Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: academialist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,221-1,228 next last
To: amarok
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.

Fine. Show how evolution, if it were true, would cause heat to flow spontaneously from a cold to a hot object, or, alternatively, would cause the total entropy of the earth plus sun spontaneously to decrease.

Be as technical as you want. I can handle the equations. :-)

181 posted on 03/12/2003 11:20:47 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Wow ... nambla --- reminds me of the ... FR evofacsists // theophobes --- all lies -- hate !

Popular on the FR too ?

182 posted on 03/12/2003 11:22:04 AM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease; AndrewC; Dataman
A lack of understanding on your part does not equate to a failure of an entire discipline. It only reflects on your closed mind.

Please Think,
A lack of credible scientific proof on your part does not mean a closed mind on my part. What your remark probably really means is that you don't really know what you believe in. However I will be very open to your explanation and proof of the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates.

Expectant Regards,
Boiler Plate

183 posted on 03/12/2003 11:26:57 AM PST by Boiler Plate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Thanks. I found the excerpts somewhat disappointing. Behe was a pretty fair biochemist once; yet his entire argument on the subject of the eye seems to be to impress the gullible with what a big complicated system it is (as sensors go, it's actually comparatively simple) followed by the argument that it couldn't have come together all at once. Of course it couldn't. But no one thinks it did. It's little more than argumentum ad ignorantem; because there are parts of the evolution of the mammalian eye we don't understand (we do, mind you, know more than he seems to give us credit for) it can't be undersood.
184 posted on 03/12/2003 11:36:11 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Boiler Plate
However I will be very open to your explanation and proof of the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates.

So, for example, you're aware of the relationships between the tunicate genome and the vertebrate genome? You know that these point to a common ancestor 550 million years ago?

185 posted on 03/12/2003 11:37:56 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Boiler Plate
What would you consider credible scientific evidence? Odds are, whatever you request has probably been discovered -- unless it's something that's patently impossible.
186 posted on 03/12/2003 11:40:31 AM PST by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
You don't get the whole concept of our Constitution yet do you? RIGHTS ARE NOT ENUMERATED in the Constitution

Certain groups have a vested interest in making sure other ideas never see the light of day. They play the race card, the hate card, the anti-Semite card, the homophobia card (like anyone is afraid of these misfits), the right wing Christian card, the anti-choice (pro death) card, and yes the liberal card all ... in an attempt ---to limit the public's exposure to other ideas.

18 posted on 03/12/2003 5:54 AM PST by Wurlitzer (I have the biggest organ in my town {;o))

187 posted on 03/12/2003 11:44:46 AM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
That is absolutely it!!!! They don't hate Rush, Savage, Hannity and Boortz for their ideas. They hate the fact that they reach such a large group of people and these people are actually begining to listen and be persuaded by TRUTH!!!These scum have built a monopoly on what we hear and what is taught in schools, with no opposition.

That ... monopoly is now in serious jeopardy --- by TRUTH!!!

People like Savage can no longer be marginalized...the tide is turning in small ways and I believe these a$$es see it and are doing everything they can...like I have said before...This is like a man drowning....the more hopeless the situation the harder they struggle, which will bring about the end even quicker.

29 posted on 03/12/2003 7:24 AM PST by Ga Rob ("Consensus is the ABSENCE of Leadership" The Iron Lady)

188 posted on 03/12/2003 11:49:02 AM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
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.

Fine. Show how evolution, if it were true, would cause heat to flow spontaneously from a cold to a hot object, or, alternatively, would cause the total entropy of the earth plus sun spontaneously to decrease.

Be as technical as you want. I can handle the equations.

You imply that I am trying to disprove the theory. My point is that the 2nd Law is an issue for evolutionists rather than creationists. The fact that many evolutionists find it necessary to address the 2nd Law in their defense of evolution demonstrates that.

I don't think this discussion has gotten very technical. This is very basic stuff.

189 posted on 03/12/2003 11:49:56 AM PST by amarok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: amarok
My point is that the 2nd Law is an issue for evolutionists rather than creationists.

Then you have no point. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The Earth's biosphere is not a closed system; it receives energy from the Sun. Therefore, evolution does not defy the Law.

190 posted on 03/12/2003 11:53:33 AM PST by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I'm not getting the gist of your questions to the professor. You seem to be asking, what is the cause of Haldane's rule? And you seem to be suggesting that the question itself somehow undermines the theory of evolution. Perhaps you can explain your point a little better.
191 posted on 03/12/2003 11:57:14 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
As a chemistry professor (I believe somewhere along this string that is what you state as your profession; if I'm incorrect, I apologize), I would be interested in hearing your opinion of George Washington Carver.
192 posted on 03/12/2003 12:02:53 PM PST by The Grim Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.

Wrong.

193 posted on 03/12/2003 12:06:35 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: amarok
My point is that the 2nd Law is an issue for evolutionists rather than creationists. The fact that many evolutionists find it necessary to address the 2nd Law in their defense of evolution demonstrates that.

Only because creationists frequently make the stupid and ignorant proposition that the 2nd law somehow forbids evolution. Such as here and here and here. So if I call you a rapist, and you deny it, does that mean that being a rapist is an issue for you, but not for me?

194 posted on 03/12/2003 12:08:42 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Boiler Plate; LeeMcCoy
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.

The hatred and malice spread throughout these threads in the name of religion is overwhelming...and you even attack your own with just as much vitriol. That is your testimony and witness, and that is your so-called "fruit of the Spirit". Amazing!

Lee, it's your call of course, but I would urge you to rethink your dedication to a system that mouths the words, "peace" and "love", yet displays such rancor even between members. I rejected all forms of religion years ago and haven't regretted my decision for a moment.

195 posted on 03/12/2003 12:09:43 PM PST by Aracelis (Oh, evolve!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Ahhh. A cryptic response with no supporting detail. Must be AndrewC.
196 posted on 03/12/2003 12:10:15 PM PST by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You'll find most every biology department in the country disagrees with you.

Aaaahh. Noted for future reference, when consensus and democracy replaces scientific method.

197 posted on 03/12/2003 12:11:07 PM PST by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, Zoolander)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: The Grim Freeper
I would be interested in hearing your opinion of George Washington Carver.

I don't have one; sorry. I've seen the name mentioned in connection with Black History month; I'd therefore guess (perhaps unfairly) that he's some mediocrity raised to a near-Einsteinian status on account of racial tokenism.

198 posted on 03/12/2003 12:11:24 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Noted for future reference, when consensus and democracy replaces scientific method.

It wasn't a scientific question. The question of whether evolution is central to biology is something that cannot be tested by observation or experiment; rather it's a matter of opinion, and the opinion of biologists on what constitutes biology is one that should be taken into account.

199 posted on 03/12/2003 12:14:04 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Physical laws are sensible; one can see them or touch them, etc. Origin is not sensible in the same way - there is no way around the emotional roadblock of self-interest in this sort of debate.

Even the most avid creationist should admit that the divine coflicts with the rational; the closest the two ever get is when mankind invents new weapons of war to fight over whose god is the biggest or the best.

The U.S. Constitution comes closest to compromise in the precise wording of the 1st Amendment, yet we continue to argue it every day because it doesn't comfort us.

We are imperfect beings who innately imagine perfection, what to do?

200 posted on 03/12/2003 12:19:38 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,221-1,228 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson