Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/112003a.asp ^ | March 11, 2003 | Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano

[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.

[ml/nj]

What were your questions?

First you should know that when I sit in on classes like this, I take my queues from the professor as regards asking questions during a class. In this particular class, where the opportunity for questions arose, I would have been able to ask but I chose to hold my questions until after class.

The topic for the day was the concept of rarity. In case it isn't obvious rarity means a relatively low population count (based upon biomass) in a geographic area. (Lions are rare on Long Island, but not in Kenya.) Rarity was discussed as a predictor of extinction.

Now here I might have asked a question, but I couldn't know whether it had been discussed earlier in the semester. My question was: You discuss rarity in terms of extinction, but isn't it a really big problem with the whole concept of speciation too? (Of course it is, as the professor acknowledged. I was rather surprised that it didn't seem to be part of his syllabus.)

My second question, or set of questions, had nothing to do with his topic for the day. I asked: Do you believe evolution occurs gradually over a long time; or rather suddenly in steps. Like most he opted for gradually. Then I asked whether he believes in chromosomes, which of course he did. So I asked him how we evolved from 22 chromosome pairs to 23 chromosome pairs gradually. He didn't even try to answer.

ML/NJ

[Right Wing Professor]

You apparently assume this professor was preaching creation; the article implies she was questioning evolution. There's a difference.

Not in practice. Challenges to evolution invariably come from those with another agenda. There are no good scientific reasons to challenge evolution.

You assume she doesn't believe in the laws of thermodynamics. That doesn't make sense since they are more of an obstacle for evolutionists rather than creationists (if, in fact, she is a creationist).

I was making an analogy. FYI, there are no thermodynamic issues with Evolution.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear a high school biology teacher refer to the "law of evolution" rather than the "theory of evolution," but a college professor? I find that indeed very curious

I have no idea why.

[Doctor Stochastic]

'Critical thinking' is ordinarily a postmodernist code phrase. But then politics makes strange bedfellows.

But there is no difference in the philosophies of the Creationists and the PostModernDeconstructionists. They are allies in their attempts to deny the validity of scientific knowledge. Both claim that their feelings are of more import than observations. It is not surprising that the same philosophical underpinnings should lead to the same code phrases.

[Aracelis]

It's a wonder to me that people like you continue to post here. You seem to have some difficulty with the English language which would seem to put you at a great disadvantage in a forum such as this.

What puts me at disadvantage in these forums is twits like you.

[ml/nj]

Yes, what were your questions?

Please see my reply to atlaw at #161.

ML/NJ

[Aracelis]

Atheists and agnostics are often more tolerant of Christians than other Christians are, too.

That is painfully obvious, isn't it? I guess Christianity is just another "Religion of Peace".

[ml/nj]

twits like you

Aren't you a sweetie pie?!

I've already said something about my credentials. (I can say more too if you won't consider it bragging.) What, besides nastiness, to you bring to the table?

ML/NJ

[ThinkPlease]

I certainly won't disaggree with any of your statements.

[Right Wing Professor]

Tell me "Professor," what was wrong with my analogy? Did you ever take chemistry? I did, a bit. I don't remember any of my courses considering where all those atoms came from. According to the MW9 I have at hand, biology is "a branch of knowledege that deals with living organisms." I believe living is the operative word.

Chemistry deals with molecules far more than atoms. They didn't discuss how molecules are made in your chemistry course?

[freepatriot32]

DARWINS BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION This link contains 42 sample pages from the book that you can check out also

[js1138]

Chromosome count is not the same in all humans, not even in all healthy humans.

[PatrickHenry]

What puts me at disadvantage in these forums is twits like you.

Having a grumpy day?

[LeeMcCoy]

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?

I guess along with your other flaws, you don't understand or comprehend sarcasm, do you?

87Rb has a half-life of 48.8x10^9 years.

232Th has a half-life of 14.010x10^9 years.

Remove the mote from your own eye first, brother.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's often like watching the Trotskyites and Stalinists try to define "true" communism.

[jimt]

That is painfully obvious, isn't it?

What's painfully obvious from these threads is that there's no logical (or worthwhile counter) to "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

Unless it's "Whatever floats your boat."

[Aracelis]

I have simply had it with these religious nuts, and I find it hard to believe I actually bought into their mantra once upon a time.

[The Bard]

My theory; You don't have to see the carpenter to know he's been there.

Ok, but what tools did he use in his work?

All the evidence points to evolution as a primary tool. And a few hundred words in the first two chapters of Genesis just don't give enough detail to say for sure anything else.

My theory; God did it using evolution.

What tool did He use? The Bible tells us the only tool he used was his voice. He uses that tools several times in Genesis

At one time (actually just a couple of years ago) I though like you, believing evolution could have been a tool of God's. I had my theories challenged and I did research. I won't claim to be an authority, but the more I actually studied, the more my views changed.

Now, I believe that about the only thing the evolution theory is good for is Star Trek Plots and movies like Planet of the Apes: Interesting, but unprovable (okay, the Darwin awards are also entertaining...).

[general_re]

I used to have a big box of Chick tracts - good fun at parties ;) - but over the years and many moves, they long ago got lost or misplaced. Imagine my surprise when I took our really big comforter to the laundromat on Sunday, only to find that someone had thoughtfully left a pair of Chick tracts for others to peruse during the rinse cycle. It's like tripping over a long-lost, mentally deranged acquaintance, having not seen them in some years. So now I have a new start to my rogues' gallery of Chick tracts, but sadly, neither of them was an anti-evolution tract ;)

[amarok]

Challenges to evolution invariably come from those with another agenda. There are no good scientific reasons to challenge evolution.

These statements are assumptions and opinions, but not facts, and I disagree. The science-based challenges to evolution are well known to all who are knowledgeable.

there are no thermodynamic issues with Evolution

If you are suggesting that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in no way an issue with the Theory of Evolution, then that is ridiculous and completely untrue.

[Boiler Plate]

Lee,

Try reading the Job's conversation with God. That would be Job 38 to 42. If you are in fact in some sort of technical or scientific profession then you should be aware of the fact that what man considers the length and breadth of all his knowledge today will be trivial in a hundred years and quaint in a thousand years. The whole of man's knowledge in a thousand years will still be meaningless compared to God's wisdom.

Still you haven't provided the heaps and gobs of evidence you so ardently adhere to so I guess that was just a canard and a little bit of chest beating. Your sarcasm will do little to advance the Kingdom of God, but maybe your ministry is to the sarcastic. Sarcasm and insult seems to be the favorite method of evolutionists. Still I think Christ would argue your point a little bit differently.

Best Regards,

Boiler Plate.