Re: News clips of interest

From: David Opderbeck <>
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 10:59:09 EST

*Seems to me that the NAE has little business adopting
policies that are clearly outside their areas of expertise. *

I have a problem with this one. Certainly it's within the calling of an
organization like the NAE to adopt policies on issues relating to the
stewardship of the environment. Nevertheless, I think the NAE wisely did
not take a position specifically on any disputes concerning the science
behind theories of global warming, because those disputes are far from
resolved in the scientific arena, and because they are so loaded

On 2/6/06, Carol or John Burgeson <> wrote:
> Two news clips of interest:
> 1. "[The Big Bang is] not proven fact; it is opinion. 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."
> --George Deutsch, a Bush political appointee in NASA's press office,
> instructing a Web designer working for the agency to add the word
> "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang (a scientific explanation
> for the origins of the universe).
> Burgy's comment: At first reading, I don't see why this is a "bad" idea.
> Of course, it is religiously motivated. But it is, I think, factual.
> Tell me why I'm wrong.
> 2. Texas Rep. Mark Strama faces three Republican challengers for his
> District 50 seat, including Christian conservatives who support teaching
> intelligent design.
> About a year ago, I said the YECs "had won." Seems to me this is part of
> what "winning" means. It is becoming a force in one political party.
> Many of you have told me before that I'm wrong. I still hold the claim.
> 3. Scientists say Bush Administration political appointees are trying to
> control the flow of scientific information from NASA, particularly when
> that information counters administration policy on issues ranging from
> global warming to explanations about the origins of the universe.
> Burgy's comment: An organization HAS to be able to control what their
> employees say and publish, for outsiders perceive them as "speaking for
> the institution." As one who spoke publicly on many occasions for IBM, I
> am particularly aware of this kind of thing. I recall once having my
> remarks edited in advance to eliminate the word "software," for an IBM
> executive was trying to hold back the use of that word. The fact that I
> considered what he was attempting to do as pretty much useless did not
> result in my using the dreaded "S" word in public. Of course, in private
> . . . .
> Tell me why I'm wrong. In this case, I may be, for it may be an ethics
> issue.
> 4. A United States senator has warned against "far-left"
> environmentalists he claimed are trying to dupe the National Association
> of Evangelicals into adopting a policy statement on global warming.
> Burgy's comment: Seems to me that the NAE has little business adopting
> policies that are clearly outside their areas of expertise. I holler at
> my PC(USA) headquarters on similar grounds from time to time. Ethical
> issues are in a different category, of course. Religious organizations
> SHOULD have a voice in them.
> Burgy
Received on Tue Feb 7 10:59:44 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 07 2006 - 10:59:44 EST