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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,221-1,228 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
dataman ...

I took enough geology in college to know that prospecting has everything to do with probablility and nothing to do with evolution or so-called geologic time.

I have a meeting in 20 minutes so I'll be brief and give a few reasons why the earth is young:

Because the growth of coral reefs has been measured, no coral formaton need be over 3400 years old

The same with stalagmites and stalactites Radiometric contradictions abound, making it unreliable.

The geologic column exists only in text books. If the earth's layers were formed over millions of years, they should be relatively consistent everywhere.

Human artifacts have been found in layers dating back millions of years.

Human footprints dating back 150 million to 600 million years ago have been found in Utah, Kentucky, Missouri, possibly PA and TX.

Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere's He in only 40k years. The atmosphere has not yet stabilized.

Lead diffuses from zircon crystals at a known rate. The rate increases with temperature. Greater depths and temps should reveal less pb in the crystals. If the earth were even a fraction of the supposed geologic age, we should be able to measure a difference in the crystals found in the first 2 miles of the earth's crust. Instead, no measurable difference is found between the crystals near the surface and the crystals deep in the hot earth.

Since you claim to be familiar with the oil drilling business, you may know that gas, oil and water are trapped in relatively permeable rock. The pressure disappears somewhere between 10k and 100k years. There is no possible way for the oil to be trapped for 50 million years.I am talking about serious men (often Christian men) who raise their families based on tests which tell them where the oil, gold, copper, uranium might be due to geological movements of millions of years.

Volcanoes belch a cubic mile of debris into the atmosphere each year. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old, about 10x the earth's volume should have been put into the atmosphere and that's at current rates. Evos claim that volcanic activity was higher in the past.

The rate of continental erosion indicates a young earth.

River sediment transport indicates a young earth

The rate of accumulation of minerals and salts in the ocean indicates a young earth.

Meteorite material is found in relatively shallow earth.

Meteoric dust accumulation indicates a young earth.

The rate of decay of the earth's magnetic fields indicates a young earth.

The rate of cooling of the earth indicates a young earth.

The rate of recession of the moon indicates a young earth.

The accumulation of dust on the moon indicates a young moon.

There are many more reasons such as OOP artifacts but I'm late for the meeting.

87 posted on 02/02/2003 3:33 PM PST by Dataman

.. .. .. 'lifted' (( link // #87 )) !

281 posted on 03/12/2003 3:23:36 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Oh well, a second wrong makes this one OK then.
282 posted on 03/12/2003 3:24:00 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Why, then, should we who believe in Christ be so surprised at what God can do with a willing man in a laboratory? Some things must be baffling to the critic who has never been born again." (George Washington Carver)

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin)

"Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life." (Harvard University's Rules and Precepts, 1642)

283 posted on 03/12/2003 3:30:02 PM PST by The Grim Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You wish me death. I wish you life. Go figure.
284 posted on 03/12/2003 3:31:08 PM PST by The Grim Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit
The fact that crop rotations were not being used in America and he was able to implement their widespread use successfully deserves some credit.

I wanted to acknowledge you're two-thirds right about George Washington Carver and crop rotation.

http://www.mountvernon.org/pioneer/lite/farms/rotation.html

285 posted on 03/12/2003 3:32:34 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: The Grim Freeper
Not at all. I wish you enlightenment.
286 posted on 03/12/2003 3:33:24 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: The Grim Freeper
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin)

The scientific content of your posts is matched only by their integrity.

287 posted on 03/12/2003 3:34:01 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Are you saying Darwin didn't say this?
288 posted on 03/12/2003 3:35:23 PM PST by The Grim Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
With billion year gaps in the so-called "evolutionary chain",

Nonsense. Feel free to document an alleged "billion year gap" if you think you can. This ought to be amusing.

289 posted on 03/12/2003 3:36:16 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Exactly what spontaneous generation macroevolution is.

Name *anyone* who believes in "spontaneous generation macroevolution". Hint: You're making word hash out of two different and separate fields, like "biological origin of the solar system".

290 posted on 03/12/2003 3:38:16 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: beckett
The jackbooted Inquisitors running our institutions of higher learning strike again. Literally thousands of unanswered and disputed questions surround evolutionary theory,

Yeah, yeah, yadda yadda...

Name your single best example. If it turns out to be fatally flawed itself, will you admit that your "evidence" against evolution isn't as good as you presumed it was?

291 posted on 03/12/2003 3:40:14 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Yes, but have you ever tried to make Tabasco Sauce from peanuts? Give the man a break. Considering his background he could reasonably be compared to Edison. An inventor, not a research scientist.
292 posted on 03/12/2003 3:40:33 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: The Grim Freeper
My point in initially posing the question on this thread was that George Washington Carver gave the glory to God for everything discovery he made. He was a lovely, humble Christian and believed in God the Creator. This would disqualify him, according to RWP, from holding a head teaching position in a school.

A great many people believe in God the creator and in evolution. No one is claiming that atheism is a requirement for teaching science.

293 posted on 03/12/2003 3:40:57 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: The Grim Freeper
Are you saying Darwin didn't say this?

Are you saying you have the right to mischaracterize in a "good" cause? Or are you an ignorant dupe?

294 posted on 03/12/2003 3:42:50 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: coramdeo
I think the point that has gotten lost in this thread is that she is being punished for simply asking people to think critically about evolution.

Highly unlikely. Evolutionary scientists themselves "think critically about evolution" and encourage/expect others to do so as well. That's how science advances. No one gets in trouble for just "thinking critically" about *any* field of science, or asking others to do so.

More likely, as the presentation of "flaws" described in the article implies, she was one of those cranks who shovel loads of long-discredited "disproofs" at people and muddy the discussion with garbage that any truly qualified teacher or scientist would laugh off the stage. If she was presenting some of the silly BS I've seen given as "evidence against evolution" through the years, then that alone serves as strong evidence that the woman is not fit to be a teacher of science, because most decently educated high school students can recognize the flaws in them -- and if she couldn't, well...

295 posted on 03/12/2003 3:45:29 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Evolution has as much to do with biology as theories about the origin of the solar system have to do with chemistry, which is nothing.

Wow, *two* amazingly ignorant and trivially false claims in a single sentence. I'm impressed.

296 posted on 03/12/2003 3:48:12 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
I've heard that Darwin himself repudiated his own theory in later years - can anyone corraborate?

No, no one can, although many have tried.

You'll note, though, that this doesn't stop creationists from repeating it endlessly. Let this be a lesson on the quality of their honesty and reliability.

297 posted on 03/12/2003 3:50:02 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The Grim Freeper
Every few days somebody pulls that one out. Follow the link, note the replies. Darwin's own intellectual honesty stands in the starkest contrast imaginable with the creationist quote-miners who twist him, trying to mosaic a lying picture with bits of truth.

Another source on eye evolution.

Creationist quote-mining.

298 posted on 03/12/2003 3:52:29 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Et tu, js1138?

Damme, I've given Carver credit for being a good applied scientist, and having done remarkably well given his horrible beginnings. I've been simply arguing against claims he was a great scientist, 'the chemist's chemist' etc.. Somehow my failure to recognize his seminal place in chemistry shows I'm ignorant of chemistry, and a racist to boot. But have mercy on me, I was trained in a foreign land, where this particular sacred cow is unknown, and had no idea questioning his achievements was so taboo, least of all on FreeRepublic.

FWIW, I dunno how you can say 'considering his background', X could have been Y. That's an impossible calculation to make. But in terms of what Carver actually invented and patented, there's no comparison with Edison. Edison died with 1093 patents. Carver had 3.

299 posted on 03/12/2003 3:56:55 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Wow, *two* amazingly ignorant and trivially false claims in a single sentence.

Instead of yet another ad hominem attack, why don't you state what the two claims were, and then demonstrate their falsity?

(Also let us know what your scientific degrees are, and where they are from. If you got a really good score on one or more of the SATs or similar relevant standardized tests you could let us know about that too.)

ML/NJ

300 posted on 03/12/2003 4:02:33 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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