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.
To be clear it is the Darwininians that demonstrate the attitudes listed. Dr. Shapiro is an evolutionist whose attitude is not of those listed.
There is no guarantee that "science" will go from wrong to right as it "self-corrects." Like a monkey swinging throug the trees, it goes from wrong to wrong to wrong.
If science is truly self-correcting, why is the Haekel homology stuff still in the texts? Why the horse evolution? Why the walking whales? Why the vestigal appendix and coccyx? The self-correcting aspect of (evolutionary) "science" shows itself only when convenient.
The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov
Posted by balrog666 to Rachumlakenschlaff
On News/Activism 03/10/2003 3:22 PM PST #1,588 of 1,718
Yes it is a brave new world in science as "Scientific Method" has been replaced by "Scientific Fantasy".
Her half-deaf, spinsterly media analyst Emily Litella ended her tangents with "Oh. Never mind", while Geek Queen Lisa Lupner coined "That was so funny I almost forgot to laugh" while suffering the wrath of Murray's "Noogie Patrol". Her fright-wigged, heavily accented newscaster Roseanne Rosanna-Danna used the late Herman Radner's favorite catch-phrase, "It just goes to show you, it's always something".Gilda Radner (1946 - 1989).
God bless America, God bless you all.
Andy
Yes it is a brave new world in science as "Scientific Method" has been replaced by "Scientific Fantasy".
Put up or shut up. Where has the TOE been falsified?
Show us all that you don't live in some fantasy world yourself.
We cannot suspend reality, nor will I withhold my belief in it, nor my defense of it, nor will I ever make any truce with any delusional belief systems. Isn't that what this war is all about?
The real difference here is probably smaller than the apparent vast gulf. We're all going to be very distracted with other stories, other threads, over the next hope-it's-not-very-long. Let us hope that the crevo action will be light-to-nil for the duration.
I will play defense (do nothing to start up the action) over said duration. (OK, not a big shift as I haven't started a thread in forever.) Nevertheless I share PH's intolerance for misrepresentation or fantasy masquerading as science and will respond to provocatively fraudulent posts where noted.
Fair enough. Vigorous defense. Eternal vigilence. We will be busy enough elsewhere that we don't need to be provocative, but reason can't afford to sleep.
God bless you, Andy
Appeasement placemarker
verifiable observation = fact;-ph-
More of the usual nonsense from evolutionists. They can go for hundreds of posts about semantics, but they cannot post ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC FACT PROVING EVOLUTION. I have been trying throught this thread (and many others) to have evolutionists back up their statement that evolution is a fact, that evolution is science but all they can do is repeat the mantra, indulge in semantics, and insult those who disagree with them.
If you want to have some fun, ask them to define evolution. They will go into conniptions before they answer you. They will also give you a dozen different answers in order to cover all the bases. In fact they are so dishonest, and so unwilling to be nailed down on a definition that when I post Darwin's definition of evolution they insult me! Here it is:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Of course since there is no stated theory of evolution, it is impossible for it to be a scientific fact. You need a theory before you can have proof of it!
That's the garbage science that evolutionist/materialist/atheists try to get away with. What you are talking about is just a chemical chain reaction. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis. The problem of postulating abiogenesis through chemistry is twofold:
1. there is absolutely no bonds linearly among the DNA bases, so there can be no chemical explanation for it.
2. the sequence is clearly determined by function and the variety of possibilities is well nigh infinite. Your examples show a chemical reaction leading only to the same thing over and over. DNA to be useful has to be almost infinitely variable - as indeed it is.
Did you not get out of grade school yet?
In case you didn't, "Scientific Method" requires you to prove the big "TOE" through expirementation.
This was taken from a grade school curriculum in case you missed it.
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Here is the URL in case you would like to study up.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
The last sentence explains why you silly notion that I have to disprove TOE is a canard. You have failed the most fundamental elementary part of science. You have to prove your theory true. I do not have to prove it false.
So if you would like to continue to suggest that TOE is valid and true, please provide that time and place of the first succesful abiogenesis experiment and what life form was created in that near famous moment?
So, as you say, "Put up or shut up".
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate
At last, a true statement from Vade! Problem is though that even though we have 100 times more fossils than in Darwin's day, the gaps - where the biggest transitions supposedly occurred have in no way been filled.
Evolution being gradual, the greatest evidence should come where the biggest transitions have occurred. The biggest and most important transition - from reptiles to mammals - there is absolutely no evidence for. The supposed descent of man from monkeys has been forcibly revised and pushed back to times where there is no evidence with each new discovery. Evolutionists complain that their opponents make much of the gaps, however it is the evolutionists who try to fill the gaps with rhetoric instead of facts and exploit the gaps as evidence for their theory! They also indulge in a tremendous amount of double talk postulating (often in the same paragraph) that the fossils prove evolution and that they have not found yet the fossils which prove evolution.
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.