![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
By and large, the folks at NASA are pretty cool. In fact, as described in this NY Times story, NASA's top administrator just issued a statement endorsing "scientific openness" throughout the agency. That's good.
But the article shows that this fundamental aspect of science has been frighteningly threatened by political appointees at NASA. As discussed in detail on science blogs like Cosmic Variance and Bad Astronomy, the "intelligent design" folks sent there by Bush are now taking aim at cosmology. If you've been wondering why there's been so much fuss about attacks on evolution, this is the reason: these people aren't just against biology, they're against science as a whole.
The journalism major in question, George Deutsch, tried to insist that a NASA website on Einstein add the word "theory" to every occurance of "Big Bang". He said that the Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion". And lest you be tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt, here's his explanation:
For those of you who haven't been keeping up with cosmology for the past few decades, there is no debate. Lots of independent evidence all points to the same basic conclusion: that we understand the significant physics of the universe in great detail all the way back to about one minute after the Big Bang. It's not just the obvious observation that the universe is spreading apart as if from an initial explosion: we also have precise calculations that combine the Big Bang model with well-tested nuclear physics to predict how common the various light elements and isotopes should be. Those predictions are very sensitive to small errors in either the Big Bang model or the nuclear physics, but they're right on the money.
I'm not an astronomer, but I believe that our models of galaxy formation are also pretty sensitive tests of the Big Bang model. The cosmic microwave background was also a prediction of the model; not only is it unambiguously there, but we're measuring tiny fluctuations in it to test models of what happened earlier than one minute after the Big Bang. (And for the record, the predictions of "inflation" theory for those tiny fluctuations have been verified to great precision: cosmologists have been doing really well these past few years.)
Now, I won't claim that this one guy speaks for the entire Bush administration, and he clearly doesn't speak for most religious believers. But the point is, this sort of ignorant anti-science is right at home in the modern Republican party, and is often welcomed and even courted there. More to the point, a substantial fraction of our country honestly doesn't seem to recognize that claims like this are laughably wrong.
So those of us who are scientists (or even those who have some level of scientific training) have two responsibilities. First, we have to do a better job of sharing our work with our neighbors: educating the public is our responsibility, and we must not shirk it. And second, we must confront these attacks by the ignorant with all the force that we can muster. Science is a powerful force for good; we must not tolerate its destruction.
But the article shows that this fundamental aspect of science has been frighteningly threatened by political appointees at NASA. As discussed in detail on science blogs like Cosmic Variance and Bad Astronomy, the "intelligent design" folks sent there by Bush are now taking aim at cosmology. If you've been wondering why there's been so much fuss about attacks on evolution, this is the reason: these people aren't just against biology, they're against science as a whole.
The journalism major in question, George Deutsch, tried to insist that a NASA website on Einstein add the word "theory" to every occurance of "Big Bang". He said that the Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion". And lest you be tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt, here's his explanation:
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.But wait, it gets worse:
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.
For those of you who haven't been keeping up with cosmology for the past few decades, there is no debate. Lots of independent evidence all points to the same basic conclusion: that we understand the significant physics of the universe in great detail all the way back to about one minute after the Big Bang. It's not just the obvious observation that the universe is spreading apart as if from an initial explosion: we also have precise calculations that combine the Big Bang model with well-tested nuclear physics to predict how common the various light elements and isotopes should be. Those predictions are very sensitive to small errors in either the Big Bang model or the nuclear physics, but they're right on the money.
I'm not an astronomer, but I believe that our models of galaxy formation are also pretty sensitive tests of the Big Bang model. The cosmic microwave background was also a prediction of the model; not only is it unambiguously there, but we're measuring tiny fluctuations in it to test models of what happened earlier than one minute after the Big Bang. (And for the record, the predictions of "inflation" theory for those tiny fluctuations have been verified to great precision: cosmologists have been doing really well these past few years.)
Now, I won't claim that this one guy speaks for the entire Bush administration, and he clearly doesn't speak for most religious believers. But the point is, this sort of ignorant anti-science is right at home in the modern Republican party, and is often welcomed and even courted there. More to the point, a substantial fraction of our country honestly doesn't seem to recognize that claims like this are laughably wrong.
So those of us who are scientists (or even those who have some level of scientific training) have two responsibilities. First, we have to do a better job of sharing our work with our neighbors: educating the public is our responsibility, and we must not shirk it. And second, we must confront these attacks by the ignorant with all the force that we can muster. Science is a powerful force for good; we must not tolerate its destruction.
Tags:
no subject