Posted on 02/08/2006 8:33:55 AM PST by MurryMom
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.
Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
See post 61 by Commie Mommy.
I don't sneer at the word "theory" when I talk about the Big Bang - I just like being accurate - I do not believe the Big Bang THEORY is mutually exclusive to the Book of Genesis either.
We at least agree that "A PAO needs to be able to relate his employers news, polciies, whatever to the public in an accurate and concise manner." Have a nice day.
Where in the article does it say he was a republican? It doesn't. Kind of leaping to assumptions there aren't you? Maybe he was, but why would I care if he was a republican or democrat? Maybe politics aren't the most important consideration when getting jobs at NASA? It wouldn't matter to me either way. Just maybe he got the job because, according to his resume, he was the most qualified. But he lied on the resume and got fired as a result. He deserved to get fired.
And stop trying to spin this into something about Bush politicizing science. So some appointee wanted to add the word "theory". It is a theory. Scientists do not claim to know what happened at the instant of the big bang, or what caused it.
> "Big Bang" is indeed a THEORY - what part of that don't you people understand?!
What many of us don't understand is why some people seem to insist on declaring that "theory =/ fact" and then wanting to label everything they don't like a "theory." Well, to be more precise, what we don't understand is how some people can be like that and still have a measure of self-respect.
The kid is a political appointee. Whether Bush personally knows him is a straw man.
Let me quote you a statement from Duetsch in October:
The Big Bang is not proven fact; it is opinion...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. 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.
So we have a political appointee, vetting materials from a scientific organization, for religious correctness.
Your premise wouldn't surprise me at all. The NY Times lies regularly.
> I don't know - look it up if you want.
Hold up, hoss. First you declare that he was just followign the AP manual... now you admit you've no idea what it actually says.
Dishonest much?
As I said on the other thread, I believe you are confusing, to a large degree, scientific "theory" and fact.
No. It is exactly the point. Blame Bush whether he did it or not.
> now we just have to convince the "scientists" on this thread WHY every job does not require science training.
We're not talking *every* job. Just those like, say, NASA PAO, where knowledge and understand of science really are required.
Interesting reading on below site re: Presidetial Appointee Initiative (Bipartisan).
http://www.appointee.brookings.org/pai_hp.htm
Not at all - he was following the AP Style manual as to the Big Bang THEORY - you asked another question, whether the AP Style manual requires THEORY with Creationism. Let me know if you don't even understand your own questions anymore.
And as I pointed out... no, I'm not Theory and Fact are not mutually exclusive.
Please cite to said "requirement" in any government publication, i.e. the Federal Register, job listings, etc.
Do janitors at NASA "require" science training?
Whichever party is in the seat of appointment power attracts charlatans.
> he was following the AP Style manual as to the Big Bang THEORY
And what does the AP Style Manual have to say about the Big Bang? Especially given that it is almost *never* referred to as the "Big Bang THEORY?"
Quotes, please.
Do janitors need to explain science to the public?
Sheesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.