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.
Where is the evidence Vade? Where is it? A few bones carefully selected from hundreds of millions of bones and carefully arranged to tell the story you wish are not evidence of species transforming themselves into totally new more complex species.
Theories are never "proved". Theories never become facts. Demands of "proof" are a dead giveaway of someone who doesn't understand the fundamental nature of science.
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?
A second giveaway of profound Young-Earth-Creationist-type ignorance is the utterly wrong assumption that abiogenesis has anything whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. It doesn't. And look it up for yourself - we'll all wait.
So, as you say, "Put up or shut up".
Well, well, you must really feel happy about now. If ignorance is bliss, you must be living in ecstasy.
Care to try again?
Aaah, when put in a corner the evolutionists bring out the garbage blog from TalkOrigins which has been debunked in detail here some two years ago and the poster finally gave up before it got to the end because the evolutionists were taking such a beating. There is a detailed refutation of it A Critique of 29 Evidences for Macroevolution . You do not even give the title of the paper by the nobody Theobald because it has been so thoroughly debunked. Here's some of the garbage given as 'evidence' for macroevolution:
There are countless examples of paralogy in living and extinct species – the same bones in the same relative positions are used in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, pterosaur wings, whale and penguin flippers, horse legs, the digging forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs. All of these characters have similar structures that perform various different functions. The standard phylogenetic tree shows why these species have these same structures, i.e. they have common ancestors that had these structures.
So the proof is (after cutting through the bull) that a tree constructed of similarities in shape, prove that there are similarities in shape amongst organisms which have been organized according to similarities in shape!
Of course every doubletalk by evolutionists is designed to cover up a big problem with the theory. For example let's take bats. True, there are some similarities in structure between bat wings and arms but this does not explain the tremendous changes that had to occur for bats to arise. They need different muscles for one thing, they need to change the shape of their arms, they of course needed to develop a fantastic sonar system to feed themselves. All these were needed to make bat flight a viable way of life for bats but how all these arose - while at the same time making them more viable at each step is what the evolutionists try to hide with this nonsense 'parology' stuff.
Yes well luckily for us there are a whole host of skeletal features peculiar to mammals that allow us to determine whether a fossil was mammalian or not.
False. Actually Natural History Museum gives as the characteristics of mammals: milk production, hair or fur, warm bloodedness, and live birth. None of these can be normally determined from fossils. In addition if we did not have live specimens we would not know that the above definition is false. The platypus is a mammal and produces milk and has mammary glands but it lays eggs. So no, fossils cannot give us evidence that an animal is a mammal. While it may be true that all mammals living have three earbones and this can be found in fossils, there is no NECESSARY CONNECTION between it and mammary glands. Further, such a feature cannot show us how the various unique features of mammals developed in a gradual manner as evolution postulates. So basically your post is totally false and just a bunch of rhetorical nonsense.
Oh yes, the evos always have some new insults to entertain us and numerous different ways of repeating the mantra 'evolution' is science while never providing any facts to back it up.
1. Observation
That didn't take long. No need for four steps, no need for one step. Evolution falls flat on it's face with the FIRST WORD!
Abiogenesis has never been observed (because it is impossible!).
No transition has ever been *observed*, they are only speculated.
No new information required for evolution has ever been observed to take place genetically.
Obviously, the 4 1/2 billion years the earth is supposed to have existed have been unobserved.
No creature has ever been observed evolving into another kind of creature.
When we deal with actual *science*, like the evolutionist appealed to (boy, was that a mistake), evolution is shown to be a religious faith requiring greater faith than the Genesis creation account requires.
I just provided you with a text book explanation of Scientific Method. You are trying to get us to believe that your version of fantasy science somehow trumps the accepted method used since Roger Bacon.
Scientific theories, if they are in fact scientific, they should be demonstrable by some means, otherwise they must be "modified or rejected". However special dispensation for TOE must be given as there is no consensus as to what it is and by your special needs method of science, how can anyone disprove what has yet to be clearly asserted? As soon as a particular tenet of TOE is disproved the proponents simply say well that's not part of the TOE we have this new improved TOE. So as you have now so clearly pointed out, TOE is nothing but idea yet to proved.
Still we are all waiting to hear just how life got here in the first place. Surely you must know. Don't be shy. Regards,
Boiler Plate
If you were an honest person, you would have pinged me on this to give me an opportunity to respond, but then you are not an honest person.
There are quite a few things which have gone totally unrefuted such as my statement that evolution has done nothing to help humanity. This is the first thread on which I have posed that question and all it has received is your lame answer about connections with other species making it able to identify it - as if scientists had not been observing similarities between species and learning from them for thousands of years before Darwin.
Further, to even mention something so lame as a scientific achievement after some 150 years of evolutionary theory is completely pitiful. Just take two examples: Pasteur discovering pasteurization (totally against evolutionary principles since he was led to the discovery after showing that the materialistic/atheistic/evolutionist spontaneous generation theory was false) has saved uncounted millions of human lives. Edgar Jenner's discovery of vaccination (showing the adaptability of species without the need of mutation) has certainly saved hundreds of millions of lives. They did real science which had nothing to do with evolution. They did real good work for humanity something which evolution has not done.
BTW - this is a public forum, the challenge has been up for hundreds of posts and while there have been numerous evolutionists that have shown that they have read the challenge by hurling insults, not a single one has been able to give a decent example of how evolution has helped humanity.
Continued with the lame attack against me. In this thread you have nothing which I have said. Your friends have done nothing but hurl insults. Insults are not a refutation, facts are refutations, and you resort to insults because you are a sore loser and cannot deny the facts presented to you showing evidence against evolution.
While you and your friends claim that you have refuted my statements numerous times, every time I bring something new, you always say that I have been refuted in some unmentioned thread and of course you and your friends gave such a devastating refutation that none of you can even remember it. You therefore go through hundreds of posts just insulting.
Well your insults and those of your friends prove only one thing: you cannot refute my statements. They prove one thing: I am telling the truth and you are lying. For example in this thread there is numerous statements by me showing tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution . Let's see you show us all which of those statements have been refuted. It was a long thread of some 1,000 posts so you all had plenty of chance for refuting them. Let's see the refutations.
I agree with you that this is a time to stand together; therefore, I will try not to cause any discord. Hugs!
Actually I did, but it did not address my point. The rest of it can be summarized by the following sentence:
Reptiles could entirely avoid places where amphibians ruled.
True, but that does not mean that they did not exert pressure on amphibians which is the point. A new species does exert pressure on older species and evolutionists include this as a central part of the theory of evolution called 'the struggle for life'. Further, these new species have to come from somewhere. Since mutations occur in organisms, not species, for them to spread they need to take over a large amount of the species in which they occurred. In addition, the basic claim by evolutionists for the transformation of species is necessity. If there was necessity for some to transform themselves, why was there no necessity for others? This is a central contradiction in evolutionary theory and an example of if it happens it is evolution, if it does not it is evolution also. In a few cases, legitimate reasons might be found, but not in millions of cases where this has happened. However, my main point is how can there be such necessity to change and we still have species, such as frogs that remain unchanged after some 200 million years? Mutations happen all the time and environment changes all the time. Clearly if evolution were true such stasis would be impossible.
Yes it is. Abiogenesis is the central point of atheism and materialism. Evolution is both atheistic and materialistic. If both fall evolution falls because evolution denies that God has had any hand in the creation of new species including man. If there is a Creator, there is no reason to accept the convoluted explanations of evolutionists.
Evolution is NOT random.
Yes, it is. The central claim of modern evolution theory is that it is powered by random mutations. The older version also proposed randomness as the source of new variations.
noone is suggesting they spontaneiously generated way back when.
I will accept the above as a concession that abiogenesis is impossible. If life cannot arise spontaneously from random matter then that denies abiogenesis. (unless you are willing to admit that God was the source of first life - which is what the opponents of abiogenesis - and almost all scientists admit nowadays).
Really? Where is the part of the article proving it wrong? Care to post it? Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation was false. Thomas Huxley was forced to write off abiogenesis from the theory of evolution because of Pasteur's proof. So yes, Pasteur's experiment is a great part of the proof against abiogenesis. However, we have received much more proof since then which I detailed in my post and which none of you, in spite of having posted that proof against abiogenesis almost a year ago, have been able to refute. Since I know you folks are very lame, here is a link to the post# 768 and the rest of the refutation of abiogenesis which you and your friends refuse to address.
Think please understands quite well that rhetoric, which is what the above is, is not fact. He was asking for facts, for evidence, something which the evolutionists refuse to give.
Have not been following the discussion all the way so I am not sure if andrewc made that claim. Neertheless, it does not vitiate from the central point of his argument - that the number of mutations between species does not agree with the evolutionary 'tree of life'. In fact, it makes his case stronger because evolutionists do not have the excuse of saying that it would destroy functioning to change the gene and thus mutations are restricted in such a gene. In fact, evolutionists often claim that the best places to find mutations is where there is no function (or no important function) for the genes involved. So I really do not see how this (if your assertion above is correct) in any way contradicts andrew's point.
No, and you know better than that. The alternative explanation is that the Creator changed some species for his own reasons and made all the functions work well together. This is basically the claim of intelligent design - that there are too many necessary changes to make a different more complex species viable for such changes to be possible in a gradual, stochastic manner. Evolutionists speak as if all you need to have a new more complex organism is a feather here, an ear bone there, etc. Science teaches us, and has definitely proven what was long suspected, that all organisms are very intricate and very well organized systems not subject to random beneficial change. That is why there are millions of examples of deleterious mutations and no examples of helpful mutations.
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?
You were absolutely correct - no truce, no compromise, no abatement of the battle with the ignorant can be useful to a modern society. But, on an individual basis, until they take their own first step into rationality, they can't be helped.
"wildly elliptical" planetary orbit, "a circle is not an ellipse," "infrared light causes sunburn," "1720" placemarker
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.