[extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"

[Damien Broderick]

At 01:53 PM 2/4/2006 -0600, I cited:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
>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."

Maybe I should have noted that *of course* the emergence of the known 
cosmos from a singularity is a corrigible *theory* (though saying it's an 
"opinion" is truly laughable if not iniquitous). Clearly it might be 
replaced by some more developed and evidential model; perhaps an ekpyrotic 
brane event, or something currently unknown.

The political operative's absurdity was his insistency that the current 
scientific model should be presented in NASA press releases as questionable 
*because it discounts deliberate creation*, by which he palpably meant 
"creation by the deity of the Abrahamic scriptures".

Damien Broderick