Creationists turn their sights to Physics
Not content with attacking evolution, creationists are now turning their attention to astronomy. Bad Astronomy has an excellent write-up, but I'll paraphrase here.
The New York Times reports that a NASA public affairs official, appointed directly by the Bush administration, wrote the following:
In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.
...
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
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."
It's the same old nonsense about the definition of 'theory'. And this is likely to cause uproar, because this is a religious agenda directly interfering with a scientific body. And, again, the main aim is to alter education.
The Big Bang1 is also most definitely not "opinion". There's a very large body of evidence supporting it, and no other reasonable explanation. The only other contender, steady-state theory, has fallen by the wayside because predictions from BBT have been shown to be accurate.2
I suspect that creationists will have more of a struggle attacking astronomy, and that's why it's remained unmolested for so long. 1% of the static on an untuned television is directly caused by the afterglow of the Big Bang - the microwave background radiation originally attributed to pigeon droppings. The presence of this radiation was predicted thirty years before its discovery, and it's the kind of accessible fact that newspapers love to print. Creationists may have a hard time getting around that with 'god did it'. But then I continually underestimate their skill at manipulating language, so what do I know
- or, as the more enlightened know it, the Horrendous Space Kablooie [↩]
- sentence edited as it didn't make sense
[↩]

February 5th, 2006 - 18:33
The Big Bang is a theory though. It does seem correct that they should put ‘theory’ after it.
I don’t really see an issue with this. It just emphasises that there are other (new) theories out there supported by some top scientists.
I’m not sure that creationism and the big bang theory can’t go together, but hey.
February 5th, 2006 - 23:38
If that were what he was saying, that’d be reasonable. But he’s not – he’s misunderstanding the idea of a scientific ‘theory’ in that he thinks it’s just an idea. It’s more than that – it’s a hypothesis that explains all available data, as well as making predictions that have been shown to be correct. He pushes the idea of a deity like it’s up there with the Big Bang ‘theory’ in terms of the amount of evidence, and that’s just not the case. ‘Theory’ may mean that colloquially, but scientifically it means something entirely different. It’s yet another a thinly-veiled attempt to force religion into education.
What other theories, btw?
That’s the silly part – creationism and the big bang can easily go together. They can just say ‘some deity created the big bang’, and until science comes up with something else they can go on believing that and nobody will mind (unless they start trying to force it into education.)
February 6th, 2006 - 03:57
It is really annoying the way that non-scientists misunderstand the word theory – they think it means something more along the lines of conjecture, or hypothesis.
July 20th, 2006 - 12:36
Whether you believe in creation or the big bang, I have one simple question. Before the universe existed, what was there?
July 20th, 2006 - 12:41
To the extent that question has an answer: nobody knows.