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.

[gore3000]

("Where o where is the missing link?")

Regardless of whether the person you are speaking to will buy the response, nevertheless, if evolution's claim to be science is to be true, it must answer such questions. For some 150 years evolutionists have been claiming that man is descended from chimps. (You and others still like to point to similarities even nowadays, so don't say that evolution denies that now else you are calling many of your own statements as well as those of other evolutionists dishonest). The fossil evidence first forced evolutionists to claim that we had 'branched' from the same tree of primates and that the descent occurred further back. The further back is now up to ten million years (and have even seen some 20 million years). We are still looking for the missing link in this. We are also looking for the missing link between mammals and reptiles and between all major categories. If evolution were true these major divisions should be the best documented since they required the biggest changes and the most time to take place. It is utterly ridiculous to say that evolution is both gradual and that the major categories of species and the greatest changes occurred without leaving any trace in the fossil record.

[gore3000]

Every "transitional" was, in its day, a fully-developed, walking-around, eating, drinking, and reproducing species.

Yup, indeed, survival of the fittest and all that. The problem for evolution though is how does a creature become more fit by exchanging its forelegs or arms for wings when it cannot yet fly? The question is how the many changes required for making a bird a viable flying organism could have all taken place while making the species undergoing the changes more viable at each step. These are the questions which evolutionists always fail to answer and which they are totally unable to answer. In fact they are not even able to state the order in which the many different features of birds could have arisen (let alone show any evidence for such an order of transition). Again this is quite interesting since large transitions should have the most evidence for them.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: re·duc·tio ad ab·sur·dum

Pronunciation: ri-'d&k-tE-"O-"ad-&b-'s&r-d&m, -'d&k-sE-O-, -shE-, -'z&r-

Function: noun

Etymology: Late Latin, literally, reduction to the absurd
Date: 1741
1 : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
2 : the carrying of something to an absurd extreme

[Con X-Poser]

Whoops! Even your comrade evolutionary geologists think the Grand Canyon itself could have formed much more quickly than the standard theory:

http://www.zillmer.com/Grand_Canyon_Erosion.htm

---

BEGIN UPI STORY


Catastrophic floods built Grand Canyon, research suggests


Copyright © 2002, United Press International


GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz. (July 20, 2002 10:07 p.m. EDT) - Dams of
volcanic rock laid across the Grand Canyon have burst repeatedly and
catastrophically over the past million years - most recently about 165,000
years ago - carrying enormous onrushing floods and carving out much of the
great landmark in the blink of a geologic eye, new research by U.S.
Geological Survey and University of Utah geologists suggests.


The findings tend to support other new data indicating the canyon's Inner
Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old, much younger than earlier
estimates of 3 million to 5 million years, said Robert Webb, a research
geologist with USGS.


"The newer interpretation is that there was a basalt dike that crossed the
Grand Canyon that's been dated at 770,000 year ago," Webb told United Press
International. "So the Inner Gorge wasn't there then. It's been downcut since
then."


Downcutting refers to the phenomenon that occurs when enormous volumes of
water are unleashed by sudden removal or failure of natural barriers such as
lava dams. In the case of the Grand Canyon, downcutting means the Colorado
River did not form the canyon through gradual erosion over millions of years.
Instead, intermittent dam failures unleashed massive flash floods, in at
least one case carrying many times more water than the largest Mississippi
River overflow ever recorded.


"Large sustained floods can cause rapid downcutting in bedrock," Webb said. A
similar event on a smaller scale occurred in 1976 when Idaho's Teton Dam
failed. The water flow left a distinctive profile in soils and on canyon
walls, he said. The water level dropped extremely rapidly in a phenomenon
called a decay curve.


"We have that curve preserved from a lava dam that failed in the Grand Canyon
165,000 years ago," Webb said.


The lava was deposited by a chain of volcanoes that runs across the Grand
Canyon. Periodic eruptions created the dams, which blocked the river's flow.
Over time, enormous quantities of water backed up, eventually breaching the
dams and continuing the downcutting process.


Webb, who collaborated with University of Utah researcher Cassandra Fenton,
said, "There's a big volcanic field that straddles the Grand Canyon" and was
active relatively recently. A minor eruption probably occurred there around
1,300 years ago, he said.


The most recent basalt dam probably occurred between 100,000 and 120,000
years ago, Webb said. However, "The one we've worked on most was there
165,000 years ago." When the natural lava dam failed, it unleashed 15 million
cubic feet of water per second - 37 times larger than the biggest Mississippi
River flood - helping to carve the lower canyon.


"These were some high dams," Webb said. "We estimate some were more than
1,500 feet tall."


The lava dams also were inherently unstable. The researchers explained when
the molten basalt lava met cold river water, it cooled almost instantly,
forming fragile walls of glass. "When basalt hits water, it shatters into
glass, and there is just glass all over the place in these deposits," Webb
said.


Another piece of evidence is the short life spans of the lakes building up
behind the dams. Webb said the lakes filled quickly under pressure from large
snowmelts in the Pleistocene era, which lasted from about 2 million years ago
to the end of the last ice age - around 9,000 B.C. The lakes did not have
enough time to form deltas, he said.

[Con X-Poser]

<< You got a scientific alternative to the Theory of Evolution in your pants? Whip it out and win a Nobel Prize! >>

<< Quite a hollow challenge since the TOE has not acheived Nobel status(nor can it unless it is in literature for its just-so stories). >>

But they give evolutionists Nobels just for trying and FAILING to prove evolutionary theories, like Ilya Prigogine, genius that he is.

I'm surprised they didn't give a Nobel to Urey and Miller for FAILING to create life in a laboratory.

[balrog666]

I'm surprised they didn't give a Nobel to Urey and Miller for FAILING to create life in a laboratory.

If FAILURE was one of the criteria, you and your fellow seminar posters would certainly be in contention.

[Youngblood]

Repetitive massive floods over hundreds of thousands of years due to the buildup of water behind basalt dams resulting from volcanic activity, the most recent one 100,000 years ago.

Yes, one can easily make the leap to hundreds of metres of sediment being laid down, lithified and washed away in the space of year no more than 5000 years ago.

BTW, catastrophic events have been a part of mainstream geology for some time now.

[Con X-Poser]

<< If FAILURE was one of the criteria, you and your fellow seminar posters would certainly be in contention. >>

More of your "better arguments", I see. But, that's the best you've got.

[Boiler Plate]

Are you really so afraid to read a book other than the Bible? Are you really so content to stay ignorant of how science works even after it has been posted and linked here time after time after time after time? Who do you think you are fooling with such a display of childish petulance?

What in the world are you babbling about? You don't know anything about me, my education, my profession or the letters attached to the end of my name. You no nothing about the atheletic titles and records I hold and what I had to do to obtain them. I spend most of my workday reading technical documents and periodicals. It is exactly because of the problem solvingnature of my work, that causes me to absolutely dismiss evolution. As my physics professor used to always ask "Does it grind any ice". Evolution just doesn't sum up to an answer. While it is my goal to read the Bible at least once a day, it is far from the only thing I read. However if you want to believe in some fantasy that all who criticize evolution fit some ignorant preconceived stereotypes of yours, well it is after all, a free country in which you can live in any ignorant bliss you so choose.

As far as all the terrific attempts to prove evolution as fact, it still remains a theory. That ought to tell you something, but apparently you have somehow missed it.

Evolution is a religion, plain and simple. Your missive clearly demonstrates that fact. You are consumed with it. Now get a drink of water and take a nap. Have a nice day .

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Boiler Plate]

Because Vade you guys are still at square one. That would be trying to establish evolution as scientific fact.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Nataku X]

I'll agree with you; it was nitpicking on my part, and I'm sorry for harping on it.

[ThinkPlease]

I do not wish to ascribe anything to you that you did not say or think. That said, do you believe that Macro Evolution has been observed, IOW does all life have common ancester?

The preponderance of the evidence shows that:

• The universe is roughly 13-15 billion years old.
• The universe formed from what can be described in two words to be a "Big Bang", though the event is more complex than that.
• The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, formed from the solar proto-nebula, likely triggered by a nearby supernova remnant or spiral density wave.
• Life on this earth formed through a process of Abiogenesis.
• All life on this Earth is descended from that group of molecules that began replicating so long ago.
• Life forms have mutated and changed through some method of evolution, likely a blend of the processes of Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism.
• There is no evidence for any intelligent "meddling" in the process of evolution by any sentient beings, except in the cases where humans have created new species.
• These statements are not immutable, and can be changed by a preponderance of the evidence in the favor of a new model, provided it explains the behavior of the world better than any of the old models listed above.

So how about you? Have any statements you'd like to stand by at this time?

[Doctor Stochastic]

And still the Creationists have offered no method to identify the virus. Pull down thy Vanity.

And still the Creationists have offered no method for a cure nor an approach to a cure. Pull down thy Vanity.

And still the Creationists only think that a "few dozen people a year" dying is not of importance. Pull down thy Vanity.

Of course a simple search would show that "few dozen" is actually around 200,000 infections per year, and the Creationists give these deaths no importance. Pull down thy Vanity.

These points should Pound home the point that Creationists are contributing nothing to medicine nor biology.

[js1138]

pounding placemarker

[gore3000]

And still the Creationists have offered no method to identify the virus. Pull down thy Vanity.

Excuse me? Numerous viruses and other diseases have been identified without thanks to evolution. For example yellow fever was identified because of the similarity of how it spread to malaria. The identification had nothing to do with evolution and it has done nothing for humanity. The challenge was what has the 'science' of evolution done for humanity - we still have heard nothing.

However, that science itself has done much for humanity there can be no doubt and guess what, many of those people were Christians and were imbued with a belief in a Creator and they did good work for science and for humanity. The same cannot be said for evolution.

As to the charge that I care nothing about the deaths of people you have it as usual backwards. It was your buddy Junior who said:

First, who cares if there is no cure for the hanta virus?
Post# 403.

It is you and your evolutionist friends that do not care for life, not me and those against the philosophy espoused by the mass murderers of the 20th century.

As I showed with Junior, your proof of evolution follows the same methodology - insults, doubletalk and lies.

[general_re]

As to the charge that I care nothing about the deaths of people you have it as usual backwards. It was your buddy Junior who said:

First, who cares if there is no cure for the hanta virus? Post# 403.

It is you and your evolutionist friends that do not care for life, not me and those against the philosophy espoused by the mass murderers of the 20th century.

Even for you, this is an unusually disgusting misrepresentation. Every time I think you can't possibly sink any lower, you prove me wrong.

So the only question now is whether you're aware that you're misrepresenting Junior's post, and therefore a bald-faced liar, or whether you're not aware of your misrepresentation, and therefore a plain old idiot.

Go on, ask me to back it up. Fool.

[general_re]

696.

[AndrewC]

Life on this earth formed through a process of Abiogenesis.
All life on this Earth is descended from that group of molecules that began replicating so long ago.

Could you show me that preponderance of evidence for these two assertions?

[bondserv]

The Kaibab uplift is 6000 ft. = Initial Water Course.

The base of the Grand Canyon is 1800 ft. = Modern Water Course.

Check out the aerial pictures of the snow-capped Kaibab uplift. Which by the way wasn't a result of earthquake uplift after the water rush off, because the canyon would have been destroyed.

And remember also that the sediments would be under an ocean of water for over a year. I wonder what kind of volcanic activeity that would trigger?