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.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Can you replicate this impact? No, so you can only "extrapolate" and "theorize."

[VadeRetro]

Why are evolutionists so scared of this?

1) Junior is talking your ear off on it. 2) The questions are interesting, but creationists routinely argue from gaps in knowledge to gaps in history. The incompleteness (but not lack) of data about an event 65 million years ago is hardly evidence that it didn't happen at all. Holes in the data are holes in the data, not in the historical sequence that produced the data.

[longshadow]

historical sequence placemarker

[VadeRetro]

Can you replicate this impact? No, so you can only "extrapolate" and "theorize."

And indeed, there you go. What are you afraid of?

[balrog666]

Why is that all the idiots think they are on God's side when they deny reality?

[ALS]

That's rich coming from a guy with 666 in his username.....

[ican'tbelieveit]

I am not afraid of anything. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything in regards to evolution. My point all along is that it is ridiculous that this professor be asked to step down from her position over this issue as presented by this article. It should not be wrong to ask questions and present other theories in the context this was done.

[Tench_Coxe]

" No, the difference between what we call the theory of evolution and scientific laws is a matter of nomenclature. The theory of evolution could more accurately be called the law of evolution. "

Well then. Use the 'Law of Evolution' to make a prediction that is proven, and not by circular reasoning.
I can predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy what will happen when I strike a pool ball with the cue ball with a certain speed and angle ( one of those things to predict it commonly called the law of conservation of momentum ).

Since evolution is now apparently of the same weight as these other laws, I eagerly await the predictions of of the 'Law of Evolution'.

I, for one, will continue to hold a very skeptical opinion of many of the claims made by the high priests of evolution ( not that I think creationism is any alternative, but I have real problems with hubris.).

[ALS]

"I am not afraid of anything. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything in regards to evolution. My point all along is that it is ridiculous that this professor be asked to step down from her position over this issue as presented by this article. It should not be wrong to ask questions and present other theories in the context this was done."

AMEN!

[PatrickHenry]

Morton's demon placemarker.

[Notwithstanding]

It is CLEAR that you have not been keeping current.
As I posted earlier, evolution is not THE paradigm of modern biology, it is simply one of many paradigms and much of modern biology has nothing to at all to do with evolution.

And "paradigm" is no magic word that makes something science: the whole point is that evolution is a paradigm masquerading as solid science - when in fact it is a theory that has many holes and is far from having been proven to be factual.

To humor you, I post information you recommended (second listed site at google when searching under the terms "evolution paradigm biology" http://www.nslc.wustl.edu/courses/bio100a/allen/L01.pdf ):

Paradigms in Biology

1. Living organisms are material entities.
2. All living organisms are composed of cells.
3. The structure of a molecule,organelle, cellor organ is related to its function.
4. Living organisms are capable of self-organization and self-regulation
5. Evolution (as we can see, evolution is but one of many paradigms of moedern biology)

[VadeRetro]

My point all along is that it is ridiculous that this professor be asked to step down from her position over this issue as presented by this article. It should not be wrong to ask questions and present other theories in the context this was done.

I do not claim to know what she said, but I am familiar with the so-called "evidence against evolution" which ID-ists routinely demand be taught in school alongside the actual body of biological science. The description of her talk sounds mightily like something from this same body of cult literature.

There ARE stupid questions, and this is the problem, whether she should be teaching in the very area where she is unable to demonstrate critical thought. An astrologer or a flat-earther may certainly question modern astronomy, but do you want your aspiring-astronomer child to be taught astronomy by such a naysaying dolt?

[ALS]

Vade, do you always see everyone as intelligent or stupid based on whether they hold your personal beliefs or is it just in this thread?

[ican'tbelieveit]

You are still missing what kind of class this was. This is not a class of beginning students, these were upper level honor students. This would be the perfect place to present these theories.

[VadeRetro]

From the main article:

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."

She has a case if this guy is simply lying, but it seems unlikely that she gave anything other than the standard Discovery Institute claptrap: " ... a presentation titled 'Critical Thinking on Evolution' -- which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design."

[ican'tbelieveit]

I don't care if she discussed Creationism, ID, or aliens. This was a discussion class.

[ican'tbelieveit]

As presented by the article.

[VadeRetro]

Vade, do you always see everyone as intelligent or stupid based on whether they hold your personal beliefs or is it just in this thread?

I'm pretty sure it predates this thread.

[balrog666]

2. All living organisms are composed of cells.

Is a virus a living organism?

[balrog666]

I'm pretty sure it predates this thread.

Too many Guinness Stouts placemarker.