Don, I agree with you that the Big Bang is, indeed, a scientific theory, and part of what I love about science is the constant addition of knowledge which, over time, adds to, changes or totally disproves an accepted scientific theory. You, I, and most of the people on this news group also clearly understand that a scientific theory explains observed phenomenon, is supported by facts, tested against real data and refined as new research adds to our knowledge base. It is an entirely different definition than that used by someone who, for instance, "has a theory about why the idiot next door decided to cut his tree down without thinking about the power lines in the way...." It is that variance in the understanding of what "theory" means that is being used by clever politicians to insert personal belief into science education. Nevertheless, scientifically speaking, Big Bang Theory is legitimate, and I do not object to the term. The part of the article under discussion which caused me such dismay is capitalized (by me) in the quote below. <<<<The Big Bang memo came from Mr. 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, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements. 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 CONTINUED: "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. THAT WOULD MEAN WE HAD FAILED TO PROPERLY EDUCATE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO RELY ON US FOR FACTUAL INFORMATION THE MOST.">>>>> I would love for kids to be challenged and excited by the idea that they can pursue a course of study and investigation which might, someday, prove or disprove or create entirely new scientific theories. I want them to know that "We do not yet know why X is the way it is" is a valid scientific response, and that "Because God made it so" is a valid belief, but not part of science. Jo