NASA re-revises position on the Big Bang

I don't know how many of you all have been following the story of NASA scientists being ordered to stop talking about the Big Bang- unless they clearly state that "it is just a theory." They were also ordered to not communicate any other theory that would preclude the possibility of creation by God the Creator"- unless they said it's "just a theory."

Never mind the fact that "theory" means (in part) "confirmed with extremely extensive testing."

The good news is that a higher-up official has finally put a stop to the practice, and now
NASA scientists are again allowed to speak freely on the matter if they want to risk their jobs and careers.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

I thought creationists latched onto inteligent design..?

I also thought the latest theory..

Irreducible complexity

Main article: Irreducible complexity In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forth by Michael Behe, who defines it as:

...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)

but the smallest evidence they found had 80% 'Faulty' DNA.. but functioned even so..

meh.. the whole thing does me head in...
​

 

.

 

.

 

ohhh i see..

I just watched a programe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/war.shtml

with this theory being put forward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

He published a paper, together with David Snoke, in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Protein Science [1], which he claims supports the idea, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, it does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers.

It was a academic arguement i thought [i presumed his interest lay in him being a christian].. gaining favour with creationists ?

because it does not conflict with their POV

In Abrahamic religions, creationism or creation theology is the origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from pre-existing chaos.

Many who hold "creation" beliefs consider such to be an aspect of religious faith which is compatible with (or otherwise unaffected by) scientific views.


Thats what i presumed.. but thanks for clearing it up...

 

.

 

Deutsch Resigns from NASA!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

.

 

.

 

Even though its mostly accepted by most scientists. The theory of the big bang and evolution seem very plausible but are still not proven. We should give a well-rounded education to our youth so they can be fully educated. It is robbing them of their ability to make a free, unifluenced decision. That goes for all schools of thought.

 

.

 

.

 

The theory of the big bang and evolution seem very plausible but are still not proven.

You are joking, right? That was sarcasm?

 

And don't forget mythology, which I'd consider the most appropriate place for such things.

 

They are proven about as well as ANY scientific theory can ever be. It isn't really POSSIBLE to ever prove a theory 100%, as science requires ANY theory to be open to re-evaluation as new evidence is discovered. But the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of available evidence supports both Darwin's theory of evolution and the "big bang". Here's a great quote from Stephen Jay Gould, which explains the difference between a scientific theory and a proven fact. (boldface added)

Should we require "equal time" in science classes for a theory that places the earth at the center of the solar system? After all, heliocentrism is "just a theory", right? Nobody has ever actually SEEN the earth go around the sun, right?

 

yes, it's a shame more people don't realize the importance of myth as what it is, a medium to the past, while slightly askew, all the important chronological information can be easily derived looking at the world records as if by no coincidence