blinders on to the nature of the problem. Perhaps you’d like religion equated to science in your child’s classroom and in public forums. I most certainly do not.

  158. beskeptigal

    A Mind Occasionally Voyaging,

    You may be troubled that science does not support your religion, or perhaps just troubled science sidesteps it. You and many other scientists may hold on to your beliefs in both religion and science, you just can’t go pretending the evidence is anything you want it to be.

  159. beskeptigal

    Kit, science is a process of testing and examining. It isn’t as process of opinions and whims. If someone has another opinion as to the interpretation of evidence, one presents data or other discussions of logic. One does not merely proclaim to have another opinion.

  160. beskeptigal

    Perhaps those of you comfortable with the requirement of adding theory to the Big Bang label (which on its face no one is arguing), might comment instead on Deutsch’s comment, ““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.”

  161. Jay

    I’m glad I happened upon your blog. This type of thing disgusts me to no end. Bush’s lack of intellect is at work here. Unfortunatly, he’s also allowed to appoint those of the same callibre into possitions they aren’t suited for. Personally, I’d like to see a full inquiry into those practices after he’s booted out of office, but I doubt that’ll happen.

    What we have here is a 24 year old kid, who has no clue what he’s talking about, trying to tell others who do know what they are talking about what to do. I’m a computer guy by trade. I certainly wouldn’t be suited for, say, nursing. It’s the same thing here. No journalism major should be in a place of power of a scientific organization like NASA. It’s just wrong. Bush is so to blame for this. But then again, I don’t think Bush would qualify to be much more than a bus boy, and he’s the President. It makes me ashamed to be a Texan, but I can definatly say that I’m at least qualified for my job.

    Cudo’s to you!

  162. Jay

    One more thing. Here’s a link to a story that links the entire NYT article with no login. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29502

  163. Troy

    In regards to what Jeremy said…well perhaps the meek will inherit the earth, the bold will inherit the rest of the universe?

  164. beskeptigal

    Andrew Krause said above:

    “… All that is being done is allowing ALTERNATIVE theories to compete fairly, without promoting government sanctioned scientific dogma. I’d think [a person] such as yourself would appreciate a first amendment separation of science and state kind of policy such as this.”

    To compete fairly? Like what, science has a monopoly on evidence and is covering up the evidence it doesn’t like?

    Your mistake, Andrew, and that of the I D supporters is failing to grasp what an alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY is. Do you suppose we should include the ‘theory’ that Atlas is holding up the Earth? Do you want your government telling doctors they need to educate the public about alternative witch doctors? Should we include in science class the theory of the Hindu caste system of reincarnation? How about adding astrology, palm reading, ghosts and psycho-kinetics to the science class? Evidence isn’t needed, just a large enough following according to your rationale.

    How naive it is to think scientists don’t entertain alternative theories. Science is based on evidence. Present the evidence and make the logical argument and you’ll enjoy the privileges that all alternative scientific theories enjoy. Science invites alternative theories. What on Earth would motivate the collective science community to treat alternative theories unfairly?

    You seem to think science has some political motive or scientists just aren’t clever enough to include various explanations for the evidence we have. We need government regulations to avoid scientific monopolies on theories. We should put Bible accounts which evidence does NOT support into the mix just because people believe in those accounts.

    You can’t just pretend the evidence is there because you want it to be there. You can’t make the evidence up. You might be able to hoodwink a group of followers into thinking you have evidence and then bully your way into the scientific community with the force of politics or the church behind you. But you can’t hoodwink or bully scientists who know the evidence is made up. You might be able to convince people who know nothing about the science of cosmology that the scientists who do know cosmology are wrong. But you can’t convince the scientists.

    You can’t use your Bible or your high school education or even your degree in another field and claim to know better which theory best explains the evidence for the origin of the Universe. Scientists who have invested years of study are not going to accept every alternative theory out there just because some preacher did a tap dance and convinced his followers to believe the preacher had evidence the scientific community was ignoring. Bush does not have the authority to decide what alternative theories cosmologists should be considering for the origin of the Universe. And if the government supports science education, they ought to at least know enough to recognize what science is and what it isn’t. This administration does not recognize that basic principle or if they do they certainly don’t follow it.

    You want alternative theories? Provide the evidence and logical argument, not a government regulator. It is matter of evidence. No scientist cares if the evidence does or does not support the Bible. They care if it supports the conclusions.

  165. Gary Mcleod

    This is America’s equivalent of the ‘Lysenko’ episode where Russian biology was set back by decades by a Lamarkian pseudoscientist getting political power and forbidding Darwinian research. If American politicians are turning their back on science, may I suggest that scientists could emigrate to more enlightened countries (like England) where they will be gratefully received and leave the USA to sink back into the dark ages?

  166. beskeptigal

    Sorry MJ but belief based on a religious text or teaching is not equal to belief based on evidence.

    Science is a process, not a set of beliefs or a set of facts. Just as the church would not likely welcome me coming there and presenting all the evidence their religion is false, I do not welcome religion trying to force itself into distorting the scientific process. It’s best to keep the two separate.

    And actually, if the church was a bit wiser, they might want to reconsider invading the world of science. In the end, religion may have a hard time discounting the success that science has using scientific process, and a hard time accounting for the failure of prayer and faith. Would you pray when you have a life threatening illness or go to the doctor? While many would do both, very few would only pray.

  167. beskeptigal

    To my friend, the Supreme Canuck in Canada, Right now, I don’t believe it’s the two party system that’s to blame. Read my first post above (the longest one) about the assault on our governmental institutions by hundreds of well financed well organized groups with Christian extremist political agendas.

    What is mind boggling to me is the numbers and strength of these fanatics. They did their homework, they did the ground work, and now they’ve launched their attack.

  168. beskeptigal

    Black cat, if you have the time it’d be interesting to know how a Google News search differs from a Yahoo News search for ‘NASA climate silence’.

  169. beskeptical,

    “Seixon, you seem to have blinders on to the nature of the problem. Perhaps you’d like religion equated to science in your child’s classroom and in public forums. I most certainly do not.”

    Seeing as how I’m an atheist, I don’t really think you have assessed me correctly. I’m pointing out how weak this whole issue is, since Deutsch actually did no harm here. If he were to have told NASA to edit their web site to refer to Big Bang as a load of horse dung, then maybe there would be a point to all this whining and bloviating. When in reality, he told the NASA web designer to refer to it by its proper classification – a theory. It is probably even more evidence to his incompetency that he didn’t even realize that it was already referred to as a theory on the NASA web site. You know, because it is a theory.

    The only other tangible issue presented by the NY Times in their article, was also fairly hollow.

    As I said, much ado about nothing. No harm done, at least in this story. The dumbass Bush appointee even got it right, just like a broken clock gets the time right twice a day.

    In the end, we just have a bunch of liberals crying and whining about a Bush appointee wanting a theory to be called a theory when it was already being called a theory.

    Don’t be mad at me when I point out how ridiculous that looks.

  170. beskeptigal

    BTW, It’s an excellent commentary, Phil.

  171. Kurt

    First off i want to say that i have a very limited science background (read only high school science classes) but from what i understand this whole creationism/ID thing is a big load of BULLS***. i wonder what Mr. Einstein would say about this debate, and as for the suppression of science i am outraged. SCIENCE NOT RELIGION SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS.Religion relies on faith, science relies on facts. Just thought i would put in my two bits.

  172. Mark Martin

    “There’s one problem anyone with calculus can recognize: if the big bang represents t0, and the big crunch represents tfinal, then the acceleration of space-time at those points is undefined. Think about that for a second – the big bang didn’t exist, and the big crunch won’t exist.”

    The function of expansion vs time at those points may not be *formally* well defined, but as anyone who knows some calculus can recognise, the function can certianly *approach* those critical points in a well defined way.

    And furthermore, that model by Hawking was proposed as a way of eliminating the singularity at t0 by making all points on the manifold equivalent. *Any* axis between two antipodes would be a time axis. It illustrated his speculation that space-time could a complex quantity. The closer to t0, the more that time becomes the imaginary component.

    But that’s just one effort put forward by one guy. There are other expanding universe models. In particular, “wine glass” models propose a universe which never reaches a diameter of zero. Instead of a universe having diameter = zero at time = zero, it has a diameter which approaches zero (asymptotically) as time approaches -infinity. The spatial diameter increases by a very slight amount/finite time increment, until, in the neighborhood of the so-called big-bang, the rate of expansion undergoes inflation.

  173. Mark

    I would just like to say that from the UK your President is doing many great things. We used to see our best scientists and students move to the USA because of the high level of science funding and research taking place. Now you guys are coming over here… Not to mention that since 9/11 Bush & Co have made it so difficult for many people to obtain visa’s that they now choose to study in Europe. I strongly suggest you consider a new President at the next elections… But seriously, this does mak eyou wonder what will be next on their agenda. Please speak up when you have the chance, don’t let them get away with this.

  174. Sanjay

    Phil, Keep up the good fight. We are all with you.
    I have a feeling that I know the “douche” guy. He is very smart. He is secretly cheesed off with the way the Bush administration is using him to manipulate science and hence his intentionally clumsy emails. If he had worded the mails shrewdly, as suggested to him by the gov, he may have even gotten away with it. But thanks to his clever rewording, he has ensured that the whole world (atleast the interested part) knows the true colors of the current gov.
    I think we should all openly appreciate the contribution of Mr. Deutsch and email him our thanks for his brilliant efforts to out the truth. Maybe somebody should find his email address and circulate it.

  175. Carsten Klein

    The attempt to shut up NASA and to hide knowledge from eventually being colportated to the people is nothing new, really. It always has been like this whenever religious fundamentalists, or, as in our modern and past modern and past past modern times, the economics reigned the country or the city.

    In fact, if it were known to the people that the climate process is eventually an exponential one that, once started, cannot be stopped and that, as time progresses, in near 20-30 yrs. from now, storms, earthquakes and subsequently massive geological activity resulting from constant and enduring mismanagement of the ecology by the economies, then the people would stop consuming products known to destroy our land.

    They would even quit the current legislatives and administrations, resulting in global uprise and revolution.

    Considering the climate process and with that also all geological processes, the earth will eventually become a hostile environment for all living life-forms that nurture from a certain quality of air, that features low quantities of CO2 and methane. Be afraid of what is to come I say and stop your legislations and administrations from heading towards the wall at 180mph and by that, destroy global economic industrial activity, that, lately has become a viral activity in its purest form.

    A word on intelligent design. These people are intelligent in their own right. They, like the christian leaderships of the past, utilized religion and by that the self-recognition of one man and reversed its original meaning. The original meaning being uprise against the existing state of affairs. See the prophets in for example the bible but also the prophet Mohammed, who also stood up against a corrupt system. These religious leaders of the past and of the now tend to hide the fact that it was initially an attempt of uprise and kept the people thinking that their way is the original way of thinking, by misinterpretation of the knowledge to be found in for example the bible. They keep the people uninformed and by that cultivate a climate of constant fear [of god]. A [god] that eventually stands for the unified self of all being, resulting from self-recognition. Praying to god is actually praying to yourself, thanking god is actually thanking the self. I for my part cannot pray nor even constantly thank myself. That would hinder me from actually achieving anything. I for my part do not like the thought that these false prophets of ID eventually reinstall and reinforce a system of uninformedness of the people and by that constant and enduring destruction of both land and people. This being said, I figure that when it comes to destruction of people or the land, we also may find fascism and racism in the way religion is inherently build up. Religion forms from uprise and recognition of wrong doing against the pure self of everything, aka god. Recognition of the wrong doing means always also recognition of the wrong doers. Recognition of the wrong doers leads from segregation over to actual fascism and destruction of people and land.

    Go and check your society if it fits the picture. Then do something against it.


  176. Jason

    Andrew Krause,

    Thanks so much for being here to educate dummies like Phil, NASA, and the rest of the scientific community about how calculus works and what it means. I’m sure none of them covered that prior to graduate school.

  177. I found your blog after reading the NYT article. I don’t know alot about astronomy, but I’m in a wheelchair and fighting the stem cell debate. I don’t know if I’ll ever walk again, but the religious views of this administration make me doubt that any medical breakthroughs will benefit me or anyone like me. Although I’m an atheist, I know that there are people in my community that have prayed for me. It hasn’t worked. I’ll keep putting my faith in science.

  178. Steve Graham

    Evolution/Big Bang is a theory (eg It’s not proven fact)

    There are other theories, albeit relatively new, that explain the origins of the universe without the need for a big bang and they account for red shift ect.

    Here’s the link for 50 essays, some long and well developed, some not that speak against the big bang theory. Are you willing to look at all sides, or do you prefer your view and have no desire to look at alternatives?

    Here’s the link

    These essays are put together by astronomers, scientists, mathematicians, and physicists. Take a look, at least give yourself another viewpoint – you don’t have to agree with it, but you should at least be willing to see it from their side.

    Danny R. Faulkner, Astronomy
    Keith H. Wanser, Physics
    Paul Giem, Medical Research
    Andrew McIntosh, Mathematics

    There are many many more…. take a look

  179. I have to say that the root of your argument, Dr. Plait, is petty resentment. I can boil down all that angers you to “how dare he say that?” It has always been the job of political apointees to be political. You can see that the Scentist is now just as naked as the emperor. Science is politica there shoule be no “that is not your finger that is not my belly button” surprise here we should be adults. What is needed is more honesty especially when it comes to debate over what is to be studied and what policy should come out of that.

  180. Ted Sbardella, you have missed the entire point of all the things I have written about this. Resentment?

    I suppose I do resent someone with no scientific background and no public affairs experience telling a scientist with decades of experience what he can and cannot say. I suppose I also resent that someone like that would be put in such a position in the first place, apparently because of simple political quid pro quo. I also resent that he would base his decisions on his grossly wrong view of reality, which includes the unscientific blatherings of Intelligent Design, and a grossly unscientific view of global warming. And I guess it engenders a tiny bit of resentment in me that he would then go on radio and complain that his woes are due to other people’s partisan feelings.

    Actually, if this weren’t so terribly critical to the future of America, I’d find this all pretty funny.

    Science is not political, any more than a wrench or a tire pump is political. Science is a tool. It is used to uncover truth. But there are those who would pervert the findings of science it to hide that truth, distort that truth, promote their own twisted version of reality.

    You bet your life I resent that.

    I write what I do to defend science and truth. If someone makes those two things political, then yes, I am writing politically. I didn’t start this, but I aim to help finish it, or realistically, diminish it just as much as I can.

  181. Chuck Hansen

    The saddest thing about this whole shameful situation is the amount of anti-science support that the current administration enjoys. The Young-Earth Creationist loons to the “Screw-global-warming-Give-me-profit-margins” business leaders I understand–I have no respect for them or their values, but I understand their motivations. The rest of the people who just don’t care, the folks who just shrug their shoulders and pull the Republican lever come election day because they think Bush and his cronies are men of “moral character”, those people baffle me. I have never had a hugely favorable opinion of the American electorate, but how on earth can anyone use the words “integrity” or “honest” in a sentence with Bush as the subject without “no” or “dis-“? When credentialed and well-respected representatives from fields across the entire scientific community unambiguously point out that science and knowledge are being undercut, repressed, and out-and-out contradicted by this administration, why is it that nobody cares? In my worldview, science embodies the highest goal and the noblest achievements of our race: the unending quest to know, to uncover the secrets of the universe. There is no sin quite like willful ignorance, and I detest anyone who works toward that end.

  182. Leon

    Steve Graham, none of us regards the Big Bang as being a perfect theory beyond reproach. We would accept a scientific theory that better explains the available evidence. In fact, there are scientific alternative contructs that might supplant the Big Bang in time–but they don’t yet explain the evidence as well as the Big Bang.

    What we object to here is the Big Bang coming under attack by a Young-Earth Creationist for religious and political, not scientific, reasons.

    I’ve taken a look at some of those articles. They rehash debunked YEC arguements and include a number of misunderstandings about the subject matter. For those who don’t have the time to look through them, here are some cliff’s notes:

    Jeremy Walter

    “We will now consider some of the corroborating evidence for the Creator’s testimony.”

    “…the fall of Satan and man brought about “the curse” which is the cause for the earth and the heavens to “wear out like a garment” (Ps. 102:26) and now “the whole creation groans and suffers” (Rom. 8:22) (second law). The second law of thermodynamics essentially precludes the spontaneous development of the earth’s ecosystem or life itself.”

    Danny Faulkner

    “The chronologies of the Old Testament give us a pretty complete history of mankind” [including the New World, Siberia, Africa, Australia, etc.??]

    Points to the rate at which the Moon is getting farther from the Earth, and uses that to conclude that the Moon can only be 1.3 billion years old–an arguement which has been debunked by scientists, including the BA.

    Keith Wanser

    refers to “the so-called theory of evolution”

    “the universe appears to have an extreme dominance of matter over anti-matter, which contradicts the notion that a big bang produced the matter that we see in the universe around us.”

    “Possible scenarios of intense neutrino and/or gamma ray fluxes due to various supernova and stellar disturbances (possibly during Noah’s Flood) may have contributed to the appearance of age when radioactive substances are examined by causing substantial radioactive decay in a very short time period, rather than over long periods of time at currently observable rates. Besides causing additional radioactive decay, such fluxes or increases in cosmic radiation could also have resulted in the rapid decrease in the human lifespan following the Flood, as recorded in Genesis.”

    Paul Giem

    “Carbon-14 dating . . . repeatedly dated to less than 55,000 radiocarbon years.” [duh! Carbon-14 dating is known not to be accurate earlier than that]

    “Thus, if one accepts a designer intelligent enough to produce life, and a short timescale, it becomes very difficult to avoid the claims of the Bible. There is also the inability to adequately explain the Creation Week on the basis of Mesopotamian or Egyptian legends or customs. This implies that Genesis 1–9 is not just myth, but an account of what actually happened.”

    Andrew McIntosh

    Trots out the old canard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics(!)

    Much of his article is centered on arguing for Irreducible Complexity.

    “It is not scientific to argue, on the one hand, for the obvious design of a Boeing 747, and then rule design “out of court” when considering the far more versatile flight of an eagle, falcon or the remarkable hummingbird. Modern minds within the secular media are presenting an unscientific duality of thought when praising engineering complexity in man-made machines, glorying in the great creative advances of mankind, but presenting the complexity in the world around us (of often far greater intricacy than man-made machines) as due to a gigantic unplanned cosmic experiment, with no Creator.”

    Asserts the absence of transitional fossils again and again.

    “Many, of course, refuse to acknowledge the evidence for design in nature because they make the untestable assumption of atheism . . . . I believe that it is because humans do not want to be accountable to a Creator God that they persist with a theory which has little evidence to support it.”

  183. RAD

    Steve Graham, I am going to show you through the bible that the young earth theory is incorrect. The bible says the earth was created in six days and God rested on the seventh day. A day to God is as a thousand years to us 2 peter 3:8. We already then have 7000 years. There is an unknown amount of time that adam and eve remain in the garden of eden so I won’t even count that. There were 4000 years from the fall of adam to the birth of Christ and there have been 2000 years pass since the birth of christ. Now add all those up and that is 13000 years, well more then the claimed 10000 years. Recall I didn’t add in any time for adam and eve to be in the garden of eden after the creation was finished. So not only scientifically debunked in many places but also debunked by the very book held as a true historical account of the earths history. I am no linguist but I suspect that the term used in the creation as “DAYS” could have been better translated as “PERIODS”. Even if it turns out to be days they are going to be counted in terms of Gods “DAYS” which is 1000 of our years and there is no telling how long Adam an Eve were in the Garden of Eden before they were sent out into the world and brought about physical death

  184. Bob Jacobson

    I think that your making a big deal out of nothing. However we don’t know how our Heavenly Father made the earth either, do we? It IS possible he exploded something to create what we have. Where did Dinosaurs come from anyway? How come their not in the bible? Millions of years old they were? Where do aliens come from? Well, aliens can be explained in the bible. However, where are the Dinosaurs in the bible? Ok, enough said. Aliens, Dinosaurs, bing bang, all theories. I just think your making a huge deal out of something that isn’t. Until we meet our maker, it is a “theory”…


    Nowadays, we can even see into black holes
    (Mészáros 1994). Nevertheless, some authors only
    know one side of the published results in cosmology.
    The big bang is actually dead. (cf. Mészáros and
    Molnar 1988, 1989a,b, 1990, 1991, 1992). As can be
    seen from these papers, the standard cosmology (i.e. the
    big bang) should be considered ideology, since it
    does not satisfy the requirements of exact physical
    theory. It lacks consistency, an exact mathematical
    description of phenomena and the possibility of
    verification and confirmation. For instance, in the big
    bang theory, it is correct to state that “the big bang
    happened if nine is greater than or equal to sixteen ”.
    Furthermore, the big bang cosmology does not
    have a single solution compatible with its postulational
    basis. As a consequence of the violation of
    causality, it is probable that not one single relativistic
    model can be adapted to this situation. Therefore,
    the origins of the Hubble law and the 3K blackbody
    radiation remain unclear; moreover, they are not
    evidence of the big bang.
    In addition, the above statements for the standard
    big bang are heriditary for infl ationary cosmological
    models. Namely, in these models, which are based on
    the standard big bang, the evolution of the universe
    is completed in a short time interval of 10^–43 s to 10^–30
    s only. Some prejudiced authors suggest that, after all,
    in the hot universe, the equilibrium state of photon
    gas P = constant and T = constant should be called
    the “adiabatic-isothermal changes of state” of the
    photon gas.
    What is more, Friedmann did not know the 1892
    and 1894 stability results of his compatriot Liapunov
    in 1922 and 1924. Therefore, Friedmann’s stability
    results are entirely wrong. But, since then mathematical
    stability theory has been developed but not used
    in cosmology. So Friedmann’s stability investigations
    are archaic from the modern mathematical
    It can be seen from these references that the big
    bang model was a purely fictitious one for the dynamical
    universe model with an inadequate instrument-
    system for such a model. Consequently, the big
    bang or big crunch means the explosion or collapse of
    conceptual categories only, but not the gravitational
    explosion or collapse of the universe. As a result, after
    the often metaphysical optimism of a century, we
    again return to the fundamental questions [5,6].
    The scientific merit of the Standard and inflationary
    model is that it connects the physical processes in
    such a way that the logical structure of the universe
    becomes related to its history. Furthermore, these
    models are dynamical cosmologies and so raise the
    notion of the genesis of the elements. “If some day the
    Standard Model is replaced by a better theeory, it will
    probably be because of observations or calculations
    that drew their motivation from the Standard Model”
    (Weinberg, 1977).
    I propose that the authors involved should think
    about rewriting their texts completely, only if after an
    exhaustive open-minded search through the modern
    literature they still feel absolutely convinced that not
    everything in their papers has been properly treated
    in all the up-to-date texts. After their exhaustive and
    objective investigations it will be seen that the big
    bang is dead. Therefore, new models of the universe
    without the big bang are necessary.

    Finally, the Big Bang believers’ international conspiracy of silence in connection with these scientific results is a sly crime against the entire science.

    Mészáros, M., 1994, International Journal of Theoretical Physics
    Vol. 33, p. 1035.
    Mészáros, M. and Molnár, P., 1988, Annalen der Physik
    Vol. 45, p. 155.
    Mészáros, M. and Molnár, P., 1989a, Annalen der Physik
    Vol. 46, p. 153.
    Mészáros, M. and Molnár, P., 1989b, Annalen der Physik
    Vol. 46, p. 381.
    Mészáros, M. and Molnár, P., 1990, Physics Essays Vol. 3, p. 284.
    Mészáros, M. and Molnár, P., 1991, Indian Journal of Pure and
    Applied Physics Vol. 29, p. 34.
    Mészáros, M. and Molnár, P., 1992, Physics Essays Vol. 5, p. 463.
    Weinberg, S., 1977, The First Three Minutes, Basic Books, NY, p. 11.

  186. Leon

    Milan, are we to have any confidence in an article that declares we can now see into black holes?

  187. Leon,

    Unfortunately, I do not understand exactly what does the ‘confidence’ mean in your text. However, I proved in the above paper with title Extension of Massive Scalar Quasinormal Modes of Kerr and Schwarzschild Black Holes Mészáros, M., 1994, International Journal of Theoretical Physics Vol. 33, p. 1035.) by a strictly mathematical way: “In the case of Kerr and Schwarzschild black holes there exist continuous standing wave solutions in the total interval 0

  188. Leon, there in no any (pre-) “confidence” in the science. Proffs are exist only. What is more, correctness. Please study the literature, and after speak!

  189. Leon,

    I proved by a strictly mathematical way in my paper with title ’Extension of Massive Scalar Quasinormal Modes of Kerr and Schwarzschild Black Holes (Meszaros, M., 1994, International Journal of Theoretical Physics Vol. 33, p. 1035.) the next: “In the case of Kerr and Schwarzschild black holes there exist continuous standing wave solutions in the total interval (r is greater than 0 and less than infinite) at certain real frequencies. This means that we can see into these black holes at these frequencies with gravitational-wave detectors, studying the radial structure inside the event horizon, too.” It is unambiguous. Or, not?

    Before the publication, I gave some lectures in the North American universities with success. My proof was persuasive for the Nobel Laureates and majestic authorities.

    Otherwise, there is no any (pre-) “confidence” etc. in the science, but only proofs, experiments or observations, and final correctness. Therefore, please study the scientific literature, and after speak!

    Oh, by the way! Have you only a similarly genuine remark in connection with the Big Bang?

    I wish you the best progress in your inner ways.

  190. Leon

    What I was commenting on was that the paper says we can see inside black holes, which is false since light below the event horizon can’t escape the black hole. Right from the start that made the rest of the paper look suspect. Also the statement dismissing the Big Bang as “purely fictitious” sounded very unprofessional. I’m not a mathematician or physicist, so I’m not qualified to evaluate the paper on its mathematical grounds.

    btw, when you say “Have you only a similarly genuine remark in connection with the Big Bang?”, I’m not sure what you mean.

  191. I will call the Big Bang a “theory,” when the theologists of the world, not just the US, the WORLD, start calling their respective deities, “theoretical entities.” And not just that, but their entire literature. I want everything questioned in its entirety before I start questioning science. There, I’ve said it. I will never retract it. Lovely article! Keep it up! 7

  192. tgibbs

    This follows the same strategy that has been used by Creationists, insisting that evolution be labeled everywhere as a theory, and when scientists object, ingenuously responding, “But evolution *is* a theory.” How can you possibly object to the truth?”

    The judge in the Dover “Intelligent Design” trial provided perhaps the most cogent explanation of why this is wrong:

    “This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the science
    curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are learning, is “just a theory,” which plays on the “colloquial or popular
    understanding of the term [‘theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’”
    ….this paragraph is both misleading and creates
    misconceptions in students about evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the
    scientific status of evolution and by telling students that they should regard it as singularly unreliable, or on shaky ground. (14:117 (Alters)).”

    In other words, the fundamental deception lies not in labeling evolution or the Big Bang as “theories,” but in singling them out for such labeling when other ideas that are just as theoretical from a scientific standpoint, such as the theory that the earth orbits the sun, do not receive such labeling.

  193. Bill Foster

    Federal funding for science seems more and more to be restricted to those science projects which can be explained to President Bush. Think of it! And note that our space budget is not headed in the direction most scientists want but rather toward men on Mars which will make good television bites.

  194. Terre

    George Deutsch resigned from NASA on 2/7/6 after the blog Scientific Activist discovered and Texas A&M confirmed that he had attended but not graduated.

    Explaining why he’d lied on his resume, Deutsch said that he’d claimed the degree in anticipation of it. Gotta love that religious faith.


  195. I couldnt agree more!

  196. Great discussion. Kudos to ya.

  197. Melusine

    It’s amazing how blogs get around. The SciGuy, which is via the Houston Chronicle, linked to here in this post.. (I don’t know how to link to the specific post, it’s Feb. 5th.)

    It’s a good, local blog.

  198. Thanks for the information. Very helpful.

  199. Nate

    # Seixon Says:
    February 6th, 2006 at 3:34 am


    “Seixon, you seem to have blinders on to the nature of the problem. Perhaps you’d like religion equated to science in your child’s classroom and in public forums. I most certainly do not.”

    Seeing as how I’m an atheist, I don’t really think you have assessed me correctly. I’m pointing out how weak this whole issue is, since Deutsch actually did no harm here. If he were to have told NASA to edit their web site to refer to Big Bang as a load of horse dung, then maybe there would be a point to all this whining and bloviating. When in reality, he told the NASA web designer to refer to it by its proper classification – a theory. It is probably even more evidence to his incompetency that he didn’t even realize that it was already referred to as a theory on the NASA web site. You know, because it is a theory.

    The only other tangible issue presented by the NY Times in their article, was also fairly hollow.

    As I said, much ado about nothing. No harm done, at least in this story. The dumbass Bush appointee even got it right, just like a broken clock gets the time right twice a day.

    In the end, we just have a bunch of liberals crying and whining about a Bush appointee wanting a theory to be called a theory when it was already being called a theory.

    Don’t be mad at me when I point out how ridiculous that looks.

    Just to reiterate it.

  200. Guy van Enst

    I am not a professional scientist but I too am outraged my this particular example of the religious loonies in their war on science. After learning of this issue through a political web forum the other day, I read a short article in the New Scientist of 25 February that reports only on Deutsch’s run-in with the climatologists. I thought his intervention with astrophysics was even more alarming (after all, climate-change skeptics are a dime a dozen), as well as revealing, so have sent a letter to the editor filling in the black hole.

    I disagree with Nate that Deutsch did no harm. A part of the harm is that such an ignoramus can be put into such a position and allowed to get away, for so long, with stomping over science communication. That’s bad for the general public. It’s also bad for the reputation of an organization that can’t do a decent job of science unless it attracts decent scientists, and it hardly makes itself an attractive place to work by promising to allow morons to shred the credibility of its scientists’ work.

    As for attaching “theory” to “Big Bang”, so long as the scientific meaning of the word “theory” is both intended and understood, then I can agree with Nate that, internal or external politics aside, there’s no issue.

    But the ignorant Mr Deutsch represents that alarmingly large pool of activist creationists, as well as the generality of people with little scientific understanding and who stand to be influenced by them for whom – and Deutsch is quoted as at least implying as much, “theory” equals “mere opinion”. That he should feel free within a scientific institution to to throw his religious weight around, is a sign that something is seriously wrong with ‘the system’. Nothing that gives Deutsch and his scientifically innocent influence-peddlers confidence to mess about with science should be tolerated.

  201. Rocking Chair Physicist

    How do we know it went bang? Couldn’t it be the “Big Whoosh”? Not to mention if nothing was there, what did the sound travel through and who exactly heard it?

    How exactly does a 24 year old journalism student get appointed -by the President- to a position where he can edit NASA?

    What really scares me is that anyone felt the need to officially address whether God had a hand in the Big Bang. It’s not like no one ever thought of that before. It’s called free thought… oh yea, Big Brother is in the White House.

  202. tom sevigny

    Hello scholars!!!
    This site is like the Rush Limbaugh Science Post. I understand the passion you all feel about science, but what do you really expect? For many years the “theory of spontaneous generation” was accepted in the scientific community and Charles Darwin’s theories were widely accepted although they were unfalsifiable and contrary to the demonstrable “laws of physics”.
    If you take your nose out of a book for long enough to look at the vast complexity of the living systems on this planet, you cannot help but at least consider the possibility that it was brought into being with design and purpose in mind. On the other side of this coin if you can be content with believing that a human body merely consists of carbon, water and a few well placed minerals all the more power to you. If it’s any consolation, I hate politics as much as you folks.

  203. tom sevigny

    Hello again scholars!
    Do we all agree that the “BIG BANG” fact…uh theory originated roughly 60 years ago and had prevailed in the scientific community for much of that time? Are you all discounting the new theories of inflation and dark energy that is coming out of Princeton University or are they a stumbling block?
    Is it alright for somebody to disagree with the presumption that something is fact when it may have some evidence but has not yet been proven?
    Science and religion both begin in a sense with presumption but in many ways today they are on the same footing because both require a measure of faith.

  204. what do you guys know about the helix nebula? For a long time now i’ve been so focused on the crab nebula and constellations such as lacerta and the zodiac ring that i have fallen out of touch with other astro-realities. By the way are you guys not captivated by the research being done on the andromeda galaxy, and how it relates to the legend of cassiopea and the her daughter the princess? All these astronomical anomalies and various mythologies in my opinion are very fascinating. Please write in and tell me what you think.

  205. tom sevigny

    Those helix nebula photos are awsome. A lot of astronomers are puzzled that they have a particular form, that of a double helix much like a molecule of DNA. Up until now, nebulae have always been in the form of a
    “blob”. The primary observations are that this nebula shows characteristics of “design”. Imagine that.
    It seems that everytime I read about a new discovery, whether it is terrestial or extraterrestial, it supports the concept of an intelligent design.

  206. Louise

    As far as I am concerned, the Big Bang Theory is myth. And who said that the universe is millions of years old? Where did they get proof of this? Why not thousands of years old? Who died and made them boss? I would like to know why people can’t believe in a Creator? I guess they would rather believe a theory that’s out in left field.

  207. Louise, coming in here and saying things like that make it clear you haven’t read very much of this site, or very much about why the Big Bang model is one of the most well-established facts of science. I suggest you read http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov, for example, or any of the hundreds or more websites which show that the Universe is far more than thousands of years old.

  208. There is overwhelming evidence of the ancient age of the Univers (~15 Billion years) not just in Astronomy but also on earth. I am a Surveyor who has worked in the Mining Industry for 25 years – Oil exploration and minerals. If the Geophysicists and Geologists do not use the standard model of the evolution of the earth by natural explainable ways then they won’t find anything lying deep underground. These dates accord with astronomical dates – no belief needed. Belief is NOT part of science.

  209. tom sevigny

    Now I see. Spam filter to shut me up

  210. tom sevigny

    Can anybody honestly tell me that abiogenesis is plausible? Give a concept a scientific term and it makes it somehow believable. Get real…

  211. tom sevigny

    I believe it. Most people do accept that global warming is for real. It’s going to affect all of mankind eventually, not single you out based on your political views. Ha ha.
    The difficulty is going to be convincing people to quit driving vehicles that burn fossil fuels.
    Hopefully Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin will get rid of their private jets and gas guzzling vehicles. If some people would use their influence and celebrity soapbox to educate the public without being hypocrites, we might have a chance.

  212. Dude

    Creationisim isn’t science! Doesn’t Bush get that? Louise, humans have been around for four million years, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. If what you said is true, then is not almost all of astronomy toppled but archeology is too! If we existed for only thousands of years, then there wouldn’t enough time to make so much fossils. So much rock wouldn’t be weathered to make soil, and the ice age would be a lot shorter so it would have to be warmer.
    With all those facts, how can anybody say that the Big Bang could have happened thousands of years ago? If the universe were thousands of years old, then the universe would be too unstable to contain life anyway! Radio telescopes have picked up signals that prove the Big Bang. The math equations and telescope images prove it too. There is simply no way that the Big Bang. Even if science was wrong (warning: almost impossible), you still should do science in the science lab.

  213. tom sevigny

    Hello folks,
    Homo sapien or modern man, at least similar enough to modern man to be classified as such according to evolutionists is 400,000-200,00 years od.
    So saying that man is 6-7 million years old is kind of misleading. The fossil record which is believed to support man’s supposed accent from simian ancestors to modern man is bogus at best. The missing link which they are searching for is a creature with apelike characteristics and a brain volume comparable to that of modern man. They should have found thousands upon thousands of remains of such a creature by now, but they cannot find one definitive piece of evidence. When you build up an entire skeletal system from a tooth and a femur bone you are indeed speculating.
    If homosapien is even 300,000 years old and you create a model based upon the reproductive cycle of man and factor mortality rates this planet would be enormously overpopulated. Take man back 8-10,000 years using the same model and you will find that the present population fits.

  214. tom sevigny

    Just one more thing before I hit the hay. Listen, evolutionists do claim that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, however paleontologists have found many remains of dinosaur remains in the same stratum of earth as human footprints. This is something that they do not want to speak about let alone offer an explanation.
    Good evening,

  215. Tom, this is a long, long-debunkedcreationist claim. Do a search on the Talk Origins website.

  216. tom sevigny

    Jeez Louise,
    I’ve been into the talk origins website and read exhaustively the positions
    held in trying to debunk creationism. The fact remains that the real burden of proof is on the evolutionists to bring forth hard definitive facts and fossil evidence. I have studied the writings surrounding the fossil evidence for
    over 28 years and they have been found lacking.
    Also, the theories relating to abiogenesis or “spontaneous” generation are no closer to being proven than when Aristotle first contemplated this concept. Chemical abiogenesis replaced biological biogensis when it was debunked this outdated paradigm and now the concept of panspermia is being introduced. This would probably be the theory that most astronomers would polarize themselves to, but requires a great deal of “faith”.

  217. tom sevigny

    Good morning Phil,
    What do you think about the claims being made about Enceladus, one of Saturn’s moons? The Cassini team is claiming they discovered water and that it could be an indication of life somewhere other than Earth. I’ve seen the photos and read about the geysers. I’m just wondering what your take is on all this.

  218. tom sevigny

    Good afternoon,
    Hey did anybody ever think that George W. Bush might have purposely shot himself in the foot by appointing Deutsch? It was probably the stupidest move a president could make if he indeed believed in Intelligent Design. He has no doubt set back any agenda that these high profile creationists might have had.
    As for Global Warming…I dunno. Do your part and buy a hybrid. Before long the U.S.A. will be a third world country and Europe will have to make all of the global decisions on that subject.

  219. TheBlackCat

    tom sevigny Says
    “The fact remains that the real burden of proof is on the evolutionists to bring forth hard definitive facts and fossil evidence. ”

    Been there, done that. We now have pretty complete fossile histories for most major groups of animals living or extinct. I am not sure how you could ask for more than that.

    “I have studied the writings surrounding the fossil evidence for
    over 28 years and they have been found lacking.”

    Well either you aren’t studying very hard, your are studing the wrong sources, or you are impossible to please. What more would the fossile record have to give you to convince you? I don’t want “more fossils” or “transitional fossils” or anything like that, I want specific areas where you think the fossil record is lacking, areas that if filled would convince you.

    Keep this in mind. Here are just some of the criteria needed for a fossil to be found:
    -A creature must die
    -It must not be torn apart by predators and scavengers which break the bones and scatter them all over the place
    -It must be quickly covered up by some sort of sediment so the bones aren’t destroyed, but covered in such a way that the bones aren’t crushed or scattered all over the area
    -That sediment must be covered by other layers of sediment and not just washed away
    -The sediment must be subjected to the exact right amount of pressure and chemicals so the sediment and bones are turned to rock differently without crushing or warping the bones beyond recognition
    -The sediment (now rock) cannot be dissolved or eroded away by water, broken to pieces by an earthquake or tectonic activity, or melted by volcanic activity.
    -The rock must remain underground until the present day because once exposed the fossils are quickly destroyed by erosion. We are talking about an extremely narrow window, maybe a few years maybe far less before it is destroyed.
    -The rock must, at the present time, be close enough to the ground that humans can find it
    -The rock must be in an area where it is possible to find it. This means it has to be in an area with rock close to the surface and an area where there is not much plant growth that would hide the fossils and an area where the other rocks can be told apart from fossils and an area where scientists can easily and safely get to. So basically we need a rocky desert in a politically stable region fairly close to civilization but not actually inhibitated for dedicated fossils searches. Other finds are extremely random and unpredictable. Remember that the vast majority of Earth’s surface is underwater, and most of the rest is forest, grassland, sandy desert, tundra, and other environments where finding fossils is nearly impossible. This is unless someone is doing major, deep construction, but few if any people under such conditions would likely recognize a fossil unless it was a pretty big one and they were very lucky to encounter it at just the right time under just the right conditions so there work didn’t destroy it, and they would have to report it despite it likely causing their project to get shut down).
    -Someone who knows what they are looking for has to be in the right place at the right time to actually find the fossil. Remember we are talking about a very brief window over which the fossile can survive.
    -The person actually has to notice the fossil. Fossils are either rock or look a lot like it, so they are extremely easy to overlook. The search, even being imperfect, is an extremely slow and tedious process with not very many people carrying it out.
    -The person who finds it can’t decide sell it on the black market or use it as a folk remedy (both are major industries in many places where fossils are found).
    -The fossil has to be safely removed, preserved, sent to a lab, analyzed, catalogued, and identified. This takes time, and it is easy to miss something new and important in a fossil and simply stick it in a drawer where it is forgotten.

    So given all this, I am impressed we have found any fossils at all, not to mention the extremely complete catalogue we have.

  220. tom sevigny

    Good evening Blackcat,
    Thankyou for responding. :) Listen, I do not doubt that paleontologists have uncovered many skeletal remains of primates. If this were not the case, the theories relating to the ascent of man would undoubtedly not exist. The significance of these finds in proving that man evolved from simian ancestors is what I am questioning.
    By studying writings of Leakey, Lord Solly Zuckerman, William Howells and many others I have concluded that:
    Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus and Kenyapithecus all seem to be morphologically, ecologically and behaviorally very ape-like.
    Australopithecus is also too similar to the modern ape that it cannot be considered a link between simian and homosapien.
    The failed links known as Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man and Peking man are still spoken about though they have been disproven.
    Neanderthal man and Cro Magnon too closely resemble modern man to
    be excited about from an evolutionists’ perspective.

  221. tom sevigny

    One more thing,
    I am so completely convinced that the fossil evidence does not support the theories of the ascent of man that I have been devoting more time to studying genetics and how this science relates to abiogenesis from Mendel to the present findings.
    What I am finding there is that cells and organisms are much more complex and ordered than what was ever thought. Keep in mind that Charles Darwin knew very little about genetics. In fact, I would bet that your average freshman college biology scholar today has a better understanding of genetics. If Darwin knew what we knew now, he would
    have applied his great mind to genetics. He would have also had to recant on his philosophical arguments.
    Gene mutation is a fact but all of the information for the changes that occur are already encoded in the DNA. This is well proven. It speaks volumes to intelligent design.


  222. TheBlackCat

    tom sevigny Says:
    “Australopithecus is also too similar to the modern ape that it cannot be considered a link between simian and homosapien.”

    How many modern apes do you know besides humans that walk upright? ABsolutely none. Austrolopithecus did walk upright. That in and of itself is very signficant. The fact that that Austrolopithecus aferensis is extremely similar to modern apes is precisely why it IS a link between humans and other apes. If it wasn’t a creature that walked upright but was similar to apes in other regards then it would be anywhere near as significant. But you can’t lump all austrolopithecines together, as time progressed austrolophithecines became significantly less more like humans and signicantly less like other apes. This pattern continued in the Hominids as well.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “Neanderthal man … too closely resemble modern man to
    be excited about from an evolutionists’ perspective.”

    Okay, so you rule out A. aferensis as being to ape-like, and Neanderthal as being too human-like (despite the fact that Austrolophithecus aferensis is obviously not even remotely the same as modern apes and Neanderthals are no even remotely the same as modern humans). What about the tons of species in between? You can’t just dismiss the earliest and latest extinct member of the human tree and then completely and utterly ignore all the other species that show a distinct and unmistakable transition between those two species. Even if A. aferensis was too similar to modern apes to be of interest and Neanderthals were too similar to modern humans, that still leaves a dozen or more species showing how one evolved into the other.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “…Cro Magnon too closely resemble modern man to be excited about from an evolutionists’ perspective.”

    Really?! Perhaps that is because cro-magon man IS a modern human. Of course a modern human looks like a modern human, that is the whole point! The fact that you would even make such an obvious and redundent statement and somehow present it as evidence against the way humans evolved leads me to question whether you understand this as well as you think you do.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “The failed links known as Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man and Peking man are still spoken about though they have been disproven.”

    This is your most confusing sentence. You somehow lump together a mistake, a hoax, and two varieties of Homo erectus. I can see why you might put piltdown man, it was a hoax after all (albiet from extremely early in the study of human origins, long before we had any real knowledge about what happened, when, and where). Same with Nebraska man, although the mistake was quickly found and corrected and no serious scientific theories were centered around it. But I have absolutely no clue why you would throw in 2 valid and actually very important Homo erectus fossils. There is nothing the least bit wrong with them and I don’t get why you are saying they are disproven. This leads to more doubts about your understanding of the issue.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “I am so completely convinced that the fossil evidence does not support the theories of the ascent of man that I have been devoting more time to studying genetics and how this science relates to abiogenesis from Mendel to the present findings.”

    I have specifically asked you for what evidence is missing that would convince you that the fossil record is correct. You have yet to give it to me. If you have problems with the fossil record, spell them out specifically. Tell me exactly where they are lacking, why, and how. Be reasonable, keep in mind how unlikely finding fossils is.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “What I am finding there is that cells and organisms are much more complex and ordered than what was ever thought.”

    Complex? Yes. Ordered? In some ways yes. Well designed? Hell no! I have taken two molecular biology courses (1 undergrad-level, 1 grad-level). Not a day went by that we didn’t learn about yet another stupid, illogical, useless, possibly even detrimental feature of human biochemistry. The same goes for my classe on physiology and two classes on neuroscience.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “Keep in mind that Charles Darwin knew very little about genetics. In fact, I would bet that your average freshman college biology scholar today has a better understanding of genetics.”

    Once again, a painfully obvious fact. Genetics wasn’t re-discovered (Mendel’s work wasn’t really noticed in his time) until well after Darwin had died, so there is no possible way he could have known anything about it whatsoever. The nature of genetic material was not discovered until about 90 years after Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and about 70 years after he died. That is like saying Netwon didn’t have a firm understand of general relativity. Of course he didn’t, the mathematics needed to apply it hadn’t even been invented yet.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “Gene mutation is a fact but all of the information for the changes that occur are already encoded in the DNA. This is well proven. It speaks volumes to intelligent design.”

    Wrong again. Mutation can lead to the duplication of DNA, genes, even whole parts of chromosomes. This can and does routinely increase the amount of information carried by DNA. That is, of course, ignoring viruses, parasitic genes, plasmids, and other genetic parasites that can increase the number of genes present in a cell. The claim that there is no way to increase the amount of information is completely and utterly wrong.

  223. tom sevigny

    Good morning,
    The fossil evidence that evolutionists claim support the theory that australopithecus or “southern ape” which is what the term means has not been proven to be a link betweem ape and man in this supposed evolutionary chain.
    Australopithecus afarensis or “Lucy” is the only fossil of this class to be regarded as man’s direct ancestor according to evolutionists. Detailed analysis of the fossils reveals that these were an ordinary species of ape.
    *all variations resemble modern apes
    *brain volumes are the same or smaller than modern chimpanzees
    *feet have protrusions similar to modern monkees, used for climbing trees
    *They are short 1.30 meters tall and males are taller than female ( like present day apes)
    *cranial details; eyes are close together, sharp molars, jaw structure prove to be no different than modern monkeys
    The factor that you so emhasize, the evolution thesis that despite the total ape-like anatomy, australo walked upright like man and unlike ape. The fact is that a great many studies have reached the conclusion that australo did not walk like a man and was not two legged. This is still being debated. The modern chimpanzee possesses the ability to stand on two legs. This is a totally meaningless claim and what evolutionists base their entire proof upon.
    If you read a college biology book in reference to evolution and the ascent of man, it will support everything you have imperatively claimed in your post. The issue is that not every scientist will lend creedence from what has been claimed to be fact. There are over five hundred scientists presently that not only disagree with Darwin’s theories but find flaws and faults in neoDarwinism. They not only disagree, but they put their keisters on the line to sign a document dissenting from this outdated paradigm.
    As for molecular biology, I am probably not as enlightened as you but from what I have been studying I see that the geneticists seem to be shocked and surprised by the complexities of what they continually discover. If you can honestly (without being tongue in cheek) that this “technology and design” just abiogenesised(is that a word?) from nothing over time. Explain the emotion and euphoria and awe everytime the scientist stumbles upon a wonderful new finding. Remember he discovered it, did not create it and then explain the yearnings of his human spirit in physiological terms. Good luck with your studies.

  224. tom sevigny

    Hi again,
    I’m sorry for mentioning the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man. I feel as an act of contrition I should list the record regarding these fossil findings.
    Will not mention (Piltdown man)for obvious reasons FRAUD
    1922 (Nebraska man) complete illustration of prehistoric male and female fabricated after the discovery of one tooth. Later found to be the tooth of an extinct cousin of the wild pig.
    1921 (Rhodesian man) Skull later determined to be a skull from a modern man
    1982 (Orce man) Small fragment of skull alleged to be from skull of prehistoric boy, later identified as a fragment of a six month old donkey skull
    1981 (Java man) leg bone, tooth, skullcap from what was believed a “missing link”. (sorry for the unscientific term) Leg bone and tooth human. Skullcap was from a giant gibbon.
    (Aegyptopithecus Zeukis) eventually found to be an ape skull
    (Dryopithecus Africanus) eventually found to be an ape skull
    (Ramapithecus Brevirostris) eventually found to be an ape skull
    Australopithecus, HomoHablis and Homoerectus according to evolutionists were contemporaries, much like Darwin and Mendel, but homosapien’s artifacts were found under their dwellings. How could modern man have existed before a species that they supposdedly evolved from.
    The latest finding is that of Sahelanthropus Tchadensis or “Toumai” meaning “hope of life”. Claimed to be a 5 million year old ancestor of man.
    any scientists believe it to be either a gorilla or chimpanzee cranium. It was found in Chad on July 19, 2001. It has been compared to ape skulls by a host of scientists and the overwhelming consensus is that it is simian.

  225. tom sevigny

    I’m sorry, did you refer to the Nebraska man as a “mistake”? Just wanted
    to clarify your position.

  226. TheBlackCat

    tom sevigny Says:
    “1922 (Nebraska man) complete illustration of prehistoric male and female fabricated after the discovery of one tooth. Later found to be the tooth of an extinct cousin of the wild pig.”

    Yeah, by a newspaper! No scientist made any complete reconstructions, some mass-market newspaper artist just drew up a picture using nothing but his imagination. You can’t fault scientists for some overzealous newspaper trying to make a buck. Pig teeth and human teeth can be very similar, the fact that it was at first mistaken for a human tooth but quickly corrected is not surprising. The fact that some newspaper jumped to conclusions and made some drawing without any basis in reality is not surprising. What is surprising is that people are blaming the scientists for the newspaper screwing up.

    So yes, to answer your later question Nebraska man was a mistake as well as a fraud, a mistake by scientists and a fraud by a NON-scientist who didn’t have a clue what has was doing.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “Australopithecus, HomoHablis and Homoerectus according to evolutionists were contemporaries, much like Darwin and Mendel, but homosapien’s artifacts were found under their dwellings.”

    Okay. Homo sapiens bury stuff. Why is that a surprise? I don’t know why you are lumping austrolopithecus in there. Which one are you talking about? Austrolopithecus is a genus, like Homo. There is a whole bunch of different species. Which one are you talking about? Besides, they didn’t have dwellings, they weren’t that smart.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “How could modern man have existed before a species that they supposdedly evolved from.”

    It didn’t have to, we could have lived at the same time as they did (one population could have evolved into a new species while another stayed the same, this is common). Or the humans could have simply buried their belongings. Humans do that all the time.

    Alright, so in the end you post between 6 and 8 mistakes. As best as I can tell there have been thousands of hominid fossils found. We are talking an error rate of well under 1%. So you expect me to dismiss these thousands of other fossils because of a small handfull of mistakes? Especially considering the mistakes all seem to be tiny fragments while many much more complete skeletons have been found? Sorry, you are going to have to present some evidence that all of those fossils are somehow flawed.

    You still have not told me how, exactly, you think the fossil record is flawed. You talk about all these little tiny issues and a couple of mistakes and you seem to somehow think this justifies completely dismissing the entire fossil record. Sorry, if you are going to dismuss the entire fossil record you must tell me exactly why the entire fossil record is flawed, and not just a miniscule fraction of it.

    And you haven’t addressed my comments regarding human genetics or my comments regarding all the fossils in between modern humans/neanderthals and A. aferensis (or all the fossils that are older than A. aferensis but seem to have been discovered since I studied this last).

    You have to address these issues, you can’t just ignore them. They will not go away, they are serious flaws in your position.

  227. RAD

    I thought this was a dead thread but since it still gows and follows this path I was wondering how the juravenator really ruffles the feathers as is claimed in the press. CNN wrote about the find and how it turns the fossil record upsidedown but since I rarely believe the press I would be interested in a scientist point of view. There was another recently discovered fossil jurasic beaver was claimed to do the same to the fossil record because it appears when mammals that large were not previoulsy supose to exist. I am sure as more fossils are uncovered the mysteries will be explained but media claims are always about turning evolution theory upside down with such findings but the theory continues upright. So please, if someone can, explain what these findings really do to evolution? Thanks

  228. tom sevigny

    Good morning,
    A few facts relating to the fossil record:
    1. Cambrian fossils contradict Darwin’s theory
    2. Transitional fossils have failed to show up. These are the same fossils that Darwin predicted would be found and he even stated that his whole theory of macroevolution depended upon them.
    3. Most species do not change.
    4. Materialists based upon these facts are seeking nonDarwinian explanations.
    It is apparent that evolutionists have been using microevolutionary examples as “proof” of macroevolution. I have no qualms with microevolution, although it is, I believe it’s a misnoma. Mutation and adaptation is a fact. The presumption that one species evolves into another is not a fact. Big dogs and little dogs are still from the same species. Red and yellow roses are still roses.
    As for the fossil evidence for the theory of man’s accent, the skeletal remains are not as prevalent as they would have you believe. For instance, at the British Museum published data indicates that they have over 4000 individual fragments and cranial fossil remains. These include the Australopethucines, Ramapithecus and others. It has been established that only a few could be used. Most of the human fossils are useless based upon the fact that they’re basically modern.
    Another big question which is still not explainable by evolutionists is why if Neanderthal is human and dwelled among modern Homosapien until they became extinct, where are the other protohumans existing today? They do not exist. I would think there would be some… The evidence seems that we alone “evolved” into full humanity.

  229. tom sevigny

    Something to consider

    Dissent from Darwin statement
    The statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
    examination of the evidence for the Darwinian theory should be encouraged”.
    This statement has been signed by 514 signatories
    154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists and the number is growing
    based mostly on the strides made in genetics
    It seems that the claim by evolutionists that no reasonable doctoral scientist would ever question the validity of NeoDarwinism. It’s evident that your bluff is being called.

  230. tom sevigny

    It may be interesting to you that in the Scopes trial also known as the “Scopes monkey trial” in Dayton, Tennessee in July 1925 that the key piece of evidence was the Nebraska man. Evolutionists did not come out to set the record straight. They did not downplay the hype. The truth about this fossil evidence did not come to light until 1928.
    I don’t think that either side was scientific in the putting forth of fact at that trial, by examining the transcript. It was a philosophical argument any way you slice it.

  231. TheBlackCat

    You have STILL not addressed ANY of the previous statements I made. You keep making new, still wrong claims but completely ignored all the claims of yours that I have countered. You still have not answered any of the questions I have asked you. Please stop posting new “facts” until you have addressed my previous statements.

    “1. Cambrian fossils contradict Darwin’s theory”

    That is an out-and-out LIE. Cambrian fossils do NOT in any way contradict evolution. The claim that all phylums of life evolved during the “cambrian explosion” is wrong and has been known to be wrong for a decade or more. Many, likely all phylums developed prior to the cambrian explosion, they just didn’t evolve into larger and more easily noticable forms during that time. And even if that wasn’t the case, the cambrian explosion lasted for more than 10 million years. The phylums evolving during that time is not at all surprising. Instead basing your argument on decades-old data, you might want to check what we actually know TODAY.

    And please stop calling it Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory was abandoned nearly 100 years ago. The modern theory of evolution is significantly more advanced and takes into account the data Darwin did have available to him.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “2. Transitional fossils have failed to show up.”

    Another lie. There are countless transitional fossils. As I said before, we have nearly complete transitional fossil lineages for most major groups of vertebrates and many groups of invertebrates. The claim that there are no transitional fossils has absolutely no basis in reality.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “3. Most species do not change.”

    Wrong again. Changes in species are extremely well-documented and quite common.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “4. Materialists based upon these facts are seeking nonDarwinian explanations.”

    Naturally, as I said before NO ONE is seeking Darwinian explanations anymore.

    tom sevigny Says:
    “The presumption that one species evolves into another is not a fact.”

    Wrong again. Species evolving into other species has been documented both in nature and in the laboratory, both in plants and animals. It is no assumption, it has been directly observed. I am not talking about fossils, and I am talking about living species being observed evolving into new species.

    “It has been established that only a few could be used. ”

    Define “a few”. 100? 1000? And we are talking about from a single museum, a few each hundred in hundreds or even thousands of museums adds up.

    “where are the other protohumans existing today? They do not exist. I would think there would be some… The evidence seems that we alone “evolved” into full humanity.”

    Ever heard of Homo erectus? That was the species that modern humans and neanderthals both evolved from. One population of Homo erectus evolved into modern humans, which then expanded out and lived alongside other populations of Homo erectus and neanderthals. For some reason or another Homo erectus and neanderthals both went extinct. We don’t know why, but considering how many species went extinct over the histroy of Earth that is no real surprise.

    “This statement has been signed by 514 signatories”

    514 signatories, only 154 of which are biologists. Out of about 154,000 biologist in the US (including medical scientists, which they seem to include). So 1 in 1000, or about .1%. Is this supposed to impress me? Sorry, but on-tenth of one percent is not really enough to get my attention

    Here is the a counter statement from Project Steve:

    “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”

    This statement can ONLY be signed by scientists named Steve. It currently has 727 signatories. About 2/3 are bioligist , as opposed to the less than 1/3 for your list. And Steves make up only about 1% of US residents, so multiply that number by 100. What is more, since the last count over 57 professional science organizations have released statements officially condeming creationism and/or ID (there have been quite a few more number since then). A recent poll of the heads of biology deparments nationwide found only two dissentions among all departments that responded, on at a theological university and one where there was on dissenter in the department but the departments head said the rest of the department was firmly behind evolution.

    So the fact that the IDers can get a handful of names to support their cause is not surprising. There are a few woo-woos in every group. But the number is EXTREMELY small and I cannot see how anybody can take that as support for creationism with a straight face.

    “It may be interesting to you that in the Scopes trial also known as the “Scopes monkey trial” in Dayton, Tennessee in July 1925 that the key piece of evidence was the Nebraska man. Evolutionists did not come out to set the record straight. They did not downplay the hype. The truth about this fossil evidence did not come to light until 1928.”

    Another lie. Nebraska man was not mentioned during the Scopes trial.

    I am not calling you a liar. But the people who first made these statements were liars. And it is obvious you are getting ALL of your information from creationists sources because even a cursory glance at any of the evolution resources other people have given you (which you claim to have studied thorougly) would show you why almost every statement you made was wrong.

    And please, if you are going to post please post once. If you are replying to more than one person a single reply to each is fine, but breaking what should be single posts into two or three posts is just getting annoying. Think about what you want to say before you type, that way you don’t have to go back and keep adding stuff later.

    RAD says:
    “There was another recently discovered fossil jurasic beaver was claimed to do the same to the fossil record because it appears when mammals that large were not previoulsy supose to exist. I am sure as more fossils are uncovered the mysteries will be explained but media claims are always about turning evolution theory upside down with such findings but the theory continues upright. So please, if someone can, explain what these findings really do to evolution? Thanks”

    They don’t turn EVOLUTION upside-down, what they

  232. TheBlackCat

    Sorry Rad, I thought I cut that out of the last post.

    RAD says:
    “There was another recently discovered fossil jurasic beaver was claimed to do the same to the fossil record because it appears when mammals that large were not previoulsy supose to exist. I am sure as more fossils are uncovered the mysteries will be explained but media claims are always about turning evolution theory upside down with such findings but the theory continues upright. So please, if someone can, explain what these findings really do to evolution? Thanks”

    They don’t turn evolution upside-down, what they do is revise our understanding of what happened. This does not affect evolution itself, it simply has an impact on our knowledge of the phylogenic tree (what creatures evolved into what other creatures), what evolved when and where and how. Evolution is still just as solid as ever, perhaps moreso because we have more evidence for it, but we do not have revise our understanding of phylogeny. As always, the press likes to blow things way out of proportion. It is truly a great discovery, but it is not really going to overturn anything. They have also blown the creature’s size way out of proportion, it was tiny (big for that time, but tiny today). And it wasn’t a beaver, it wasn’t even a rodent, it was more similar (at least superficially) to modern shrews and other insectivores.

  233. tom sevigny

    This is so funny. It is nice to see you distance yourself from Darwin, conveniently. The way science works it seems (to evolutionists) is that one paradigm is disproven, you alter it to suit your needs. NeoDarwinism is probably the term I should have used. Excuse me.
    It is however interesting that if you look through your elementary child’s textbook you will find his theory mentioned as though it is proven.
    Remember, when you remove the foundation, a house falls.
    To answer your claim that 514 woowoos wrote the dissention document, it is evident that this debate is as equally philosophical as it is scientific.
    The scientific community today seems to have a sort of honor code or protocol. You do not step on toes and you stay within the confines of your own discipline. In order for a scientist to speak out against a paradigm based upon contradiction and lack of demonstrable proof, he finds himself in an ideological dilemma. It’s kind of like Martin Luther nailing his gripes to a cathedral door.
    Is it your conviction, Blackcat that these 5oo plus scientists have all been converted to theism or are they kissing up to GW to get research money?
    The fact that you used the term “condemning creationists and ID” is a perfect example of what is going on. Listen to yourself for a moment. I will likely not make any more posts on this site unless they relate to astronomy and I want to take this time to apologize to Phil for writing about nonrelated material. Sorry Phil.

  234. RAD

    Thanks blackcat. While I rarely ever buy into the press stories I can see useful points here and there. I can see how if you had a fossil record that showed a line that was then shown to have started much earlier, not saying that happened here, that it could cause a little confusion. It was made to sound like the jurassic beaver that was found shouldn’t have been there. This may have filled a gap that was previously missing a chunk? I don’t know. I would think such things would fit in pretty nicely by now with the existing fossil record but it must have been a surprise anyway and caused some stir. The other fossil that should have had feathers may have done the same, I read both stories in a local newspaper and then on cnn.com.

    Tom, I think this blog is more about critical tinking and debate over hot issues with science. Of coarse it has astronomy but I doubt that Phil doesn’t enjoy people hashing out issues. Don’t give up just because youdon’t change someones views.

  235. tom sevigny

    Back to astronomy…
    Is it not true that we have data about roughly 5 percent of the universe?
    95 percent still to be explored and discovered? At this point and time we know about intelligent life on this planet only?
    Open your mind briefly, but not so much your brain slides out and consider that a supreme intelligence may exist. Why is that so crazy?
    With 95 percent of our universe yet undiscovered and with the vast complexity of living systems on the planet Earth which display design and specialization we would be arrogant to ignore the fact that there may be another explanation. I believe it was Carl Sagan who once said that, “if the Earth is the only planet with life on it, it seems like an awful waste of space.”.
    Many scientists today are adopting the theory of panspermia which claims that life was seeded on this planet. The reason they are considering this is because of the lack of workability and evidence of other outdated paradigms. Could life have come to this planet within a meteorite? It seems as plausible as a primordial soup. Speaking of soup, I’ve got to start dinner.

  236. tom sevigny

    Hey Rad,
    You’re right. Thanks.
    Hey, that jurassic beaver find is interesting (castorocauda lutrasimilis).
    It changes a firmly held theory by a paltry 100 million years. To think that a 42 cm long prehistoric beaver could cause so much trouble.
    There is another recent find which is equally remarkable. They found a 55 million year old rabbit. I am going to use this to establish that Elmer Fudstone was searching for a prehistoric wabbit thus proving that man was contemperaneously coexistent to the dinosaurs. I’m really not kidding about the rabbit. There was also a recent find of a skull in Africa, I think that was reported to be homonid. It was found in the same area as “Lucy” or Australopthecus afarensis.

  237. TheBlackCat

    Wow, Tom, so now not only are you not answering any of my questions, you are ignoring me entirely. I guess that means the discussion is over.

  238. tom sevigny

    Hey Blackcat,
    I listed many fossil finds and refuted them without taking up an immense amount of time. You replied by saying that each statement I made was a lie or unrealistic without giving even a simple reason why you believe what you do.
    The fact that my mention of the Piltdown man was returned with an almost how dare you attitude. The facts are that although evolutionists did not have the advanced equipment for dating fossils at this time (1912) but it was claimed to be a 500,000 year old “missing link” by Dawson and the boys. Other evolutionists accepted it and wrote papers on it. Even though this primitive hominid did not fit into the “family tree” it was still touted as the biggest fossil find in 20 years.
    It turned out to be an orangutan jaw and a piece of human cranium. Flourine absorption tests later established it as quite modern. Evolutionists had egg all over their face. Although more advanced methods are available today to date and classify primate fossils, a lot is left up to interpretation and judgement.
    For you to make the broad statement that there are plenty of fossils supporting human evolution that have been collected and catalogued really does not establish anything here. So much is still being debated.
    As for genetics, I should have said that the available information encoded into DNA “limits”the changes and mutations that can occur within the cell.
    It takes millions of mutations to produce any notable change in most living systems. Do you agree at least that 99 percent of the mutations produced are not beneficial to the organism? It is my understanding that most are detrimental to the organism.
    You obviously inadvertently proved my point for me in your post on March 26 that this debate is largely philosophical. It seems that somethings never change.

  239. tom sevigny

    Good morning,
    Somebody please say something that has to do with astronomy. Ok well this is a post for everybody. It is not based on any circular logic which I continually observe from evolutionists…let say Steves.
    George Gaylord Simpson, professor of vertebrate paleontology (woo woo?) noted that all 32 orders of mammals appear fully developed in the fossil record. “This regular absence of transitional forms”, he stated,”is not confined to mammals, but an almost universal phenomenon has long been noted”.
    This problem is so difficult for evolutionists to overcome that one school of evolutionists who instead of attempting to refute these claims felt compelled to propose the teory of “punctuated equilibriam”, which whether it was intended to or not waved a wand thus making evolution of organic life invisible in the fossil record. [ Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge].
    Steven Stanley, a paleontologist at Johns Hopkins university and David M. Raup, curator of Chicago’s Field Museum number about 130,000 fossil species in the collection of the world’s museums, compared to 1.5 million known living species. They calculate that 1 billion species have lived since the Cambrian period “or exclamation point “(my words). And of these 99.9 percent did not leave any fossils. If these numbers are accurate, how can evolutionists be so certain about the hypothetical relationship of descent among species over billions of years?
    When I read about fossil findings whether they seem to confirm or contradict current evolutionary conviction, one extremely unscientific method is universally demonstrated. (I’m not refferring to the media either). The unwritten rules pertaining to a new find are as such:
    The standards imposed for the evidence that seemingly contradicts current views seems to be much more stringent than the standards for acceptance of evidence that seemingly agrees with current views.
    This is evidenced on a lesser scale by the way the proevolutionist mentality
    responds to a new find. The discovery of the castorocauda lutrasimilis, a mammal that is placed in the jurassic period thus throwing off the theory that mammals of that size and physiology by 100 million years. When something doesn’t work, downplay it explain it off and somehow try to fit it into the philogenic tree. Of course this is a minor example. When you have billions of years at your disposal everything is possible with circular logic. The key is to try to make it sound plausible, because we all know that the alternative is never plausible.

  240. tom sevigny

    good day folks,
    I would like to issue a challenge to anybody out there who is an evolutionist. Based upon all we know today about genetics, give me an account of at least 5 separate observable generational mutations of sexually reproducing organisms produced that have had beneficial effects consistent with evolution. The beneficial effects should also outway the adverse effects.
    Give a brief explanation of how they were produced also, in laymans terms. Don’t forget to explain the methods of controlling conditions.

    And perhaps somebody can explain their interpretation of the conclusions made in the Benzar studies in the 1960s pertaining to DNA. Please educate me.
    Tom Sevigny

  241. tom sevigny

    This is quite interesting. If you aren’t familiar with it check it out.

    In the 1960s Seymour Benzer of California Institute of Technology experimented with Drosphilia melanogaster. The experiments involved the memory of the fly. The reason why this species was chosen was because of it’s large and relatively uncomplicated genome with only four pairsof chromosones. These fruitflies and humans share the same fundamental characteristics for storing information inherited from aour earliest ancestors. Another reason why this species was used was that it’s reproduction was extremely rapid and generational traits could actually be observed in the laboratory. A new generation could be observed roughly every 24 hours.
    The scientist exposed the fly eggs and sperm to a chemical mutagen or mutating-causing agent. As was expected the progenies inherited the mutations as predicted. Microevolution in a nutshell.
    The mutation conclusively caused a memory deficiency but did not harm the other fundamental abilities of the fly.
    The old addage that “if it doesn’t kill ya it only makes you stronger” was the underlying outcome. If you read the conclusions made subsequent to the experiments, you will see a spin put on the conclusion. Check it out for yourself.
    The incontravertible facts were that the mutations observed were either neutral or detrimental. Somebody may however believe that a deficient memory could be an assett. I dunno.

  242. tom sevigny

    Just read it, Scriptforge FFS. Interesting. Some truth but lotsa hate. Gotta love it.
    Hey, anybody in here? Where’s Blackcat? Getting chased around by that horny french skunk?

  243. RAD

    Well your not alone but maybe talking to your self! I just keep waiting for the debate.

  244. tom sevigny

    Good one Rad!
    Hey, you know how I find this stuff? I read the journals of evolutionists, paleontologists and I apply critical thinking. I sometimes pick up on new finds in the media and refer to the experts. One thing is clear. Although scientists refer to evolution as the only plausible explanation for the origin of life when asked, it doesn’t mean that they buy it lock, stock and barrel.
    With many, it is a wait and see if evolutionists will ever come out with actual proof. For a scientist to ever admit publicly that they were a theist they would be scorned and it would most likely truncate their career.

  245. RAD

    It seems that most feel critical thinking ends with religion in the picture. I do believe that evolution plays a part in creation. The biggest thing to me is no one knows what the creative process is. I don’t think science is too far off the mark. and there are actually quite a few here who say they believe in God. There certainly are alot of unknowns and mysteries to keep us all busy.

  246. tom sevigny

    Hey Rad,
    You still watching the nonexistent debate?
    I tend to agree with you about religion. Theism has a different connotation and so does intelligent design. They are not interchangeable terms. They sometimes interrelate but so does Darwinism and neoDarwinism. Blackcat was right in that Darwinism and evolution are synonomous, but it is evident that they are used interchangeably all of the time. The difference between theism and evolution is that theory of evolution is constantly changing and the catalyst for them to hold fast is that the alternative can be considered unscientific.
    Keep in mind though that the sciences all are analytical in their simplest form. Scientists are trying to explain the tangible things of the universe.
    The mechanics of biology, physiology, time and energy , matter and space. Begin a study of quantum physics and you may just be approaching these answers from the right angle. What we may find down that avenue could answer all of the whys.
    If you ever question why we are here you may just have to consider some other alternatives. Science has not even begun to attempt to explain the human conscience or the concept of good vs. evil, yet we have a physiological explanation for everything.
    If somebody is really looking for the truth my conviction is that all options are on the table even if some are undesirable. It’s like a patient going to 10 doctors for opinions until he finds the one he wants. The one commonality that I have noticed in reading the biographies of evolutionary scientists is that from Darwin until the present most of them became disillusioned with the religion of their parents. If they didn’t want me to know about that it shouldn’t have been put in their biographies. They set out with the presumption that a creator could not exist.
    If you read some of the writings of scientists such as Newton, Darwin or Einstein you will find that in the last years of their lives they no longer were as sure about those convictions. They may not have recanted completely on what they believed but after a full life of examining the wonders of the universe they somehow lost their disdain for the concept of an intelligent creator. The evolutionist party line would like to sweep these facts under the rug. This is something I have very much in common with these men. I do admire them and their work.

  247. tom sevigny

    Well, I guess this is a dead thread. Just remember what BS stands for. Depending on the individual PHD sometimes means piled higher & deeper.
    Bon chance.

  248. RAD

    Go with another thread and you will find the same debate continues

  249. RAD

    The first april post looks to start up the debate again. And by the way funny, piled higher and deeper, I gotta remember that one

  250. Mike

    The Belgian priest who originally invented the Big Bang was probably looking for a way to create the Universe in an instant as it is descibed in old religious story books.
    Big bang as a theory is so full of holes, that it would be dead long time ago,
    if too many people did not make good livelyhood from it.

  251. tom sevigny

    That’s interesting Mike. I didn’t know where it originated from. How do you think the universe was formed/created?

  252. RAD

    How do I get in on the money? Is it like amway? I think the big bang is gaining more credibility all the time they are filling in the holes.

  253. tom sevigny

    Well I tend to believe that science is not far off from explaining the physical aspects of how the universe was formed. The question is who made it happen and sets the boundaries and the penned the Laws of physics.
    Look at our planet and how it has all of the elements to support life and the axis of rotation and the set orbit around the sun. It all has purpose.

    When I go outside to pick up the dog poop in the backyard, even I have a purpose. I employ physical methods and human reason in accomplishing my task. You can come over and analyze my methods if you want. That’s what science does. Science is a wonderful tool, but in our world it has it’s own ideology and philosophy.

    If naturalists/materialists are correct in their observations and true in their statements that our universe came into being randomly by some cataclysmic accident and life on this particular planet was produced through chemicals acting on inorganic matter to produce life than the only thing that should be important to us is survival. Is that the only thing that we are about?
    If we were however created or salted on this planet by a Supreme Intelligence and made in His image it explains a lot of things: The human conscience, human creativity, justice, government, education, family structure and even religion. All of these things could be looked at as methods of human survival, but the dynamics of the individual’s purpose in life can never be explained by modern science.

  254. Mike

    Response to Tom.
    I would respond: It wasn’t.
    BTW, an ethernal and endless Universe would leave more room for Intelligent God/s than the shor 15 billion years Big Bang would allow.

  255. RAD

    So maybe there’s more to it than just a short 15 billion years and we are on a need to know basis

  256. Mike

    RAD, thanks for graciously overlooking my sloppy spelling.
    A theory is a theory is a theory. Scientists can assume it is correct as long as they do not actually believe it, but once there is s single case when it doesn’t apply, it must be discarded, sort of like a mathematical proof.
    “It is a mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”. (Aristotle)

  257. tom sevigny

    I don’t usually quote Aristotle. Aristotle founded the theory of spontaneous generation (our first theories of abiogenesis) so he was a propogandist way back then. :) ha ha ha.
    Do you have anything in Solomon? Maybe a 46 long

  258. tom sevigny

    We’re not talking about entertaining a thought. What we are seeing is elementary, middleschool and highschool textbooks still teaching Darwinian theory as fact. Since most children today are getting more influence in the public education forum than at home, it’s safe to say most are believing it to be the only factual account of the origin of life on our planet.
    I have already read dozens of evolution theory articles and journals that are moving away from Darwin’s theory and they even get hotheaded when you refer to them as Darwinist evolutionists. The politically correct term is neoDarwinist.
    You will see all of the fossil finds listed in these textbooks or handouts. Every hominid fossil find that has been disproven is still among the ones listed as evidence except maybe the piltdown man and Nebraskaman.

  259. Mike

    Tom, I tried something from Ecclesiastes, but it was censored out.

  260. tom sevigny

    Ha ha ha. too funny

  261. Mike

    Tom, I struggle with a fitting definition of faith.
    Is it a belief without evidence or is it a belief regardless of evidence or is it a belief in spite of evidence. What is your take on it?

  262. tom sevigny

    Well Mike,
    Are you talking about faith in Christ? Or in momotheism? polytheism? pantheism? It makes a difference. The credibility of the particular faith is paramount.

  263. tom sevigny

    spellcheck ugh monotheism

  264. RAD

    Faith: Hope in things which are not seen, but which are true. Religious faith is stronger than the world view of faith. Much like scientfic theory is much stronger to science then to most of us common folk.

  265. tom sevigny

    Hey Rad,
    Look up Hebrews 11 dude.
    Are you familiar with it?

  266. RAD

    Morning tom, yes I am familiar with that chapter, Have you ever read the book of mormon or mormon bible what ever you call it. Alma 32 is another really good faith chapter. I particularly like hebrews 11 because it shows that salvation is more than just faith alone, it takes action upon that faith to earn salvation.

  267. tom sevigny

    Hey Rad,
    Check this out. A quote from someone that I would assume is very influential in the area of this blog.

    “Manned spaceflight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of it’s creator”.
    “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories of the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.”
    -Dr. Werner von Braun (1912-1977)NASA director and father of the American Space Program

  268. tom sevigny

    There is more:
    “Atheists all over the world have…called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as far as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang.For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without cause.
    There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual reator…In the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the reator”.
    -Dr. Werner von Braun (1912-1977) NASA Director and Father of the American Space Program

  269. tom sevigny

    Nobody earns salvation…
    Ephesians 2:8
    2Thessalonians 2:16
    Titus 3:3-7
    Just a few scriptures. There are many more.
    Believing we can earn it makes a mockery of the work of the cross.

  270. tom sevigny

    Happy Easter!
    The tomb was empty…

  271. RAD

    There are two things at work here. We all get to be resurrected and recieve the gift of living forever. But there is more to life after death than simply living forever and that is the earning I mean. Titus 3:8 even mentions good works. What is the point of keeping commandments and doing “good works”, following Christs example, trying not to sin, ect if in the end it doesn’t matter because we are all saved without any of this. The cross and resurrection gave us all life eternal but the garden of gethsemane is where our sins were paid for and it is by using the attonement through repentance that we earn a greater joy in the next life. This is a very confusing topic because salvation is spoken of differently in the bible.
    1 cor 15:40-41 and even better Matt 7:21 is christ saying that we need to “do” the will of the father to enter his kingdom. Faith without works is dead. certainly we need to do good works continually to enter his kingdom so that saying all you need is faith is false and misleading. Like I said there is no point to being a follower of christ if you need no works to be saved.

  272. tom sevigny

    Abraham lived by faith roughly 430 years before the Law was given to Moses. Abraham was a sinful man like you and me, yet he hoped for the day when he would be redeemed. What do you think Jesus meant in John 8:56.

    Ephesians 2:9
    Galatians 2:17-21
    Galatians 3:10-14
    Galatians 3:1-5
    Galatians 3:15-16

    Paul refers to himself as the chief of sinners, not because he intentionally was breaking the law, but because he was human like you and me. He lived by faith and hope in the resurrection and to be given an incorruptible body incapable of transgressing.

  273. tom sevigny

    Break the Law and it hurts “you”
    Keep the Law and it benefits “you”

    Jump off of a roof to test the law of gravity and “you” will break your neck
    Respect the law of gravity and you will be safer and healthier.

    Our works do not add anything to Him
    Our works are our reasonable service
    When He created us it did not add anything to Him
    It was a sovereign act of His own good pleasure.

  274. Now that you have wandered so far off topic, Tom, please take your proselytizing elsewhere. Either talk about the topic at hand or take it elsewhere.

  275. As a Christian I still believe that Science and Faith
    Can co-exist.As I understand The whole creation story of
    “Six days” the wording allows for the time frame that Science feels that it took for us to be at this place and time.Somebody insisting on demanding “Theory” be placed in front of a science theory statement smacks both of a lack of faith and a lack of good manners….
    Now we won’t even begin to talk about a 24year-old newbie being
    placed “in charge” of ANYTHING!
    I feel for you guys over there.
    Just remember,God has a sense of humor too.
    That’s where we got ours from ;-)!!!

  276. tom sevigny

    Ok sorry Phil. I can stay on topic.
    You know I hear proponents of evolution using the term “debunked” regularly to counter the claims of someone who sees ID as a viable option. It seldom follows with any form of explanation of why they defend their beliefs so dogmatically. It usually follows with a pointing to a reference of a conclusion made by a scientist/evolutionist regarding the particular topic. After going back and forth for a while the only thing that I hear from your camp is that this has been proven and what you are stating is “long debunked” or you state that the information posted is old and science has so much more fresh evidence to support evolution.
    To reciprocate, I’m here to tell you that the inference you folks make that no reasonable scientist could or would hold up ID as a viable theory of the origin of life on Earth has been “debunked” and is simply not a true statement.
    You are an astronomer and yet you make no comment of what you think about Werner von Braun’s convictions.
    The truth is that many astronomers, cosmologists, chemists and astrophysicists have and do see Intelligent design as a possible explanation for the origin of the universe. I’m not stating that they are religious.

    Have you heard of Alan Sandage, winner of the Crawford prize? How about John O’Keefe? George Greenstein?

    How about the astrophysicists and physicists: Arthur Eddington? Arno Penzias(Nobel prize in physics)? Tony Rothman? Stephen Hawking? Arthur Schawlow? Frank Tipler? era Kristiakowsky? Fred Hoyle? George Ellis?
    Paul Davies?

    Cosmologists and Chemists: Ed Harrison? Edward Milne? Barry Parker? Henry “Fritz” Schaefer?

    I don’t know where evolutionists are getting there statistics from but recent surveys are revealing that 40percent of American physicists, biologists and mathemeticians believe in a “Supreme Being”–and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a diety who takes active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers.
    Phil, what have you experienced in your circles? Are all of your peers secular humanists? Materialists? Naturalists? It interests me. Please respond.

  277. tom sevigny

    Hey Ken Z.,
    If you happen into here again could you please elaborate a bit on how six days of creation is compatible with the billions of years in the typical accounts of evolution. I’m just curious as to how you have come to such a conclusion. Thanks.

  278. tom sevigny

    I was just reading about your visit and talk at Dryden. You lucky bugger. You know that picture of the SR-71 reminds me of the Airforce YF12As (same Lockheed plane) when I lived at Edwards AFB in the Mojave back in the early 60s. What a remarkable machine.
    I also got to see the B-70 fly and the X-15 flights were routine back then. You ever hear of Major Cotton.
    He was a good friend of my dad’s. My dad was in charge of maintenance on the YF12A back in those days.
    The footage of the “flying bathtub” crashing at the beginning of the Six Million Dollar Man was actual footage at Edwards.
    It might surprise you that an IDer could spend most of his life around aeronautics. I could identify almost any airplane from WW2 on when I was a kid.

  279. tom sevigny

    Correction: Colonel Joseph Cotton. He was a major when I met him. I got to meet most of these experimental pilots as a kid.

  280. RAD

    Are you talkin to youself again tom?

  281. Bill Williamson

    This would be laughable and beyond comment if the ultimate results weren’t so serious. Just when we need the public to really pay attention to the serious issue of Global Warming (and the very serious complicating effect of airborne particles on the solution aka ‘Global Dimming’)…

    We get some Government yahoo talking about the Garden of Eden. If there really is a God, we sure must have pissed him off.

    Watch the recent PBS NOVA program for a good summary of the problems ahead.

  282. tom sevigny

    You guessed it Rich

  283. tom sevigny

    Phil is a busy bee

  284. Tom

    He only comes around when you mention a supreme being…

  285. RAD

    he linked to another site that I found interesting so I have been splitting my time there. I have to admit I don’t care for the attacks on science either, I would hate to end up in the second dark ages.

  286. Tom

    I don’t care for this administration in general. The fact that they are coddling the right wing conservative Christians is that they are trying to grab a large constituency of voting Christians. The Christians are being duped into believing that Bush and his cronies actually are sincere. They are being used in my opinion.
    I don’t think that Bush cares any more for the moral state of America than Clinton cared about the homosexuals who voted for him the first time out.
    The debate is however about the origin of the universe and truth. Science and religion today are both influenced by relativism. Truth is relative…
    Scientists have long been stating that science is for people who want facts and religion is for people seeking truth. I don’t believe you can separate the two.

  287. Brad

    You are right, you cannot separate facts and truth – they are synonymous. Nature’s incredible complexities can only be expained by the work of a Divine hand.

    Have a good day, eh?

    btw, read The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, if you are interested in both sides of the debate.

  288. RAD

    Tom I think the same of pretty much all politicians, anything for a vote. There are ones who really come through on the promises, very few. Same wolf-different sheeps clothing.
    I haven’t read that book yet but I will soon, I wouldn’t be so sure that natures complexities can only be explained by a creator though. while a creator has a hand in it said creator follows laws of the universe that we can discover and understand. Its what makes it so hard to convince people of a creation, it can be explained without allowing for a divine creator. most here think science ends with “God did it”.

  289. Tom

    Mornin guys,
    I have been fascinated with science since I was knee high. I bought into evolution theory and most of what the textbooks taught as fact. I grew up on airforce bases and got to see some of the most remarkable technology we had at the time. As a child I lived in England and traveled through most of the countries liberated from the Nazis a couple of decades earlier.
    I had a wonderfully educational childhood.
    You can study the sciences all of your life and they will never answer the most important questions regarding the purpose for why we are here and for what cause everything exists. The most assinine thing I have ever heard is the latest explanations/arguments
    given by those who espouse the philosophies of evolution, naturalism and materialism. They know that purpose, cause and design is overwhelmingly evident in creation and that randomness of evolution is not even evident in adaptation and genetic mutation, so they are now claiming that natural selection is somehow not random and has purpose. How do you give an inanimate, unthinking, unpurposeful entity credit for the unltra-complex, amazingly well-designed and
    supremely sustained creation we see all around us?
    It would take a huge leap of faith for me to accept this. It would, however, leave me believing that I was accountable to nobody but myself and that the only possible responsibility I may have is symbiotic in nature and is paramount to my survival.
    The big thing that is missing is that I would have no explanation for this God-shaped void that is apparent in all of humanity.

  290. icemith

    Seeing I want to add my support to BA, Phil, I have skipped down from the last comment I have read, Kyle (10349), I know I’ve missed a lot in between but I will read them later after a restart as I have to do some Mac housekeeping and system updating. I promise I will read ’em all sooner or later. But Kyle’s comment, as I said -10349- sums up my feelings. If concientious folk would do as he says, then this affirmative action will have an effect. There is no need to espouse radical, ill considered action that could worsen the situation. Keep up the good fight Phil.


  291. Jake

    I’m sorry, but the Big Bang is NOT a provable theory. In fact, several other scientists, based on recent observations, have begun to dismiss Big Bang as anything but speculative theory, not real science. There are too many things about the Big Bang theory that just don’t work. Too many contradictions and doubt. What was said is that NASA doesn’t have anything to do with religion, but I disagree. Einstein himself said that the more he discovers about the universe, the more he believes that it was created and is here for us to understand. There is NO scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory. Hubble worked backwards in theory, and did the same speculating Darwin did. They are, unfortunately, both simply theories, not fact, law, or any thing else. Why is it unfair to make science teachers, especially middle and elementary school, call it a theory when it IS?

  292. Jake, can you give me names of these scientists? I don’t know a single astronomer– not one– that dismisses the Big Bang.

    In fact, pretty much every single sentence you wrote is wrong, and basically just mimics standard creationist talking-points. I suggest you take a look at websites like talk-origins and see why what you said is so wrong.

  293. I’m posting to this old thread because I see Phil is. Apologies if that’s rude of me.

    Phil, I’ve recently stumbled across your website. (Disclosure of my bias: Conservative, Christian, undergrad in engineering from a decent university (Ivy league equivalent; foreign), PhD in History from an Ivy League university. Didn’t abandon engineering; I practice it in my corporate job. Was a bit of a polymath and decided to do a thesis in a totally different direction).

    I personally believe in ID; like you, I also believe it has no place in science classrooms other than as an example of what is not science — inadequately falsifiable.

    Respectfully, when you use phrases like “Scientific McCarthyism”, you’re pretty much cutting off debate. Worse than that, you’re lumping every conservative argument (with your aggressive approach) into one.

    Anyone in the government who does this to someone else — especially to a scientist, whose goal is open discourse and the uncovering of truth — should be removed from their position, immediately.

    I submit we’d have to fire 90% of civil servants. I’m all for that, though I’m not sure you are. BTW, what you suggest is kind of uh… McCarthyite. Firing tons of people ‘immediately’, based upon perception of their actions. (Yeah, granted, if they do nothing, they get to keep their jobs… is that a good thing?)

    I think I agree with your aims.

    I don’t agree with most of your arguments. I think scientists can persuade those on the Christian right; I don’t think they can do so by demonizing them (pun intended).

    -wolfe (wolfe.mabtw.com) — my trivial blog.

  294. Don Applegarth

    I do not understand why, as a scientist, we always don’t keep our minds open to possibilities including creationism. We should never be limited, but always open. I have heard several theories about what was “before” he universe. There is room to suggest that God has exisited before and after and possibly eternally. Since we do not understand the mind of God, or how he exists, this does not mean that we need to react hostily.
    Creationism in my view is not the literal interpretation of the time and space referred to as “days” in the Bible. God could have seeded matter, or life in the beginning, who knows. This isnt proven, but neither are all the other scientific theories.

  295. concerned teen

    WTF!!!!! Religion is not science!!!!! What is this world coming to, abandoning reason for stupidity and irrationality?

  296. I think creationism needs to be placed on the same altar as santa claus and the easter bunny.

  297. Lurchgs

    It’s been said before – creationism (religion) and science do not belong in the same discussion. One side of the conversation is based on belief with no supporting evidence, while the other is based on repeatable testing. Evidence. Evidence is everything. Without it, you might feel free to walk across a busy highway and not expect to get smushed to paste. WIthout it, our judicial system would be a joke.

    what the creationists are really saying is that God is lying to us. The EVIDENCE indicates that the universe is 15 billion years old and that evolution has (so far) resulted in the bioshpere we see around us. But no, God actually created all this 5 THOUSAND years ago and planted all this “evidence” for some inscrutable reason of his own. It’s certainly there to misdirect us, else there’d be nothing there at all.

    Oh, wait! it’s a TEST.. do we believe in God in SPITE of evicence to the contrary? I might believe such silliness from some looser charged with murder – but of some hypotheical being who created the universe?

    Personally, I’m an athiest. I see absolutely no evidence of a supreme being in anything around me. I am not about to take the word of some uneducated barbarians trying to explain how the world works. And no, I’m not referring to anybody living today (though you may feel free to accept the label if it applies). I’m referring to ANY of our ancestors who saw things they couldn’t explain and invented magic.. er.. UFOs… er.. conspiracies…er… supernatural beings. Beings such as Odin, Kali, Allah, God, Jupiter, Pan… the list goes on and on.

    A is A.

  298. BB

    first of all..the big bang is a theory that has not been proven..its not facts..its just opinions that scientists have..AND who says that Faith has ANYTHING to do with facts???The Big BAng theory has MANY shaky facts that haven’t even been proven..and religion is a right given to the people..separation of church and state…I THINK NOT..

  299. Dan

    As long as you accept Federal money, you are subject to whatever political whims run the government. I heard on PBS last night that 92% of scientists are Democrats. Not surprising then if so many of them are upset with the current administrations decisions regarding federally funded entities of scientific nature. Not surprising either that so many of them ascribe to Global Warming hysteria.

    Time for me to put on my flame retardant gear.

  300. Artem

    Hi there… I thought it was only our problem (i’m from russia) – when activists from religion try to say that the science is only “opinion”. Unfortunately the level of scientific education and so to say scientific culture here is low :(( Some belivers even tried to issue the department of education on the basis that Darvin’t theory offends their religious feelings. Happily, nothing came out of it, but much of the media were on their side… that’s upsetting.

  301. Actually this guy “George Deutsch” never finished college apperently;


    Poor little guy.

  302. Science vs. Religion will be an ongoing battle. However, I think that this whole discussion is a little narrow-minded because I believe that there are more theories on the origin of life that deserve to be explored in more depth. Check out this documentary on Youtube .

  303. NASA Fan

    This is a good news report about a new NASA study.
    CBS 4 Anchors Shomari Stone and Cynthia Demos introduced CNN’s Miles O’Brien. Take a look.


  304. I never thought reality would need defending.

  305. When creationist kids grow up to examine the evidence on their own, they will think they were lied to.

  306. J Clarkson

    NASA is the child of the US govt. A pointless operation as far as I can see. A waste of money. Humans simply do not have enough metal resources to conquer space. Thus NASA needs to straighten itself out and just help to build particle accelerators and telescopes. All manned missions should end permanently. NASA should construct an asteroid defence shield that can shoot down incoming rocks from space. This should be its primary mission.

    As for its views, they should be scientific only. Creationism is a plain lie. All you need to find out about God is God’s Cipher.

  307. ancelmo

    Brazilian, professor, theoretical researcher, graduated philosophy.



    is ONLY the ABSOLUTE One.


    Tel. 27- 32167566 Street Itabira, nº 5, Itapemirim Set, Rose of the
    Penha, Cariacica, -269, E.S. cep.29143 Brazilian, professor,
    graduation in philosophy and theoretical researcher. Published books

    Collaborator – Marcio Piter Rangel.

    Presented work the SECT- Spirit Brazil Saint. E the Brazilian Society
    of Physics. Introduction published in the WEB for the Vestibule Brazil
    Factor – Channel Profile. In day 30.01.2008. If other theories with
    beddings and you formulate had had acceptance, why these will not
    have? Therefore, it possesss all the beddings and all the forms of
    calculations, and that the reality and the comment until today reached
    are confirmed with. With more than one hundred and ten formulas, the
    most varied forms of if calculating one same phenomenon, with more
    than two hundred beddings in all the areas of the modern physics.
    Also, with new forecasts inside of cosmology and astronomy.

    Presented the Magazine of Education of the SBFISICA. Soced. Bras. de
    Física. Brazilian Journal of Physics – SBFISICA.

    The work will be complemented with.

    1-A theory of the estruturante fluxonário universe and cosmofísica
    graceliana. 2-Teoria of graceliana astronomy of energeticidade and
    maser. 3-Teoria of alternancidade astronomy and variance. 4-Teoria of
    astronomy of the origin, rotation, removal and progression. 5-Teoria
    of astronomy of fisicidade, disintegration and reintegration. General
    6-Teoria for astronomy and cosmo. 7-Teoria of the microphysics and
    chemistry. 8-Teoria of the general unit.


    ON the MOON.


    The Moon for being produced by one astro with little energy, in the
    case the Land, it possesss dezessete times little speed of translation
    of that Io – Jupiter satellite, a time that Jupiter possesss greater
    diameter of that the Land. Therefore both are almost to the same
    distancia of its elementary schools, in the case Io de Jupiter and the
    Moon of the Land. It also has of if considering that Io is a satellite
    more energy of that the Moon, exactly Jupiter being older of the one
    than the land, therefore still conserve tectônicas activities, these
    activities already had been observed by by telescope.

    Io possesss much more energy, maser, atmosphere of that the Moon for
    being been produced for a planet – Jupiter – with much more energy of
    that the Land. This if confirms in the relation enters the dynamic
    between the two planets.

    Io also possesss approximately the same diameter of the Moon.

    Diameter Moon 3470 quilometro. Speed of Translation Moon 1,03 km/seg.
    Io 3650 quilometro. Speed of Io Translation 17,4 Km/seg.

    Distancia of its Io Elementary schools – 420,000 quilometros.
    Lua-384.000 quilometros.

    Rotation – Io possesss a bigger rotation 16,44 times of the one than
    the Moon, or either, almost the same difference of that the
    translation. This all confirms the displayed one until here that the
    rotation, as the translation and the removal is produced by the energy
    and maser of astro. Here if it confirms with clarity that has a direct
    relation between the dynamic.


    That Io possesss a bigger atmosphere 10 times of the one than the Moon
    By that is confirmed with the difference of its dynamic.

    Io possesss a magnetic activity, electric conduction, seismic
    activity, atmosphere, bigger tectônica activity ten times of the one
    than the moon. This already was proven for the experience. What it
    confirms displayed for the difference in the dynamic and the orbits.


    The Moon possesss a orbital inclination of 5,9 degrees in relation to
    the ecliptic, and an eccentricity of 0.05 degrees, and this confirms
    the relation with the translacional speed and rotation, or either,
    little dynamics and great irregularity in the inclinations of the
    orbit and the rotation, and with great eccentricity.

    As it was displayed above, the Land is finishes it planet to produce
    satellite until today, therefore the Land was produced by the Sun when
    the same already if it found in a phase of little production of
    energy, we see that the Moon produces little maser and no tectônica
    activity, while Io produces great activity tectônica. Why Io was
    produced by a planet with much energy and intense maser, therefore it
    is very bigger of the one than the Land, therefore that the rotation
    and translation of the Moon are 17 lesser times of that Io. and a very
    bigger eccentricity, and a bigger inclination of the one than of Io.
    Or either, the elementary school produces the energy in the secondary
    one that it goes to produce the phenomena.

    Thus, the inclination and eccentricity of the satellites are always
    next or bigger of the values of its elementary schools.

    E with the Moon and Io if confirms displayed previously, that the how
    much bigger energy and maser, greaters here will be the dynamics, the
    stability and the perfection of the circularidade of the orbit, and
    minor the eccentricity and the inclination of the translation and the
    rotation. E vice versa.

    We will see that the satellites of the planets most distant and next
    to its elementary schools will have greaters rotations and translation
    and minors eccentricity and rotational and translacional inclination.
    E that occurs in the proportionality of the life time and of
    diâmetros that represent its energy and maser.

    This if confirms with the satellites of all the planets.



    The ratio enters the removal of the astros is increasing with the
    removal, where most distant they magnify the removal, for that the
    ratio of the distancias is always increasing. However, the removal
    depends on the energy in the processing of its production, and the
    proper energy represented for the diameter, for that it has the
    removal peaks, as the diameter of astro with its neighbor. This
    difference if confirms between Tritão and Nereida, two satellites of
    Neptune, where the difference of removal between the two is enormous,
    compared with satellites of planets next to the Sun.

    The ratio of the distancias suffers to increasing peak as astro goes
    producing its dynamics and its removal, this if it confirms between
    Titã and Réia of Saturn, Febe and Jupet of Saturn, between Titânia
    and Umbriel

    of Uranus, and between the Planets Jupiter and Mars. E between
    ganimedes and Europe de Jupiter.

    Therefore ganimedes has the double of the diameter of Europe and the
    double of the distancia. Or either, the energy of astro determines its
    position in the space, therefore with more diameter it will have
    greater energy, greater rotation, greater removal of its elementary

    The same it happens with Titânia and Umbriel Uranus satellites,
    therefore the ratio of the diameter is two times, or either, and the
    ratio of the distancia between the two satellites is 1,8, while the
    others with next ratios of diameter, and the ratios of the distancias
    also are minimum.

    The theory of the gravitation does not make mention to the position of
    the distancia for the diameter, that represents the energy and the
    time of construction of astro and its action of removal of astro next
    – neighboring -, and that this influences in the position and
    distancia of astro in the space.

    The translation speed enters these astros also folloies approximately
    in a value of ratio between neighboring astros. We see that the
    translation difference is bigger between bigger diâmetros and
    position. The same it happens with the rotation, the inclinations, the
    eccentricity, and all the other physical and structural phenomena, as
    achatamento of astro, atmosphere, tectônica activity, etc.

    The Saturn satellites if had moved away less from the one than of
    Jupiter for being lesser of diameter and with little energy.

    The skips of removal and position for the skip of diameter between the
    planets, satellites and comets confirm the theory of the
    energeticidade and maser.

    E as in Jupiter that has a bigger interval of Mars removal, for being
    Jupiter with bigger diameter, the same happens between Titã and Réia
    of Saturn, that is four times bigger. Between Febe and Jupet, and
    ganimedes and Europe, and Titânia and Umbriel de Urano. This
    difference also enters the ratios is present in asteroids and comets.


    The same it happens with the translation speed where the difference of
    the ratio is bigger in the astros that a difference of diameter keeps,
    as it is the case enters the displayed Saturn satellites above, and
    between Jupiter and Mars. For that it has it an enormous difference
    enters the speed of translation of Jupiter and Mars, therefore exactly
    bigger Jupiter being that Mars it had more time if moving away from
    the sun, diminishing gradually influences it received for the sun in
    the origin of the translation. For that it has a bigger ratio twenty
    times in the diameter, three times and stocking in the removal, two
    times lesser in the speed of translation of Jupiter for Mars, two
    times and bigger way in the rotation. This confirms the displayed one
    until, that the translation has an origin for the elementary school
    and diminishes gradually, until proper astro co-ordinating all
    dynamics and translation, rotation and removal here if it is
    equivalent as the energy that the same produces. This confirmation if
    approaches for distant Pluto, asteroids, comets and distant
    satellites, where rotation, translation and removal if are equivalent
    in its values. We have the reason has a skip in the ratio of the
    translation, removal, rotation, eccentricity and inclinations of orbit
    and rotation here.

    This difference of ratio also remains in the eccentricity and
    inclination, and is increasing with the removal.


    1 it question of skips in the ratio enters the phenomena in
    agreement its energy and diameter,

    2-e the increasing ratio of removal, orbital and rotational
    inclination, and in agreement eccentricity astro goes being old and
    burning its energy. That it depends on the time of life and the energy
    of astro, represented for the diameter.

    The Jupiter satellites are approximately five compared bigger times
    with the ones of Saturn, for that they in average are two times more
    distant of the ones of Saturn, if compared with the ones of Jupiter.

    The translation of the satellites diminishes as the removal of the
    planet to the sun and diameter of the planet. Or either, the energy
    that it conserves depends on the energy who formed it, for that the
    Saturn satellites possesss greater translation of that of Uranus,
    exactly being the same distancia and with the same diameter.


    Orbit of Quíron – the principle of the proportionality is also
    confirmed in the Quíron asteroid, therefore for its extensive removal
    of the Sun, it it develops the biggest inclination of orbit and the
    biggest eccentricity.

    It is confirmed in asteroids EROS, with eccentricity of 0.83 degrees,
    Quiron, hidalgo, and others. Also in comets, that the distancia of the
    Sun is not the basic one for the thread of astro in the space, but yes
    its energy and maser represented for its diameter.

    As already it was since the removal and position that it marks
    distanciam of the elementary school depend on the energy of astro.

    E the inclinations and eccentricities depend on the energy of the same
    ones, therefore lesser and more distant asteroids, comets and
    satellites of its elementary schools possess the biggest inclinations
    and eccentricities. E the biggest planets the lesser eccentricities
    and inclinations and the set of the dynamic – translation, rotation,
    and removal also folloies the energy of astro.


    GANIMEDES has a diameter 5,250 km, and TITÃ has a 5,800 diameter km.

    Ganimedes if finds to a distancia of 1.070.000 km of the elementary
    school. TITÃ if finds to a distancia 1.222.000 km of the elementary

    Ganimedes has a 10.9 speed km/s. Titã has a speed of 5.6 km /s.

    E the difference enters the diâmetros of Jupiter and Saturn is

    Soon one concludes that if the gravitation had some influences on the
    translation speed the difference of the translation between the two
    would be minimum and it would not be approximately the double. With
    this if it concludes that all dynamics depends on the energy of astro,
    and if Jupiter is new of the one than Saturn, then its satellite also
    is new, also considering that while ganimedes is the third Jupiter
    satellite, Titã is the seventh Saturn satellite. Soon, titã is older
    and spent more energy, with this develops little speed of translation.
    For that the difference of the translation speed is the double.

    While for the theory of the gravitation it would have to be equivalent
    in the values.

    We see here that the distancia with the diameter did not influence in
    the translation speed, but yes, the time of life and the energy
    represented for the diameter.

    This confirms the theory of the energeticidade and maser.


    The diameter and the removal of the secondary ones vary as the
    diameter of the elementary school and its time of life.


    One confirms that the value of the Jupiter diameter is next to the one
    of Saturn, and Jupiter with its satellites five times the distancia of
    the ones of Saturn, three times the diameter of the ones of Saturn and
    the values of the translation speed if approach.

    With this if it concludes that it is not the distancia and some force
    that acts on astro, but yes the proper energy of exactly.


    The distancia one marks the time of life of astro, and diameter of the
    elementary school with its diameter and the distancia of the primary
    one marks the time of life and processed energy already and the energy
    still to be processed.


    As well as Saturn and Uranus also it possesss rings, with speed of
    translation of more than twenty Km/s, and that Jupiter possesss a
    spiral atmosphere with translation and widening, next to its equator.
    This confirms that the translation of the secondary ones if originates
    from energy and maser of the elementary school, and that it has left
    of this maser if it transforms into rings next to the equator, and
    that it goes to esferificar itself, giving new beginning a secondary
    one. We see in Uranus rings that they more than develop a translation
    of twenty kilometers for second.

    E that the translation appears initially of proper the secondary one,
    and for that all secondary ones produce an orbit with little
    inclination and always next to the equator.

    To if distanciar of the elementary school, the secondary one goes to
    produce its proper dynamics, goes to give to beginning the tertiary
    ones that its energy and maser will initiate its in agreement

    E will leave the axle of translation of the elementary school, having
    given beginning to a new system of astros, minors, slower and with
    more irregularities in its dynamics of translation, rotation and

    The ORIGIN Of the SECONDARY Ones.

    The centrifuga action of the rotation and the magnetism of astro make
    with that its maser and atmosphere if dislocate for the equator, where
    go if form in atmosphere filaments and the future ring. Of rings
    cubical tablets of gases go to form themselves from there and the
    esferificação, of where it goes to form itself in secondary.

    For that the secondary ones possess a decreasing translation of the
    next ones for the last ones. E that the orbit always is next to the
    equator. With passing of the times, the energy diminishes and the
    astros start to produce its orbit and irregularities in the space.

    In the future probably we will have new astros and with new energies,
    therefore the process is constant.


    Secondary more moved away and the lesser ones are most irregular in
    its inclinations of orbit and rotation, and eccentricity. This if
    confirms, in the satellites most distant, asteroids and comets.


    The satellite when very small very distant e tends to magnify its
    inclination and eccentricity gradually, and this type of inverted
    movement can be found in Saturn the Febe satellite. Therefore Febe
    possesss an inclination of orbit of 160 degrees and a great
    eccentricity. What it takes astro to develop the retrograde orbit is
    that it normally initiated its translation since its birth for its
    elementary school. Only that all astro that possesss little dimension
    and if finds of the elementary school it distant possesss little
    energy if processing, therefore it already spent great part of its
    energy, and thus, it starts to produce irregularities in its dynamics
    in the space. That he starts with an increasing irregularity until the
    retrograde movement.

    Uranus is a planet that walk of side, or either, the irregularities is
    bigger with the distanciamento, aging and reduction of energy
    production and maser.

    With enormous distancias of its elementary schools, astros small,
    tertiary, with little energy and aged will be astros with little
    dynamics, great distanciamentos, great eccentricities and inclinations
    and many with retrograde movements.


    This does not exist, therefore all the astros are untied in the space,
    and it does not have this of field pulling for its orbit, and also by
    the maser the astros are moved away and not attracted, as it is
    thought today. E what it produces the orbits irregular is to little
    energy of proper astro to co-ordinate its dynamics, this happens with
    all distant small astros e of its elementary schools, then the small
    Saturn satellites had been never captured, but yes produced for

    It can be compared that all distant astro small e possesss great
    irregularities in its dynamics, since the rotation, the translation
    and the removal.


    The density of the distant astros is a invencionice to give a
    proximity in the results for the translation speed that is calculated
    by the gravitation, however if badly we know the density of the Land,
    as we can know the density of distant planets.

    For that in my calculations, use diameter and temperature for being
    next to the reality.


    In the most distant and lesser ratio of the removal, inclinations and
    eccentricity are always bigger and increasing with the distanciamento
    and the reduction of the size of astro.

    The distancia and removal also are increasing, therefore with the
    energy reduction they start to produce orbits always more irregular.


    The Saturn satellites if had moved away less from its elementary
    school for being lesser and with little energy, while from Jupiter if
    they had moved away more, for being bigger and with more energy this
    confirms that the astros alem of the rotation and translation they
    move away as its production from energy.


    TRITÃO is one of the giant satellites and possesss a great
    eccentricity and a orbital inclination of 160 degrees, considered one
    of the satellites that a retrograde movement for possessing so great
    has inclination in relation to the plan of the equator of Neptune.
    This only comes to contribute with the theory displayed until here.
    Therefore satellites of distant planets also possess great
    irregularities, exactly being a giant.


    NEREIDA is another satellite of Neptune who possesss a great
    inclination of orbit of 28 degrees and one of the biggest
    eccentricities, with 0.75 degrees. This only comes to contribute with
    the theory of the energeticidade, of that distant planets, distant and
    old and small satellites produce great irregularities, and Nereida is
    the satellite with bigger eccentricity of the satellites until
    discovered here.

    NEREIDA also possesss a great removal of the neighboring satellite, in
    the Tritão case. Or either, the satellites most distant and of more
    distant planets are most irregular in its eccentricity and


    We see that Tritão and the Saturn satellite – febe possesss
    retrograde movement.

    Probably its rotation is minimum and with great inclination of

    Probably the more distant satellites of Pluto, minors and of it will
    be of bigger irregularities and with retrograde movements.


    Probably titã with its atmosphere will produce one fourth generation
    of astro. That it will be the first satellite with satellite.


    Probably Charon, satellite of Pluto possesss a great eccentricity and
    orbital inclination.

    Funny Charon around Pluto in 6,39 days, that it is the same time that
    the planet leads to turn around its axle, keeping always same face one
    for the other. This if confirms in the displayed one until here, that
    the translation of the secondary one before starts exactly of the
    secondary one if to esferificar, or either, still as filaments and
    rings of atmosphere and maser of the elementary school, that with its
    rotation starts to transladar rings and filaments of atmosphere, until
    if esferificar. If esferificando it starts to produce this initial
    translation in rollback of the elementary school. To if moving away it
    starts to produce its proper translation.

    To if esferificar it starts to produce the proper rotation. With the
    time and removal this secondary one, goes to produce another secondary
    one, becoming a elementary school.

    As astro goes if distanciando and being without energy, it abandons
    the initial orbit, producing irregular and random orbital systems in
    the space. Always new with little less dynamic energy and and more
    irregularities of inclinations and eccentricities. This can be
    confirmed with asteroids and comets.


    That is a process that starts with little irregularity, it passes the
    stability and it returns the irregularity and great instabilidades and
    nomadic and random orbits.


    This if confirms enters the satellites of the planets, therefore with
    the same distancias the Uranus satellites less develop three times the
    period of revolution compared with the ones of Saturn. Therefore the
    equatorial Saturn speed is three times bigger of the one than of

    the Saturn and Jupiter satellites are of 1,25 of period of bigger
    revolution for the Jupiter satellites for the same distancia,
    therefore the difference of the equatorial speed between the two is of
    1,25 greaters for Jupiter. As also the difference is next to the ratio
    one for diameter and rotation, and 1,3 for translation.

    It is good for standing out that the energy produces the rotation,
    that produces the equatorial speed that with the maser go to produce
    tran and the difference between slação of the secondary one. E the
    secondary one will be produced by the expelled material as form of
    maser of the elementary school. To if esferificar and becoming astro
    it goes to initiate its rotation, for whom secondary the very next
    ones possess little rotation, therefore still is starting to speed up
    itself rotationally. This if confirms in all the very next elementary


    1 – the elementary school produces the secondary one that also it
    initiates its translation. Then we have here the beginning of the
    translation and the origin of astro.

    2 – because the tertiary one folloies the secondary one, and both
    follow the elementary school for the space. Therefore, in the
    beginning they had had an origin of the translation produced for the
    elementary school, to put, to if moving away and losing energy this
    secondary one, or tertiary it goes to leave the system full,
    therefore, he himself inside of the solar system already produces its
    proper dynamics, only that it are of the system, it more will not
    follow the elementary school for the space. This already happens with
    some comets and asteroids, that to the times enter inside of the solar
    system and leave without suffering and influence of action none of the

    3- why astro all very next to the elementary school possesss little
    rotation. Therefore still it is in formation and all its dynamics
    still is minimum.


    Thus, we have here the beginning of astro, the beginning of the
    rotation and equatorial speed, of the translation.

    Thus, to if moving away it goes to produce its proper rotation and
    translation, and with its energy and maser he goes to produce new
    filaments of gases, from there new spheres, that with its equatorial
    speed go to produce the translation in new astro, and from there its
    esferificação and rotation.

    Before exactly of being sphere astro already possesss translation.

    It goes being moved away for the maser and temperature from the
    elementary school, and starts to produce its proper translation and

    For that a tertiary one folloies the translation of the secondary one,
    exactly this secondary one following the translation of the elementary
    school. To put with the removal it will tend to produce an orbit
    isolated, with other inclinations and eccentricities.

    To if distanciar it it will have little energy, and consequently less
    dynamic and more irregularities. TO SEE PRINCIPLE OF THE



    Jupiter – 2,3 * 5 = 13. Saturn – 2,1 * 5 = 10. Uranus – 1,1 * 5 = 5,5
    Neptune – 1 * 5 = 5. Pluto – 0,2 * 5=5.

    This relation between rotation and translation for planets, also are
    confirmed for the exterior satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus.


    Uranus walks of side for possessing little energy and being initiating
    an orbit and rotation with great inclination.

    The trend is that in the future the astros are in greater number and
    slower and all with random and irregular orbits. E many reactionary. E
    that also does not follow the elementary schools for the space


    Uranus possesss three times little diameter of that Jupiter and four
    times more of the one than the Land, and being older and with little
    energy, therefore the energy had more time spending, then the value of
    its rotation has that to come close itself to the value of the Land,
    being between twenty and twenty five hours.

    E this already was confirmed with the comment.

    The rotation of Neptune also is next to the Land.


    ASTEROID ÍCARO possesss an eccentricity of 0.83 degrees and goes next
    Mercúrio and Mars, and in the perihelion it is the 28.000.000
    kilometers of the Sun, and in the aphelion it is the 307.000.000
    kilometers of the Sun. With this if it concludes that the orbit
    depends on the energy of astro, and not of the gravitation. Therefore
    astros minors produce orbits more irregular.

    ASTEROID HIDALGO, with a orbital period of 13.7 years, and an
    eccentricity of 0.67 degrees, and with a orbital inclination of 43

    QUÍRON possesss a orbital eccentricity of 0.379, and with a orbital
    inclination of 6.9 degrees.

    With this we evidence that the orbit is not determined by the
    gravitation of astro or the Sun, but yes for its energy, therefore
    approximately in the same distancia of the planets to the Sun very,
    the asteroids produce orbits irregular, for possessing little energy,
    and with a period of short while lesser revolution of that the

    With this if it evidences that the astros are free and producing its
    proper dynamics.

    With this, the displayed one is confirmed until, of that astros small
    they possess little irregular dynamics and orbits, for produces little
    energy, and this here independe of the distancia of the Sun.






    The diameter is divided by 1.000.

    The removal is divided by 100.000 for satellites, comets and

    The removal is divided by 100.000.000 for planets.

    SCHOOL. 1680/1000 = 1,68 equatorial speed of the Land. 3470/1000 =
    3,47 diameter of Moon 384,000/100,000 = 3,87 removal of the Moon in
    relation Land. Moon – 1,68 * 3,47/3,84 = 1,5 /2 = 0,75 km/s.

    For Jupiter satellites.

    Io – 45000/1000 = 45 3670/1000 = 3,67 420000/100000=4.2 45*3.67/ 4,2 =
    39,3 /2 = 19,5 km/segundo.

    Europe. 45000/1000=45
    2980/ 1000 = 2,98 671000/100000=6.71 45*2.98/ 6,71 = 19.9/2=10

    Ganimedes. 45000/1000 = 45 5250/1000=5.250 1.070.000/ 100000 =
    10 45*5.2/10.7=22/ 2 = 11

    Calisto. 45.000/1000=45
    4900/1000=4.9 1.884.000/100000 = 18,8 45*4.9/18.8=11.7 /2 = 6

    For the Saturn satellites.

    Satellite janus 37000/ 1000 = 37 quilometro/segundo. 300/ 1000 = 0,3
    159000/100000=1.59 37*0.3/1.59=7

    Titã 37 * 5.8/12.2 = 17.5


    To calculate planet orbit if it divides the distancia for 100 000 000.
    To calculate satellite orbit if it divides the distancia for 100 000.

    The equatorial speed if divides in such a way per 1000 in the
    calculation for planets how much for satellites. In quilometro for the

    The diameter if divides in such a way per 1000 for calculation for
    planets how much for satellites.

    The formula is equatorial speed of distancia elementary school /1000 [
    diameter /1000 ]/[/for 100 000 000 for planets 1 ].


    Equatorial speed of Sun for the moment = 60,000 km/s/1 000=60.
    Diameter of the planet = 4,500 quilometro/1 000 = 4.5.

    Distancia of the planet to the Sun. = 58.000 000
    quilometro/100.000.000. [ 1 ].

    60 4,5 /[0.58 1] = 41 quilometro for second.

    Venus. 60 8/[ 1,08 1 ] = 32,7 quilometro for second.

    Land = 60 12/[ 1,5 1 ] = 28.8. Mars = 60 6/[ 2,2 1 ] = 20.6. Jupiter =
    60 144/[ 7,8 1]=20. Saturn = 60 120/ [ 14 1 ] = 12. Uranus = 60 46/[
    28 1 ] = 3.6. Neptune = 60 45/ [ 45 1 ] = 2,3 Pluto = 60 6/ [ 59 1 ] =


    Equatorial speed of the elementary school in quilometro for the moment
    divided by 1.000. The diameter of the satellite divided for 1.000. The
    distancia of the satellite of its elementary school divided for
    100.000 [ one hundred a thousand ]. Comment. For the 000 planets [ is
    100 000 one hundred million ].


    1,000/100,000 [ DISTANCIA/].

    FOR the SATELLITE Of the LAND, the MOON.

    Moon. [ 1680/1,000 ] [ 3,470/1,000 ]/[ 384.000/100.000 ] = 1,3


    Equatorial Jupiter speed /1,000 diameter of distancia satellite
    /1,000/of satellite/100.000. Io. [ 45,000 /1,000 ] [ 3,650 /1,000 ]/[
    420.000/100.000]=11.5 km/segundo. Europe. 45 2,98/6,71 = 7,1
    quilometro for second. Ganimedes. 45 5,25/10,7 = 4.7. Calisto. 45
    4,9/18,8 = 2.6


    [ Equatorial Saturn speed/1,000 ] [ diameter of distancia
    satellite/1,000 ]/[ /100,000 ].

    JANUS. [ 37,000/1000 ] [ 300 /1000 ]/[ 159 000/100 000]=23.4 km per
    second. MIMAS. 37 0,4/1,86 = 20,1 quilometro for second. ENCÉLADO. 37
    0,6 /2,38 = 15.7. TÉTIS. 37 1. / 2,95 = 12,8 DIONÉIA 37 0,8 /3,77 =
    10 RÉIA 37 1 /5,27 = 7,2 TITÃ 37 5.8/12.2 = 4,3 HIPÉRION 37 0,4
    /14,8 = 2,5 JAPET. 37 1,6 /35,5 = 1. FEBE 37 0,2/129 = 0.28



    The equatorial speed of elementary school for the moment/1,000 the
    diameter of satellite/1,000/of the distancia/of 100.000.

    MIRANDA – 13,7 0,24/1,3 = 10 quilometro for second
    ARIEL- 13,7 0,7/1,92 = 7,5 UMBRIEL – 13,7 0,5/2,67 = 5,3 TITÂNIA –
    13,7 1/4,38 = 3,3 0BERON – 13,7 0,9/5,86 = 2.3


    [ 9,000/1,000 ] [ 3,800 /1,000 ]/[ 340,000/100,000 ] = 9 3,8/3,2 = 4
    quilometro for second.


    Equatorial speed of PLUTO [ 140/1,000 ] [ diameter 1,200/1,000 ]/[
    Distancia 20 000/100 000 ]. = 0,14 1,2/0,5 = 3,1 quilometro for

    It gives to observe itself that as the planets go if moving away from
    the Sun, the orbit of its elementary schools also becomes slower,
    therefore satellites with the same diameter and the same distancia in
    relation the satellites distant planets, these diminish its dynamics
    gradually and magnify the irregularities in the eccentricity and the
    inclinations. With this it is only had to more still confirm the
    theory of the energeticidade and maser.

    Of that the planets most distant had been the first ones to be
    produced, and had produced its satellites first, with this they
    possess little energy, therefore they had had more time spending and
    processing the energy. E this full runs away any relation with effect
    from gravitation. E goes of meeting to supported here for the theory
    of the energeticidade and the maser. Of that the energy and the time
    of processing of this energy determine the life, the processes,
    thermal structure, orbit, activities, sismos, energy, magnetism,
    tectônica activity, maser, tectônica activity, orbit, dynamics and

    In this form of calculation to meet the translation of the secondary
    one for the equatorial speed of the elementary school, it is Express
    that in agreement the diameter also diminishes the energy is lesser,
    decreases the maser. Also it decreases and the tectônicas activities
    and the atmosphere it folloies the decrease, the rotation of the
    elementary school diminishes decreasing its equatorial speed, with
    this sees that as the diameter decreases, diminishes the translation
    of the secondary one, for that the more distant minors and possess
    lesser dynamic.


    The universe is a constant process of construction and
    desconstrução, and some universes if they find in phase of decrease
    of energy and its phenomena, that is the case of ours. Comment

    The results found for the calculation of translation for the
    equatorial speed and its proximity with the exactness alone come to
    confirm the action of the equatorial speed produced by the energy and
    maser in the production of the translation and orbit of the secondary
    one in the space. E that the satellites of the planets most distant,
    with the same distancia in relation to other satellites, and that of
    the distant planets they develop dynamic little. This if also confirms
    in the removal and the rotation of the satellites. E its orbits are
    most irregular for the removal and the diameter.

    It is good for knowing that use fancy of values of densities of astros
    not to arrive the results that do not come to beat with the formula,
    as he is used in the theory of the gravitation.

    It is confirmed exactly that the rings and the atmospheres also
    possess translation, with this before existing as sphere, therefore
    astro as filament already develops its translation.


    It has a skip of values of diameter between Saturn satellites, and
    this skip if it repeats enters the distancias of the same satellites.
    That it is between Réia and Titã, and JAPET and Hipérion all of
    Saturn, and this difference is of three times for the diâmetros and
    the phenomena of the satellites. Also with the removal.

    This difference if also makes gift between the distancia and diameter
    of Titânia and Umbriel Uranus satellites. As already it was seen this
    skip equivalent also is present between Jupiter and Mars. E as already
    was seen this skip if it must the energy that astro produced more and
    the time that the same led to distanciar themselves of the next
    neighbor who is in formation.

    The skip, or better, the time of production of astro with the time of
    acceleration for the upgrade of energy registered for the difference
    of the diameter, determines a skip in the removal and all the other
    phenomena, orbit and structure.

    It is equivalence of skips also goes to be present in the removal,
    translation, revolution, rotational and translacional rotation,
    inclinations, eccentricity, achatamento of the sphere of astro, and
    other phenomena, variations of structure and irregularities,
    temperature, tectônica activity, rings and atmosphere, and all the
    other structural and orbital phenomena and formations.

    This skip equivalent proves all the phenomena displayed until here,
    developed and displayed for the theory of the estruturante fluxonário
    universe and for the theory of the energeticidade and maser.

    The streams also follow and vary as vary these skips.


    The energy produces the maser, the maser produces the rotation, the
    atmosphere, rings, and astros that if they form and that they are
    parts of the elementary schools, and as part of the elementary school
    what we have translation notion is in the truth still part of the
    rotation of the elementary school. More only moved away than this
    secondary one it goes to produce its rotation and its proper
    translation. Exactly before being sphere astro already possesss
    translation and rotation.

    We see in Mercury that the same possesss great translation and little
    rotation, why it still is part of the Sun and its rotation and
    equatorial speed. The same Jupiter satellite happens with the first
    Amaltéia, and with first Janus Saturn satellite.

    To if distanciar all they will produce its proper rotation and
    translation, leaving the elementary school and producing its proper

    This confirms because exactly producing its dynamics and removal the
    satellite folloies its planet, and this in turn the Sun.

    However comets exist that produce orbits without following its
    elementary school.

    Translation of astro if initiates still as atmosphere, later filaments
    of atmosphere that is the case of Jupiter rings, later as rings that
    are the case of Saturn and Uranus, and finally as sphere.

    ON the ORIGIN Of the ROTATION.

    When still new the rotation still is if initiating, for that all the
    astros next to its elementary schools possess little rotation, this if
    it confirms of the planets to the satellites.

    The same it happens with the removal of the elementary school.
    Therefore the energy is in agreement that astro acquired during the
    formation that the same will develop all its dynamics, orbit,
    phenomena and physical and chemical structure. E chemical processings.


    Considering the diameter and the removal, one confirms that the next
    greaters and possess little eccentricity, and vice versa.

    The same it is succeeded with the orbital inclination and of rotation.

    It follows thus, the principle of the stability and circularidade for
    the energy production. The diameter in quilometro and not in relation
    to the Land.

    JANUS – 0,2/diameter/100 progression retroceding of 10 until one as
    the number of the satellites.

    JANUS – 0,2/3 10 = 0,038 MINES – 0,2/4 9 = 0,038 ENCÉLADO- 0,2/ 6 8 =
    0,035 TÉTIS – 0,2 /10 7 = 0,03 DIONÉIA – 0,2/8 6 = 0,035 RÉIA –
    0,2/ 16 5 = 0,023 TITÃ – 0,2/58 4 = 0,008 HIPÉRION – 0,2/4 3 = 0,07
    JAPET – 0,2/16 2=0.028 FEBE – 0,2/2,4 1=0.147

    This calculation if approaches to the reality and is accurate
    for the majority of the Saturn satellites.

    Here one confirms that the more distant and lesser, bigger it is the
    eccentricity of astro.

    E as Jupiter, titã for being immense and same being distant, possesss
    a minimum eccentricity.


    FEBE the JAPET – diameter 16 of febe, divided for the diameter of
    Japet 2,4, is equal the six times – that is come close to the removal
    between the two.

    Between Japet and Hipérion = diameter of Japet 16 divided by the
    diameter of Hipérion four, = the ratio of the difference of the
    removal if approaches to two.

    Between Titã and Réia – titã possesss a 58 diameter of quilometro,
    and Réia is 16, 58/16 = 3, then the ratio of the distancia if
    approaches to three.

    Between RÉIA and DIONÉIA – the diameter of Réia is 16 kilometers
    and dionéia he is eight, dividing 16 for eight, then the ratio of the
    removal between the two if approaches to two.

    For the others, the ratio between the diâmetros diminishes for less
    of the one than two, then the ratio also enters the removal beats for
    less of the one than two.

    The same it happens enters the URANUS satellites, where all possess a
    ratio of diameter below of two, and all possess a ratio of removal
    below of two, however between Titânia and umbriel the ratio of the
    diameter arrives next to two, where also the ratio of the removal
    arrives next to two.

    The same planets happen with other satellites of other, and between
    planets, this difference of removal for diameter, that in the truth is
    the processed energy that moves away astro, if has with clarity

    This difference folloies for all the phenomena, variation of
    structure, disintegration, intensity of phenomena, dynamics and orbit.

    With this if test that the astros are in removal produced for the
    energy and maser.

    E that the theory of the gravitation used the distancia, but did not
    obtain to calculate it. However I calculated here in such a way for
    planets, how much for satellites. E was not necessary to make use of
    the distancia as constant to meet the dynamics, orbit and other
    phenomena and structures of the astros.

    This confirms that the astros if move away for the energy, and they
    are not attracted by the gravitation.

    E that the ratio of the distancia is bigger enters most distant, this
    if confirms between Tritão and Nereida, and Japet and Fege.


    With the diameter in kilometers divided by 100, with the
    progression of 1 the 10 for the respective satellites, divided of the
    result of the diameter.

    JANUS -1/3 = 0,3 MIMAS – 2/ 4 = 05 ENCÉLADO – 3/ 6 = 05 TÉTIS – 4/
    10=04 DIONÉIA – 5/ 8=0.62 RÉIA – 6/ 16=0.37 TITÃ – 7/ 58=0.12
    HIPÉRION – 8/ 4 = 2 JAPET – 9/16=0.5 FEBE – 10/ 2.4=4.1

    It is confirmed for this calculation that the inclination is
    increasing with the removal, and that the greaters and with more
    energy if processing the inclination are lesser.


    , thus more distant they possess little energy, therefore already he
    had more time processing and spending the energy, and the minors
    possess little energy for being its lesser structure. With this the
    instability is bigger, taking astro in these conditions to develop
    great eccentricities, great orbital and rotational inclinations, and
    some even with retrograde movements, that are moved away and lesser
    and unstablest.

    This form of calculation with the diameter representing the energy can
    be for all the planets, satellites, comets and asteroids. Of the
    diameter the rotation can be found, of the rotation the equatorial
    speed, the equatorial speed the translation, inclination,
    eccentricity, and all the other phenomena. Or same it can directly be

    The energy is more practical to use the diameter representing,
    therefore the diameter can directly be calculated in proper astro.

    While in the theory of the gravitation the mass is calculated with the
    movement of astro in the space, and from there to find the movement,
    or either, the result is arranged, created for a measured phenomenon
    already. Therefore the mass is the addition of the diameter with the
    density, however if we do not know right nor the density of the Land
    or the Moon, as to know the density of distant astros.


    The more distant minors and are most irregular, therefore they are the
    ones that possess minor amount of energy if processing.

    ON the ROTATION. The achatamento does not determine the rotation,
    therefore, astro that it has the lesser achatamento is Jupiter and
    produces the biggest rotation. To put rotation and achatamento is
    produced by the energy of astro, represented for diameter and removal.


    Already one confirmed that the Land is diminishing its rotation in
    sixteen seconds for a million of years. This confirms the principle of
    the removal and the reduction of the dynamics.


    The achatamento of the Mars satellites is great for being minimum,
    then they had passed little time if forming.

    E with great achatamento possesss minimum rotation, what it confirms
    that the rotation if must the energy and maser of astro.


    One confirms above for the displayed one that it has a direct relation
    between energy, diameter, maser, rotation, equatorial speed and
    translation between the astros and its secondary ones.

    ON the MOON.


    The moon is the new satellite of the solar system, why the Land
    already was formed of the sun when the same it met with little energy,
    for that it possesss little dynamics in relation to its diameter,
    exactly being produced for the Land. Therefore the planet Land alone
    is older of the one than Venus and Mercúrio.

    For that the moon possesss as many irregularities in its orbit and
    rotation in the space.

    With diameter of 3.470 kilometers, it only develops a translation of
    1.03 quilometro for second, and a rotation of 708 hours, or 29,6 days


    Diameter of Jupiter in relation to the land 12 times, divided for the
    diameter of the land, 11/1 = 11 times the translation of Io, that is
    faster of the one than the moon, if compared that one meets
    approximately in the same distancia and approximately with the same

    The same it is compared enters the rotation of the two satellites.

    These numbers are not accurate, but the formula will be necessary can
    be approached.

    Compared with the Jupiter satellite the Io, it it approximately
    possesss the same distancia of the elementary school, and
    approximately the same diameter, confirms that Io produces a bigger
    translation 16,8 times of the one than the Moon. With this if it
    confirms that Jupiter produced Io with much more energy of that the
    Land produced the Moon and Io – Jupiter satellite possesss energy if
    not processing, with bigger temperature, sismos, magnetism and
    tectônica activity.

    With the rotation the same it is happened again, Io produces the
    rotation speed 16,8 times faster of the one than the Moon.

    For incredible that it seems the difference between rotation and
    translation she is minimum.

    The eccentricity varies of 0.0432 the 0,0667 of degrees, and an
    inclination of 5.0 the 5,08 degrees in the ecliptic. The ecliptic is
    the plan in relation to the sun.

    Io develops orbital inclination of 3 degrees and practically null
    eccentricity, thus confirming that the irregularity of the Moon is
    fruit of its condition of energy production, that the elementary
    school granted to it in its formation. This matching with Io is
    important why the data of the Moon, its irregularities are fruit of
    the energy production that formed it and that it processes.


    It goes to be proven for this theory that the irregular Moon and its
    phenomena – great enigma of astronomy, that these irregularities are
    produced by the condition of energy production where if find, and as
    all astro with little time of existence and young is very irregular in
    its phenomena. It is what we will see ahead.



    The solar maser produces the evecção of the orbit of the moon.

    What it produces the evecção phenomenon is the variation of maser
    and energy of astro, and the moon for being next to the Sun, suffers
    more the action from the temperature and solar maser, for that its
    ellipse possesss a bigger variation of that other satellites.

    As also its inclination is bigger variation.

    Its removal, rotation and translation also possess great variation.


    The variation stream that is the evecção in the eccentricity varies
    of 0.0432 the 0,0667 degrees when the ellipse if finds strained, or
    either, up to fifty percent more of the eccentricity of the ellipse
    when strained.


    The evecção of the moon always is bigger when the Land if approaches
    to the sun, with this if it confirms that the annual inaqualities of
    the evecção are bigger when the Land if approaches to the Sun
    Therefore is not that the ellipse magnifies, but yes that during this
    period of approach the evecção is bigger. Or either, the solar
    thermal maser speeds up the energy of the moon and the stream also
    magnifies. This stream also happens with the land, however the
    variation is minimum.


    The satellites accurately do not develop the same position directed to
    the center, as the planet as reference, or either, it has satellites
    that exactly inside of the ellipse it develops orbit with a side next
    to the center and the other most distant one. Or either, the majority
    of the elementary schools does not meet in the accurate center in
    relation to the orbit of its secondary ones. With this if it concludes
    that the energy develops the proper movement.

    Exactly with the eccentricity and the Inclination Pluto and Netuno
    they produce its orbit keeping always a removal for one of the sides
    of the ellipse. This if also confirms in the satellites Nereida,
    Charon and Febe with its respective planets. The comet of Halley and
    the Quíron asteroid also produce this removal for one of the sides in
    relation to the Sun. This distanciamento of one of the sides is bigger
    in the astros more moved away from the sun and its elementary schools.
    Or either, the irregularity magnifies with the distanciamento, size,
    production of energy and time of life.


    1-A evecção is bigger when the Land if finds next to the sun, in the
    perihelion. 2 it moon develops ellipse imperfect, when the moon if
    approaches to the Sun, in the new moon, it is sped up by the solar
    thermal maser, making with that this if approaches to a format of a
    hen egg, always with one of the parts pontuda, that the part less
    pontuda is next to the sun. Or either, one same orbit can start with
    0.432 degrees of arc and in the other tip to finish with 0.0667


    Why when the new moon always is next to the sun, with this it receives
    thermal energy solar, speeding up and magnifying its processes and
    production of energy.

    E when it leaves the new and if moves away and starts to be the
    increasing one, exactly with its magnified energy the gravitation of
    the sun attracts it and it pulls it for the center, being late its
    movement. E as the amount of energy

    it determines the circularidade of the orbit and dynamics of astro in
    the space, with the upgrade of energy in the pass of the new moon for
    the increasing one makes with that the moon closes its orbit,
    therefore the production and energy processes had had an upgrade.

    For that after the pass next to the sun the moon leaves with the
    closed orbit, that goes opening passing for the full one and in the
    declining room already if it finds well open, and enters open with
    39,5 degrees of shift arc in longitude. For this we have in the
    evecção I begin it of the egg. E this happens mainly with the moon
    for being the satellite next to the Sun.

    Thus, it is not the Sun that however strains the ellipse, and however
    it compresses it, but yes, the natural condition of energy of the moon
    in the production of its present orbit in the declining room. E
    influences it of the thermal energy of the sun that makes with the
    orbit comes to be compressed, therefore for the principle of the
    circularidade the ratio of that the energy magnifies circulates it of
    the orbit always tends more the perfection. Thus, with the condition
    of energy of the moon, with the temperature of the Sun it makes with
    that the moon has great irregularities in its orbit and dynamics.


    The other point is the variation of the dynamics, therefore in the
    increasing room the same moon receiving the upgrade from the dynamics
    for the proximity with the solar thermal maser, when it enters in the
    increasing room that goes to leave the proximity of the sun, the moon
    starts to receive influences it of the solar gravitation, delaying and
    decelerating its output. It is deceleration is not uniform, is a
    deceleration that goes losing intensity. Soon it is an increasing

    the full moon already finds with its proper dynamics, when passing to
    the declining room it passes to be sped up, therefore the solar
    gravitation in this point starts to act, making with that the moon
    magnifies its dynamics in route to the sun. This acceleration is

    VARIATION Of the EVECÇÃO And the DYNAMICS. 1- Thus, we have an
    increasing deceleration in the increasing room. 2-Uma proper
    acceleration in the new and full moon. it is an increasing
    acceleration in route to the sun in the declining room.

    4- the ELLIPSE Of The HEN EGG ALSO Is not UNIFORM,

    Therefore the side that if it initiates in the increasing room
    is well closed, while the side that finishes and goes in route to the
    sun in the end of the declining room more is opened of the one than
    the side that if it initiates in the increasing one. Soon, exactly
    being oval the preciseest one in one of the extremities, one of the
    sides also is more closed of the one than the other.


    Thus we have –

    Natural speed of the moon for its production of energy,
    deducted from the action of agent against principal of the gravitation
    of the sun, is equal to the deceleration of the moon in the increasing


    Thus, we have.

    Natural speed of the moon for its production of energy, added of the
    favorable action of the gravitation of the sun, is equal to the
    acceleration of the moon in route to the sun in the declining room.


    Deformation of the egg for inside.

    Thus we have.

    In the increasing room the natural energy of the moon is added with
    the thermal maser of the sun making with that the moon develops its
    orbit for inside. E the egg of hen with a achatamento for inside.

    Therefore the moon starts to still close its orbit when in the new
    moon phase, therefore it is the phase next to the sun, and if the
    circularidade is produced by the energy, then the more energy, more
    perfect the circularidade.

    Added natural energy with the solar energy is equal to the orbit of
    the moon for inside.


    The moon possesss a variation of nine minutes of arc for more or for
    less, in its five degrees and nine minutes of average orbital
    inclination, this variation occurs in the period of 173,3 days. Being
    maximum of nine seconds for more when the string that passes for the
    nodes, also passes for the sun. Or either, nothing it has to have with
    action of gravitation, therefore it was had would have to happen in
    the period of the perihelion of the land, when the land if finds next
    to the sun, that is during the new moon. Therefore what it happens
    that the inclination is pra inside during the periods of the nodes in
    nine minutes. To put that is a constant process of dynamics that
    already is part of the nature of the irregular dynamics of the moon,
    produced for its condition of small production of energy.

    This variation of nine minutes had an origin that it started with the
    beginning of the orbit of the moon, that as the distancia moon if of
    the land, it widens its inclination, diminishing this variation with
    passing of the times and reduction the energy production. More the
    fronts summer that the astros pass for three phases.

    This happens in the eclipse nodes, or either, in the plan of orbit of
    the moon in relation to the ecliptic, therefore the moon if formed of
    the land, and started to develop its orbit from the alignment of the
    land with the sun, however as all astro, it moves away itself, he
    loses energy and dynamics, and he starts to magnify its inclination
    and eccentricity.

    In this it has a variation of nine minutes of arc for inside during
    the nodes, that occur to each 173,3 days. Or either, any relation with
    the dependence runs away full from the gravitation, therefore it
    confirms there that what determines this irregularity is the condition
    of the origin of astro and the energy production.

    Also it has a stream in the eccentricity, the removal and the
    inclination of rotation. If this was proceeding from the gravitation
    would occur during all perihelion of the land, when the land if found
    next to the sun, or same during the new moon.

    Soon, this phenomenon if must the condition of the origin of the moon,
    therefore it has six of each moon phase that goes if envergando until
    arriving at the time of the node, or either, half year of eclipse,
    that is 173,3 days, and is not year of 365 days as ours.

    Soon, that is all a process that if develops all during the time,
    stops at that time of eclipse node this comes to occur in its maximum.
    Or either, it goes if envergando slowly during 173,3 days, or either,
    this envergamento is occurring in each as that during the eclipse
    phase it is in the maximum position for inside.

    4,5/86,65 = 0,05193 minutes of increasing arc, initiating in the
    eclipse node.

    E 0,05193 minute of decreasing arc, continuing and closing the arc
    until the eclipse node and to form all variation, and comes back to
    remake the variation. It is the time that the sun leads to pass of a
    node to another one, or either, half year of eclipse, that is the
    period of 173,3 days.

    The average is 5,9 degrees of orbital inclination.

    Later slowly it comes back if to open.

    This difference can be calculated with 4.5 minutes increasing
    initiating in the eclipse node that arrives until the half of 173,3
    days, or either, in each day it has an increasing fraction of the 4,5
    minutes up to 86,65 days, later starts to decrease in each day divided
    in fraction of the 4,5 minutes of arc.

    However, this stream this diminishing with the millions of years.

    The land and all the astros produce this stream of irregularities.


    In the declining room the moon continues some time, of the full one
    until the decadence far of the sun and a good time without receiving
    with more intensity the solar thermal maser, thus in little energy the
    moon opens its orbit, deforming it for it are, and the egg of hen with
    a lump for is.

    Natural energy, without upgrade of solar energy is equal to the orbit
    for is.

    ON the REMOVAL Of the MOON And the LAND, And ALL The OTHER ASTROS.

    The moon possesss a removal of the land of four centimeters per year,
    and this already was proven by comments in previous eclipses. This
    seems little, but if treating to thousand of years we see that the
    moon if moves away from the proportional land its production of
    energy, and it is not attracted by the gravitation.

    The AGE Of the MOON And the UNIVERSE. It has to also confirm that the
    moon is well older of the one than if thinks, if to take in
    consideration the time of relative removal the four seconds per year,
    and the esferificação time, then, the age of the moon, the land and
    the universe must be well older.

    The removal, the stream of orbit and the principle of the hen egg that
    is the evecção all the other astros also produce, that in scale only
    lesser, therefore they are very far of the sun.


    Why a side of the land is next to the moon of the one that the other
    side, therefore the moon as it will be seen ahead originated from the
    land and if it moves away, and as already was seen the origin of astro
    if it initiates in the phase of gases and atmosphere until filaments,
    esferificando and forming astro secondary. Thus for being the land and
    to always keep a side next to the equator next to the moon if it must
    its formation and initial phase. As already it was displayed by the
    theory of the energeticidade and maser of that all astro very young
    tends the irregularities, and is irregularity not alone of the land,
    but yes of its secondary one, that it was formed and in the beginning
    of its translation if located of side of the elementary school.

    This excrescência not if must the calls tides of the land, but yes
    the proper moon that if located of side of the planet land, its
    elementary school, during its process of formation, that started of
    the maser, atmosphere, atmosphere filaments until rings, later reels
    of atmosphere layers, until the phase of sphere.


    As already it was seen and calculated that the rotation if must to the
    production of energy of proper astro, it confirms that the planet land
    is decelerating its rotation in sixteen seconds in each million of
    years. Therefore this phenomenon and variation if must to the
    consumption of energy of the production of the same one, and not it
    tides and effect Land-moon, much less if must to the effect of the


    The secular acceleration of the moon is in the truth the gradual
    removal of the moon in relation t

  308. Big Flood

    It may be true that everything is speeding up in the universe. When the universe is spreed to thin and dies out, all the stars will collapse on them selves. Thus grabbing the very fabric of space itself. Retracting universe! Over time there will be a gathering of blackholes. Each time creating a giant bang. During these mini bangs all the elements are being recycled. The retraction continues. Until the gathering is complete. Thus you have u’r big bang all over again! Maybe our fate as a race will hinge on escape. LOL, escape from what you ask? The great recycle. I think that if we can excape somehow we will be in another dimenison. Existing in the same space as different matter at the same time. Don’t lol it could happen!!! lol


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More