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.

[gomaaa]

gomaaa--Please read the rest of my post.

gore3000--Actually I did, but it did not address my point.

Okay, let's look at the original post:

Your position is characteristic of a VERY common misconception about the way evolution works. New species do not completely replace old species unless there is direct competition between them. Amphibians occupied a specific niche in the ancient ecosystem. They could move about on land and thus avoid competition from fish and other water-based organisms. Reptiles had traits that made them even less dependent on water and thus could occupy a NEW niche in the ecosystem. They DID NOT replace amphibians. They didn't have to. Reptiles could entirely avoid places where amphibians ruled. That's why the traits that define reptiles were such an advantage: scales, shelled eggs, better skeletons. Amphibians were perfectly capable of competing with speicies of fish and occupied a new enviornment from them. Reptiles occupied still another enviornment. The Nautulis(sp?) has existed relatively unchanged since it occupies a perfectly suitable little enviornmental niche all its own and nothing better has come along that directly competes with it enough to force into extinction. Reptiles did not "replace" amphibians.

Back to your point about frogs not changing. Individual speices of frogs, and there are oodles, are widely varied and have changed drastically since the first frog-like ancestor species evolved. The basic "frog format" however, is well-adapted to the conditions these species tend to occupy. Hence it is superior to other speices that might have tried to compete with it and has not died out.

I'll extrapolate on this to try and make it clear. I'm mostly doing this for HalfFull's benefit at this point. I keep making the same points and you keep doggedly ignoring them. I'm just not as fed up as PH and the rest since I just started a few weeks ago.

I think the main point of confusion here is that species evolve into new species, but whole classes do not collectively emerge from old classes. Amphibians as a whole were not challenged by reptiles, but individual species of amphibians were certainly driven extitinct. There were once large crocodile-like amphibians called Labyrinthodonts which could not compete with modern crocs. Smaller amphbians like frogs and salamanders were more than capable of competing with reptilian varities that may have occupied similar niches. There are countless examples on islands of species of birds like Darwin's finches that adapted to fill ecological niches that mammals normally inhabited, but since there were no mammals on the given island, the birds evolved to take advantage of the new opportunities those niches allowed them.

Another misconception you have is about mutations. Mutations happen all the time, in all species. Usually when you think of mutations, you expect an extra eye or leg or something. Such drastic mutations are almost ALWAYS harmful to the individual, which usually doesn't survive long enough to pass it on. Most animals without such drastic muations have smaller features that distinguish them from the rest of the herd, so to speak. There is always a distribution in size and shape among all speicies. Individual organisms are almost never identical. These small changes are mutations, just not the huge drastic ones you are thinking of. If the climate in a region changes such that it is suddenly (over thousands of years) colder on average, this will make it harder for, say, smaller members of a species to survive since they have trouble dealing with harsh winters. Over time, this shifts the original size distribution of a species to the larger end. After many generations and changes due to other enviornmental changes, the new speices may bear little or no resemblance to the original. If the enviornment is differnet in two far-flung regions, members of one species in the two areas will adjust to it's new surroundings, occupy a new enviornmental niche, and eventually lose the genetic ability to breed with those that occupied the original range of the species, thus creating a new species from another without the first needing to change much at all, seeing as how it remains unchallenged in its original niche.

I'd also like to reiterate that frogs HAVE changed a lot. The overal class is remarkably similar to the primitive forbears, but there have been changes and new varieties through the generations.

[f.Christian]

... Part2 (( link )) !

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'd also like to reiterate that frogs HAVE changed a lot. The overal class is remarkably similar to the primitive forbears, but there have been changes and new varieties through the generations.

Before the Creationists misquote you, I would like to point out that nowhere are you claiming that frongs descended from bears.

[gomaaa]

Before the Creationists misquote you, I would like to point out that nowhere are you claiming that frongs descended from bears.

Hah! :)

[Boiler Plate]

Yes, the burden of proof is on the new idea (evo) and the more elaborate explanation (evo). It makes sense that the theory necessarily must evolve into a fact to silence those who demand proof. I thought facts needed proof but I guess they don't.

BR is now arguing with the science text books. His greatest defense of evoultion is by using semantics and plays on words. Somehow he believes that if evolution is a theory it doesn't need to be proved. If that were true, then what is all the lab equipment for in schools and research facilities. NIH could be reduced to office space and they could just hand out theoretical cures to all the patients. The patients would have to be better so long as no one proved the theoretical drugs to be false. Truly a brave new world.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[balrog666]

Rather than reinvent the wheel one more time, I'll just throw in a recent informative post on the subject at hand from the inimitable longshadow.

Which is more likely to be able to provide an accurate description of what a scientific theory is: your grade school textbook or Sir Karl Popper?

What Makes A Theory Scientific?

"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves." - physicist Richard Feynman

The big question about a theory is whether it's right or wrong.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to know that a scientific theory is right. The theory may agree beautifully with all the evidence - today. But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.

So, we go for the next best thing, which is proving theories wrong. That's easy. You just find some evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The theory is then falsified and stays that way.

So, a scientific theory is one which can in principle be falsified. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is unfalsifiable. That's bad.

It's bad for three very practical reasons. First, a theory which can't make predictions is a dead end. Second, it would be useless. Oil companies are very pleased that geologists can predict where to drill for oil. And third, if we have two rival theories, we want to use evidence to choose between them. If they are unfalsifiable, then evidence doesn't do that for us.

While no number of observations in conformity with the hypothesis that, say, all planets have elliptical orbits can show that the hypothesis is true or even that tomorrow's planet will have an elliptical orbit, only one observation of a non-elliptical planetary orbit will refute the hypothesis. Falsification can get a grip where positive proof is ever beyond us; the demarcation between science and non-science lies in the manner in which scientific theories make testable predictions and are given up when they fail their tests. See http://www.xrefer.com/entry/553218

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994)

The most important philosopher of science since Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Sir Karl Popper finally solved the puzzle of scientific method, which in practice had never seemed to conform to the principles or logic described by Bacon. Instead of scientific knowledge being discovered and verified by way of inductive generalizations, leaping from data into blank minds, in terms that go back to Aristotle, Popper realized that science advances instead by deductive falsification through a process of "conjectures and refutations." See http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm

See source: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/falsification.html

Notice that NOWHERE in Popper's comments on scientific theories does he use the word "EXPERIMENT". He uses the words "falsifiability" and "testability," and throughout his writings refers to scientific theories that are capable of refutation by OBSERVATION. I trust this puts an end to your mistaken belief that theories that do not involve experimental reproduction of the phenomena within their scope are somehow not "scientific."

1603 posted on 03/10/2003 8:42 PM CST by longshadow

____________________________________________________

Note: I did change the first line slightly and added "See" where appropriate. My thanks to longshadow for posting the original version!

[Dataman]

BR is now arguing with the science text books. His greatest defense of evoultion is by using semantics and plays on words.

<Truly a brave new world

The phenomenon is called Postmodernism. The truth does not exist objectively outside our minds, but is what you imagine it to be. As a rule, postmodernists are unteachable. It takes a personal crisis for them to reject their self-refuting worldview. Not ALL evos are embrace postmodernism, but quite a few on FR seem to.

[Junior]

LBB's claimed that humans descended from mice, so he's bound to misunderstand the above, too.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Postmodernism is identical to Creationism. Both have at their heart and soul the denial of scientific inquiry as a method of gaining knowledge and the elevation of their "feelings" to a superior status. The Creationists claim that their religious feelings are superior to any scientific claim.

[Boiler Plate]

Balrog,

You are using an example of theories that can be used to provide prdictions that are provable.

First, a theory which can't make predictions is a dead end. Second, it would be useless. Oil companies are very pleased that geologists can predict where to drill for oil. And third, if we have two rival theories, we want to use evidence to choose between them. If they are unfalsifiable, then evidence doesn't do that for us.

As pointed out in your example the geologists eventually find oil. You however only use this definition to hide the fact that you haven't found anything. Nice try, but the onus is still on you to prove something.

So as you say "Put up or shut up".

Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Nataku X]

Chuck Colson reader, I take it? I've been reading Breakpoint since I was ten.

[Dataman]

Postmodernism is identical to Creationism.

Postmodernism has more in common with eastern religion and evolution.

Both have at their heart and soul the denial of scientific inquiry as a method of gaining knowledge and the elevation of their "feelings" to a superior status.

Just like Isaac Newton, the creationist, denied scientific inquiry? Evolutionism does more damage to the credibility of science and, as a matter of interest, began the rise in popular thought about the same time empiricism was collapsing.

The Creationists claim that their religious feelings are superior to any scientific claim.

They make no such claim. They don't elevate "scientific" claims to the point where they swallow every pigs tooth, manufactured fossil and science fiction story that comes along.

If anything was demonstrated at the Scopes trial, it was that evolutionists will claim any hoax is true, including Nebraska Man, so long as it supports their end. That sounds pretty postmodern to me.

[Dataman]

Chuck Colson reader, I take it? I've been reading Breakpoint since I was ten.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[Nataku X]

Alright, you don't read Chuck Colson, he talks about postmodernism a lot.

Can I have a serious answer here please--if postmodernism means accepting all cultures/religions as morally equivalent (or not assigning a morality value to any one culture), then how can evolutionists embrace both postmodernism and racism?

[Dataman]

Can I have a serious answer here please--if postmodernism means accepting all cultures/religions as morally equivalent (or not assigning a morality value to any one culture), then how can evolutionists embrace both postmodernism and racism?

The two dominant characteristics of postmodern thought are the ability to hold contradictory positions at the same time and hold that truth is something manufactured in the mind. Postmodernist multicultural values are lip service only, since they include self-refuting statements like "There is no absolute truth" and "All worldviews are morally equal."

[Junior]

Just like Isaac Newton, the creationist, denied scientific inquiry?

Isaac Newton lived 200 years before the Theory of Evolution was postulated. Your comment is a little disengenuous.

[Dataman]

Isaac Newton lived 200 years before the Theory of Evolution was postulated. Your comment is a little disengenuous.

Wrong on multiple counts. Junior, you don't even know your own theory. DARWINIAN evolution was introduced later but not evolution. Newton was, nonetheless, a creationist. The good Dr. claimed creationists were postmodernists. If you go back and read the post, you'll see that exactly when Darwin lived is irrelevant.

Are you blushing yet?

[Con X-Poser]

<< Hitler was actually a creationist: >>

Some creationist!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0501lead.asp

Hitler’s T4 program of lethal injections removed harmful mutations from the human gene pool. And Hitler saw that 70,000 mentally and physically handicapped (many of them children) were a genetic drain on life. In the natural world they would not survive—‘Mother Nature’ would soon discover them and remove their negative effects from the gene pool. He was horrified that if well-intentioned people interfered, the weak would live artificially, and breed with those of ‘good genetic stock’ and thus pollute the entire gene pool.

Many thousands of henchmen were involved in the mass exterminations. Millions of ordinary Germans had been seduced by evolution-based propaganda films into accepting the elimination of the mentally handicapped and incurably ill as ‘normal.’ The pre-war Nazi ‘racial hygiene’ programs, the precursors to the Holocaust, were praised by many leading American scientists as ‘scientifically enlightened.’

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4162.asp

Nazi governmental policy was openly influenced by Darwinism, the Zeitgeist of both science and educated society of the time. This can be evaluated by an examination of extant documents, writings, and artefacts produced by Germany’s twentieth century Nazi movement and its many scientist supporters. Keith concluded the Nazi treatment of Jews and other ‘races’, then believed ‘inferior’, was largely a result of their belief that Darwinism provided profound insight that could be used to significantly improve humankind. Tenenbaum noted that the political philosophy of Germany was built on the belief that critical for evolutionary progress were:

‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’

As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf that Darwinism was the only basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work — in English My Struggle — alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:

‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf -and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’

And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:

‘ … was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’

As Humber notes, Hitler believed that Blacks were ‘monstrosities halfway between man and ape’ and therefore he disapproved of German Christians:

‘ … going to “Central Africa” to set up “Negro missions,” resulting in the turning of “healthy … human beings into a rotten brood of bastards.” In his chapter entitled “Nation and Race,” he said, “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” A few pages later, he said, “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”.

[Junior]

Sorry. The concept of evolution hadn't even reared its head in the 17th century. Geologists didn't start questioning the Biblical account until the late 18th century as the science became more formalized and it became evident the Earth was a lot older than the Bible allowed. In other words, there would be no reason from Newton to even have questioned Biblical creation.

[Junior]

I did find a lovely site on Newton and the Bible.  Evidently, he was a Unitarian ...