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 ...
Nothing at all. The science community uses the word a lot -- but they use it correctly.
The problem in this case, however, is that a common tactic for anti-science yahoos is to fling the word "theory" inappropriately and with the intent to propaganadize and demagogue, because they know that to the general public, the word "theory" means only "a guess, one possible explanation of many".
While the phrase "Big Bang theory" itself would be unobjectionable when used by a scientist in the proper context, it's a shining red flag when some idiot *insists* that the word "theory" be attached to the term "Big Bang" everywhere it appears, because it means that he's pushing an agenda and trying to undermine confidence in it. It would be like someone trying to replace all instances of the word "Jesus" with "the Jesus myth", even though strictly speaking, the word "myth" is no more pejorative than the word "theory". That's the kind of crap we don't need in a bureaucrat responsible for scientific matters.
Furthermore there are times when the phrase "Big Bang theory" *would* be inaccurate as substitute for "the Big Bang", as when talking about the event itself. Similarly, it would be goofy to say that a boy fell down and skinned his knee due to "gravity theory" -- no, he fell down because of *gravity*, period. Gravity theory is an explanatory system for gravity, but is not gravity itself. Similarly, Big Bang theory is the explanation of the details of the Big Bang, but there are still contexts in which it makes sense to talk about "the Big Bang" and not "Big Bang theory".
Perhaps there's something unsettling about the reality that you don't have every answer of all of God's mysteries. Even more settling is the fact that you never will.
Perhaps you haven't a clue why people are actually objecting to this guy's behavior, and you have your own agenda about trying to turn everything into a religious argument.
LOL
I'll wait for verifiable facts and not DU smears. And if this is the best you've got, don't plan any victory parties for 2006 .
No, he "gets smeared" for being a liar and an idiot.
So what if the guy didn't graduate? Was that a requirement for the job?
Oh look, an anti-evolution creationist not understanding why dishonesty or incompetence should be considered relevant or bad things. What a surprise.
What's wrong with what he said in that statement?
What do you think "Let there be Light" meant?
How about the fact that his Grandfather was a legend at NASA and that may be how he got his job. He is not on the list of Presidential appointees, this is assumed by the original blog article and the NYT because he worked on the reelection campaign, something thousands of others did..
However at FR, many (ok, me and a couple of others) have pointed out Laura Callahan's lack of credentials along with Kent Hovind's among others.
Laura Callahan's spirit lives on.
It's the selective use of the word that makes honest folks cringe.
Do you insist *all* theories be clearly labeled as such? When talking about gravity, are you always careful to say, "Theory of Gravity"?
No.
It's the selective use of the word 'theory' -- that they only use the word when they disagree with the ideas on the basis of religion.
If you're honest, it's all or nothing. Either all *theories* need to have the word pasted on, or none need to.
Seems simple and obvious to me. Anything else is pushing an agenda.
Did you read 172? What in the world is going on? There's a LOT that's not being reported.
> Either all *theories* need to have the word pasted on, or none need to.
Well, while none *need* to, some have "theory" sorta culturally attached to 'em. The "theory of realtivity" and the "theory of evolution" are common, but "big bang theory" is unusual.
Ask the writer of that passage and She or He will tell you.
I will someday; unfortunately for you, that will be too late.
Now that you are answering SOME of my questions, did you find any evidence Deutsch was a PRESIDENTIAL appointee - especially in light of the evidence Jane above posted he was not?
Did Deutch support Genesis Theory instead?
I would guess that the context would have a lot to do with it -- if you're discussing the 'theory' itself, it would make sense to use 'theory' (like in that excerpt someone posted above about the 'big bang').
I was refering to the idea of *always* requiring the use of the word theory, regardless of context. Even with newer, controversial concepts like 'String Theory', it isn't even always necessary to use the word theory. I've read articles about 'Superstrings', for instance.
The idea that some AP manual insists that 'theory' be appeneded to the words 'Big Bang' whenever they appear, in whatever context, seems to me very, very unlikely.
It would depend on the context.
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.