Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs

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

[ml/nj]

But to reject evolution as a principle is just laughable.

I always wonder what sort of scientific credentials people have who make silly statements such as this. (FTR the record I have Math degrees, and high test scores.)

Now that I am over 50, it has become my habit to visit a couple of major universities on an annual basis; and to prepare for an sit in on lots of classes for a few days each visit. This past fall I sat in on an Evolution class. After the class I had a discussion with the professor, and he had no answer for my questions. (You should have seen the expression on the face of the student who listened to our conversation!) Anyone who doesn't acknowledge huge problems with Darwinian evolution is either being simplistic or dishonest.

ML/NJ

[longshadow]

Gaseous placemarker.....

[ml/nj]

ROFLMAO ... Chemistry is central to everything that exists...even physics uses chemistry.

Well after you get your a$$ up off the floor and calm down, maybe you could reread what I wrote. I never suggested that other disciplines ignored chemistry, and I don't think that evolutionists intentionally ignore biology. But evolution isn't biology.

And tell me: how is chemistry central to mathematics?

ML/NJ

[Varda]

"The thing that really bothers me about the creationist bunch is that their purpose seems to be to disprove evolution, rather than develop affirmative evidence of something else.

Too bad. I see this in the end hurting people of faith, not helping."

I agree, there is nothing in science that can be against God. Truth cannot contradict truth.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Actually, isn't it the other way? Math being the language of chemistry? Maybe the statement should have been Math is central to everything.

[fr_freak]

Sure. Look at the last word in the sentence. It is no part of the theory of evolution to postulate how living cells came about. Evolution simply describes how living cells evolved after they arose. There are theories which postulate how cells arose, but they're at the moment highly speculative, with no substantial experimental or observational data.

Fair enough. But consider this: following the theory of evolution backwards, one must necessarily arrive at the existence of a first organism. Since Evolution, when not coupled with intelligent design as some do, promotes the idea of random changes (mutations) causing eventual macroscopic changes in an entire species, then it would also have to promote the notion that a random chain of events created the first organism (spontaneous generation). That MUST be part of the theory. It would be silly for a proponent of evolution to say that the first organism was created by an intelligence, but then all of the subsequent occurrences were random, devoid of intelligent influence. Therefore, while modern evolutionary theory may not explicitly include the concept of spontaneous generation, it is an implied and necessary part of the theory, unless you couple it with intelligent design.

[jackbill]

I wouldn't want a department chair who didn't believe the laws of thermodynamics.

Would you agree that there is a bit of difference between the LAWS of thermodynamics and the THEORY of evolution?

[PatrickHenry]

[Groan.] It never ends, does it?

[Aracelis]

Snip:But evolution isn't biology.

Snip:how is chemistry central to mathematics?

Aside from the obvious, that there are mathematical relationships between all things that interact, I can't possibly answer you, I'm too busy laughing. Perhaps our resident mathematician would care to take a stab at this...unless of course he too is overcome with hysterics.

[Boiler Plate]

Absolutely correct. Irrespective of my devotion to God, the preponderance of evidence is in the evolutionists favor. Given that, this department chair should be a scientist or mathematician familiar with the concept of scientific research, and as ID and Creationism don't seem to be founded on those principals, her removal as chair is justified. Lee,

What "Preponderance of Evidence" would you be alluding to? The fact that there are no transitional species? The fact that nearly 100% of all mutations are detrimental? The effects of entropy?

You make a outrageous claim like that and then go on a tear of all those who differ with you.

You make some pretty huge assumptions on what this Professor knows or doesn't know about science and scientific method. A person you know nothing about but what you read in the article and the bias it contains. Still you have no problem calling for her head and besmerching anyone else who might also know that evolution is a nowhere near being a fact.

Still being as learned as you are about evolution then you are aware of Ernst Mayr's statement that

"evolution is a historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniqes" to explain it.

Sounds like religion to me, but for the countless fools who adhere to it, opposition to evolution is heresy of the highest order.

I do like how you bridge the begining of life problem by giving God the credit for that, but then you toss out the rest of the Bible you claim to believe. Nice try, but let's see how scientific you are. Please let us in on the mountains of evidence for the evolution of flight. Remember use your own words and be specific.

Good luck and God bless.

Respectful Regards
Boiler Plate

[LeeMcCoy]

"You make a outrageous claim like that and then go on a tear of all those who differ with you."

"Still you have no problem calling for her head and besmerching anyone else..."

I have done nothing of the kind, but obviously the knee-jerk (emphasis on "jerk") response of Creationism is alive and well.

"Please let us in on the mountains of evidence for the evolution of flight. Remember use your own words and be specific".

It is not me but thee who is full of rancor and hatred. You are comfortable in your ignorance and I will not disturb the sound slumber of your neurons. Creationists have demonstrated time after time on these threads that they refuse to consider the evidence, therefore, go in peace. We can debate this ad infinitum at the Savior's feet...after He tells you He followed all His own laws during the creation of the Universe...oh, except for Earth. On that planet, His laws never applied. Thorium and rubidium have half-lives of 3 days, yet are constructed so as to fool all the scientists. And He created fossils on a whim after a long day of dotting the stars about the night sky just so we would have something pretty to look at. Nevermind functionality, He did it all just for us, just so He could trap thousands of individuals and condemn them to the fires of Hell for having the audacity to believe the Earth was more than 10,000 years old. Creationism is a point of Salvation, evidently. Well you have to believe Jesus died for your sins, but more importantly you have to believe God made everything in 6-24 hour periods of time. Or else. < /sarcasm>

You guys are priceless.

[Aracelis]

Careful, Lee. Your brethern sound as if they will be stoning you for heresy soon. Which is exactly why I prefer the company of atheists and agnostics - they are far more reasonable and tolerant of differing viewpoints. Good luck dealing with them, but remember, there's always a spot for you on the evolution side of the fence.

[jwalsh07]

Your brethern sound as if they will be stoning you for heresy soon

As an observer, the only stoning I've seen here is the stoning of the Professor in question absent any transcript of what she said.

Scary.

[Notwithstanding]

If evolution is the central paradigm of modern biology
then modern biology's central paradign is a wholly unproven theory.

But I do not even buy your premise, because in reality there is SOOOOOOOOO much more to modern biology than evolution. Evolution is there, but it is not at the core.

I will agree that evolution is rammed into our skulls by the scientific community whenever possible. And I will say that it seems to be a plausible way to explain somethings in natural history. But evolution clearly explains nothing about how living organisms came to be ex nihilo - and certainly nothing about how man got his extremely well-developed brain.

And then we can begin to talk about the HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE gaps in the evolutionary chain.

Evolution is far from having been proven. And I understannd that some of the evolution-based theories about what the DNA of various species will tell us when analyzed have been disproven.

TSK TSK - the more we know about evolution the more gaping holes we find.

[Notwithstanding]

Evolutionist DOGMA: a bunch of chemicals randomly assembled long long ago into a living organism that over time evolved into the myriad species that inhabit the planet - including our own species.

Is there some secret sect of evolutionists who actually believe in intelligent design as a plausible theory for the origin of life - with evolution as a coexisting theory explaining what happened afterwards?

[gore3000]

I suppose if some professor advocates the moon is green cheese theory that they should not be fired either?

That's the kind of garbage argument that evo/atheist/leftist tyrants like to make. Totally unsupported insults. Did you hear her talk? Can you discuss it? Can you refute it? Of course not, because you don't know beans. All you know how to do is to attack and insult those who disagree with your views - like the rest of the mindless, tyrannical left.

[edger]

Yeah, I know, everything is relative.

I am convinced that without language, thought is difficult to impossible. Screw up your language and you screw up your thinking. It happened to lawyers and Educators and it sounds like it is happening to you.

[gore3000]

She was (according to my reading) asked to resign as head; this is generally an administrative position

Who cares what the punishment was. She was punished for expressing her views in a forum designed to express differing views. What this shows is that this college is a total farce and that the forum was a total farce. It was there to make it seem there was free expression and free exchange of ideas when there actually was none allowed which might differ with the administration's views. This is tyranny.

BTW - before you start the garbage about 'evolution is science and all else is garbage' let's hear what the scientific proof of evolution. Let's hear how many species have been OBSERVED to transform themselves into new more complex species.

[rgboomers]

"I've heard that Darwin himself repudiated his own theory
in later years - can anyone corraborate?"

In Darwin's own book, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, he describes many of the deficiencies of his theory. Because of this, and the many discoveries since Darwin's time, it is doubtful Darwin would subscribe to his own theory in the same exact form. Scientific theories evolve, just as do species. So, how might Darwin's theory have evolved from the original of 1859?

Well, consider that some complex systems of an organism would be difficult to evolve or create one step at a time. However, this is exactly what the theory of evolution supposes. The theory of evolution postulates that as a mutation occurs that if it provides selective advantage, it becomes a part of the gene pool and proliferates. Indeed, there is absolutely no doubt this happens. This part of the theory is correct. However, what about adaptive advantages that would require multiple simutanous mutually beneficial mutations? Darwin had a problem with these himself! Why? Remember, a mutation is essentially a birth defect. How many birth defects are beneficial? How often are multiple birth defects with a mutually reinforcing purpose going to occur? Not very often, if ever, by chance that is! But, given the limited knowledge of the 1850's it still seemed it might be possible. Today it is known that the systems of living organisms are much more complex than thought earlier. That these complex systems requiring multiple changes at the same time to be created all could have evolved merely from happenstance errors which by chance were beneficial is highly unlikely. Darwin would, in my opinion, likely agree. He was very scientific and would go with what the evidence indicates.

So, how might the theory of evolution be modified to fit the problem of complex systems impossible to create with only one birth defect at a time? Why, with the theory of intelligent design, which does not deny that evolution occurs. It merely says that along the the way, there is a guiding hand.

[gore3000]

If he'd spent math class questioning fundamental postulates, he's have never

There is no fundamental truth to evolution. There is no how, there is no observation, there is not even a stable theory like in most sciences. All there is is a lot of verbiage. Evolution is not science, it is an ideology. An atheistic/materialistic ideology which like all other ideologies has to back up its tenets with force instead of facts. That is why it must tyrannize everyone that disagrees with it - because the evo emperor has no clothes and if people start saying it the whole hoax will be over and the prostitutes of evolution will be out of work.