Defeating Science and Reason

Fighting Against Science

NASA officials have recently been speaking with and forwarding their emails to the NY Times out of frustration over continuing pressure from White House appointees to modify official statements to advance White House policies.

The Big Bang

George Deutsch "a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the 'war room' of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M" distributed a memo demanding that the word "theory" be placed after "Big Bang" because the Big Bang is merely an "opinion" and "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." He further rebuked the scientists declaring that "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue."

Since when has advancement of religious issues been part of NASA's mission? And since when has a journalism degree qualified one to make decisions regarding dissemination of scientific facts and making of scientific policy?

Further, A federal court in Pennsylvania, just last month, concluded that intelligent design in not based in fact and is not a scientific theory. This ruling (by a federal judge appointed by Bush) also relied on the testimony of the creator of the intelligent design idea, Michael Behe, who, stated that he developed the idea "based on theological and philosophical and historical factors." He was later asked if there was factual support for intelligent design conceded that there was "little" (see the full trial transcript).

If there is concededly little factual support for intelligent design how can we possibly demand that NASA statements conform to its claims? And we wonder why American students continue to fall behind other countries in math and science. (see this article which describes that "If current trends continue, by 2010, only four years from now, more than 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will live in Asia.")

Support at the Vatican for Darwin and Evolution

To the surprise of many, the Vatican has taken positions in support of evolution and that intelligent design is not science.

In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that evolution was "more than a hypothesis" and went on to say that evolution is as "an effectively proven fact." The official position of the Church has been that it has "accepted evolution as solid science but objected to the way some Darwinists concluded that it proved God did not exist." Further, "Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is quoted as saying the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution are 'perfectly compatible' if the Bible is read correctly." Fascinating!

Just two weeks ago "The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the 'intelligent design' theory as non-scientific" (see also here and here).

Climate Change

The White House has also been pressuring NASA scientists to watch what they say when it comes to climate change. "Scientist, James E. Hansen, [said] he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency's 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters."

The article goes on to stated that "there were several other instances in which political appointees had sought to control the flow of scientific information from the agency."

Is this how science and great societies advance?

Science has always had a universally understood and well accepted policy of openness, which is intended to allow critical analysis and discussion of all available facts in order to advance our understanding of natural phenomena. This openness is starkly contradictory to current political policies and we are seeing the consequence of suppression of information, the retardation of progress.