Posted on 03/11/2003 3:01:59 PM PST by Remedy
A university professor said she was asked to resign for introducing elite students to flaws in Darwinian thought, and she now says academic freedom at her school is just a charade.
During a recent honors forum at Mississippi University for Women (MUW), Dr. Nancy Bryson gave a presentation titled "Critical Thinking on Evolution" -- which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design. Bryson said that following the presentation, a senior professor of biology told her she was unqualified and not a professional biologist, and said her presentation was "religion masquerading as science."
The next day, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Vagn Hansen asked Bryson to resign from her position as head of the school's Division of Science and Mathematics.
"The academy is all about free thought and academic freedom. He hadn't even heard my talk," Bryson told American Family Radio News. "[W]ithout knowing anything about my talk, he makes that decision. I think it's just really an outrage."
Bryson believes she was punished for challenging evolutionary thought and said she hopes her dismissal will smooth the way for more campus debate on the theory of evolution. University counsel Perry Sansing said MUW will not comment on why Bryson was asked to resign because it is a personnel matter.
"The best reaction," Bryson says, "and the most encouraging reaction I have received has been from the students." She added that the students who have heard the talk, "They have been so enthusiastically supportive of me."
Bryson has contacted the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy and is considering taking legal action against the school.
Actually there is nothing to disprove. There is no proof of evolution. Everyday we see species reproducing themselves with progeny of the same kind. Not once has anyone seen an organism reproduce a different species, not once. That is why the evolutionists always engage in rhetorical arguments instead of just laying out the facts as a real science would do.
Don't waste my time flattering yourself with what a great guy you are. I asked you to describe in your own words the evolution of flight and you failed to do so.
As for your claims of sainthood save it for the judgment day
It is not me but thee who is full of rancor and hatred. You are comfortable in your ignorance and I will not disturb the sound slumber of your neurons.
I doubt if the Lord Jesus will take kindly to your name calling in light of fact that you are completely ignorant of who I am, what I have learned, what I have discovered and where I am going. Save the preaching for someone who believes the same half science hocus-pocus you do. I gave my life to Christ 27 years ago at a Young Life retreat. I studied engineering at Purdue Unit and that is where I first began to question evolution. To this day no evolutionist has provided any overwhelming or even under whelming evidence to support their view. You will be no exception as there is no truth to the theory you hold to. Macroevolution does not exist. You have another problem though in your claim to Christianity in that you now have to explain how death entered into the world before Adam and Eve came into existence. Of course you can say that Genesis is just an allegory but then why not Moses and Jesus. Your smarmy responses are not going to do it either.
As far your insinuation that I am "jerk" (emphasis on "jerk") you might want to read the Sermon on the Mount that would be Matthew 5,6&7 in the New Testament.
Now on to the "Preponderance of Evidence" as presented by Lee.
He tells you He followed all His own laws during the creation of the Universe...oh, except for Earth. On that planet, His laws never applied. Thorium and rubidium have half-lives of 3 days, yet are constructed so as to fool all the scientists. And He created fossils on a whim after a long day of dotting the stars about the night sky just so we would have something pretty to look at. Never mind functionality, He did it all just for us, just so He could trap thousands of individuals and condemn them to the fires of Hell for having the audacity to believe the Earth was more than 10,000 years old. Creationism is a point of Salvation, evidently. Well you have to believe Jesus died for your sins, but more importantly you have to believe God made everything in 6-24 hour periods of time. Or else.
As I said earlier, this is yet another under whelming attempt to make an argument for the indefensible. You make absolutely no clear points and provide no facts.
Rubidium has 11 isotopes with half lifes ranging from Rb 85 being a stable isotope to Rb 82 having a half life of 2.25 minutes. However none of the isotopes have a half life a three days. Thanks for proving your ignorance of chemistry. I guess I should believe evolution on account of that?
Well maybe not let's got to the next preponderance of evidence the "Fossil Record". I love this one you guys always claim that there it is the slam dunk of all arguments and yet after over a hundred years of digging and the billions of known fossils there is not one single example of a transitional species when there should be almost nothing but transitional species. What a hoot!
Well you did get one thing right; the Truth like the Word of God is "Priceless"
Kindest regards,
Boiler Plate
Yaakov
Hi James, It seems to me that what you are saying throws out Darwinian(or NeoDarwinian) theory of evolution as the "major" means of evolution of life on Earth and now this 21st century evolution sees a much more elegant and orgerly mechanism to induce a guided development of life when needed. Do I understand your propositions correctly
...
James Shapiro
Yaakov, you get the message. Evolution, yes, Randomness and gradualism, only in the fine-tuning after the heavy lifting has been done.
Interesting. I was never instructed that gravity was a chemical force. My how things change in a Darwininian world.
As usual, you take things out of context...for where indeed would we be if the tiny little inter-atomic forces (which is core to the concept of chemistry) didn't exist? Why, you'd be flying off the world instead of just off-the-handle.
Well, I suppose if you don't have chemistry, you don't have chemistry. And the context was "Chemistry is central to everything that exists"
Care to provide the calculations for this ---Why, you'd be flying off the world ...
Indeed. So much, in fact, that even the biggist critics of the creationist and ID movements concede that evolution has become a secular religion.
This evolution stuff is right out of some sci-fi neo nazi hooror film. I can not believe these jokers trying to pass themselves off as intellectuals and yet being completely unable to state their case. It is truly a religion for them and one they dare not ever allow the heresy of criticism to come into being.
This Lee guy is real hoot though. I guess he has never read the last few chapters of Job. I hope can manage to realize that all of man's knowledge is nothing but foolishness.
As for Dr. Shapiro, I would think the High Priests of Evolution should defrock him shortly.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
You may be pleasantly suprised at the number of good scientists who are coming out of the closet.
Try this for the real audio unimpaired:
Fear not an assault from minds that have no weapons. Blind fools should just sit down and shut up.
Did you ever see the movie the blob? Weaponless ooze coming out of the university closets.
That's what this article says. That's what the title of her talk implies. But I bet not.
I should hope we do. Critical thinking is essential to truly understanding them.
While I agree that critical thinking is an important and valuable skill, your history is off in this instance. The groundwork for showing the parallel postulate wasn't necessarily so was made unwittingly by folks who accepted it uncritically. For centuries their goal was to show that this "messy" postulate was logically a consequence of the others or maybe of some other less messy but "self-evident" postulate. They never doubted even a moment that the postulate was a true fact of the world - until Gauss et al suddenly realized a possible implication of their failure.
There's a lesson about critical thinking in this story but it's not the one you imply.
Why should I? You're only interested in creating another argument, and nothing is ever accomplished. Frankly, I find the whole crevo argument to be pointless because I don't care what you believe, and you certainly don't care what I believe. I'll stick to investing my time in my students, thank you.
I didn't read about the professor’s book tour in this article.
Well, it is not should you, rather could you. And although as a general statement my concern for your beliefs are as you describe, the particular statement you made about flying off the world does have my "care".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.