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.
What you fail to point out is how only the TOE could provide us with knowledge of phylogenetics.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Nowhere does Popper makes such a constraint. His falsification principle applies to ALL theories worthy of being called scientific.
Popper's assertion is to provide for undiscovered effects.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Einstein’s General Theory was not based upon observations but upon other scientific theories and discoveries.
The impetus for the theory was, among other things, the inability of Newton's Theory to correctly predict the OBSERVED precession of the parahelion of Mercury. The list of OBSERVED phenomona incorrectly predicted by Newton's Theory were the grist for Einstein's General Theory; not that it is relevant to the discussion at hand.
As the article you posted points out, one of the predictions in Einstein’s General Theory was eventually born out in with light be bent by heavenly bodies in a measurable way.
Which, as Popper points out, doesn't PROVE Einstein's theory is correct. But as an attempted falsification that failed, it does give us greater confidence that Einstein's Theory might well be right. But the observation DID disprove Newton's Theory, because Newton's Theory said that the light shouldn't be bent at all.
To say TOE needs to be disproved because it cannot be proved by experimentation is completely ignoring all the scientific attempts that have taken place to prove it.
Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
All theories that wish to be considered scientific need, as per Popper, to make specific testable predictions which form the basis of potential falsifications for the theory. Therefore, for the TOE, or any other theory, to be deemed scientific, it needs to be falsifiable. Since it is possible to derive specific predictions from the TOE about certain things that we should, or should NOT, find in the fossil record, for example, it is potentially falsifiable e.g., finding Mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian strata would be a classic falsification for TOE.
Just because TOE does not enjoy the benefit of its predictions being born out, does not exclude it from it needing to be proved.
You clearly have failed to comprehend what Popper is saying. Repeat after me: No scientific theory is EVER proved, nor can it be. It is the nature of induction; one cannot be absolutely sure the conclusions reached by induction are correct, and all finite attempts to "prove" a theory result in induction. What Popper was trying to solve was the problem that looking for experiments and observations that tend to support a theory and relying on it as a basis of "proving" your theory right is doomed to failure, because it is inherently inductive, and therefore logically unreliable as a method of proof. So he instead recasts the problem in a manner that allows conclusions to be reached by deductive falsification. In doing so he gives up any pretense of ever proving a theory is "right" (because it is unattainable anyway). Science makes progress toward better and better theories by using a rigorous method to weed out defective theories. To do so, Popper says we must try to prove our theory WRONG, not try to prove it right. We thereby gain confidence that theories that resist multiple attempted falsifications might be "correct" (but we can never be sure.)
It is quite the other way around, since it has failed to provide any meaningful predictions it should be treated even more skeptically.
If this were true, then how do you explain why Popper personally stated that he thought Evolution was falsifiable, and hence, scientific?
As best as I can tell from your post, you completely misunderstand what Popper is saying.
As an example of creationist thinking in regards to relatedness, do you remember several years ago a doctor at Loma Linda Medical School transplanted a baboon heart into a person? Seems the doctor was a Seventh Day Adventist and a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. He rejected the concept of relatedness among species (or that man would ever be related to anything like an animal). His patient died.
Now, who's theory has the more practical application?
Apparently, that genius Chuck Missler supercedes just about everybody, although most of the supercedees don't know it yet.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! Maybe BP is Missler - that would explain his hardheaded rejection of all things scientific.
I looked at some of those links. I share your opinion.
Sorry, but I really found nothing different between this guy and a hundred other creation scientists I've read about. A lot of the same arguments we've heard a hundred times on these threads, and the same sort of pseudo-science. He is making the same mistake of twisting evidence to suit his ends.
I appreciate your efforts, but you were doing much better when you were sticking to a faith-based argument. When you try to use scientific arguments, they are all too often based on misuderstandings and misconceptions about science. Dataman and the rest keep making the same mistakes over and over again and do not seem to realise that they are not arguing against science, but a strawman version of it they've set up. I am tired of trying to explain it to them.
Then it must be true.
Baby Fae was not the first to receive a baboon heart nor is her case the last we will see of Xenotransplantation. This is from agbiotech.net.
"Xenotransplantation refers to the use of animal organs for human organ transplantation. This procedure is being investigated by scientists due to the world-wide shortages of donated human organs for transplant.
The first attempts to use animal organs for human transplant took place in the 1960s when chimpanzee hearts and livers were used. The patients did not survive for very long due to problems of immune rejection.
The advent of ciclosporin, an immunosuppressant drug, led to renewed hopes for xenotransplantation. In 1977, a woman received a baboon heart transplant in South Africa. Circulation was established but acute rejection began after only six hours. The same group later used a chimpanzee heart to assist the heart of a 60-year-old man. Despite the use of high doses of immunosuppressant drugs, the patient died after four days. In 1984, a newborn baby, Fae, received a baboon heart in California, USA. She survived for 20 days.
More recent research into xenotransplantation has concentrated on the use of pigs rather than primates as a source of organs. Pigs are cheap, plentiful, easy to breed and have similar sized organs to man. Apart from the many ethical considerations, the possibility of introducing pig viruses into the human population via organ recipients has been suggested as a reason not to perform such transplants.
Recent developments in pig cloning and gene targeting may enable the production of genetically altered pigs that do not cause the same problems of immune rejection. The breeding or engineering of disease-free pigs could also offer a possible solution to the risk of endogenous pig viruses.
Several biotechnology companies are now involved in xenotransplantation research."
The thing about xenotransplantation in terms of whole organs is that it has never worked from any species to another, yet they keep trying. There are other cases of baboon to human xenotransplantation that took place at Univ. of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh surgeon Thomas Starzl has twice attempted to transplant baboon livers into human patients with collapsing liver function. Both of those patients died as well.
The point is Dr. Bailey did not come up with the concept and other than his being a Seventh Day Adventist I don't know of any quotes implying that it was because of his creationist beliefs that he attempted the transplant. Unless you have a reference and a quote from him it is probably an urban legend.
Personally from a biblical standpoint xenotransplantation would be out of line as genesis point out that the all the creatures were created after there own kind. Because of that I always thought Dr. Bailey was an evolutionist.
Xenotransplantation is being touted as the wave of the future by its promoters. I am curious as to what you think of it. So far it has limited success, but it seems as though transgenetics is going to be a hugely researched field in the future. If for no other reason the financial rewards in the medical field would be enormous. Who knows in 20 years Dr. Bailey may be hailed as pioneer, instead of a goat.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
I pray that you have not chosen to close your mind to a different take on the evidence. There are many new articles posted by recent scientific discoveries in the links I provided. Also I included a link with a comprehensive compilation of the modern archeological discoveries related to biblical authenticity (accurate historicity) that your friends may not include in their studies.
We also tire of the scientific obscurity that continues to be presented by your perspective. i.e. We used to believe this, now we believe this, no wait now we believe this, or maybe it is that. Reviewing this thread I have seen NO logical information piecing together the evidence that supports evolution. Please point me to posts that you feel attempt to do this.
The links I provided contain hundreds of links to information that systematically refutes the logic used for the theory of evolution. Maybe you should first check what your opposition says before you cast it off as illegitimate. I am confident you haven't pursued a thorough investigation of support for Intelligent Design.
These links are provided for those who "have ears to hear", which I pray includes you.
Yesss! I always said it's angels pushing the planets around. Now we know for sure.
Heck, just why hasn't this guy won a Nobel prize yet?
Since you insist, I must ever-so reluctantly report that my only published work is
If you're going to trumpet that Missler has published more about science than I have, you're right. He's apparently been flat-out grade-school-level wrong in most of it, however.
It can't be repeated often enough.
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.