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.

[Right Wing Professor]

Well then. Use the 'Law of Evolution' to make a prediction that is proven, and not by circular reasoning.

OK. When we sequence the genome from a clade of animals that has prevously not been sequenced, the genes from that class of organism will be most similar to the genes of animals which most recently diverged from the same line of descent, determined by non genetic evidence such as fossils, morphology, etc..

By the way, I've written similar statements in the past, and subsequent publication of gene sequences has borne out the predicition.

[VadeRetro]

Your ramble in 401 does not address the question I posed to you, that of why this earlier statement of yours is obviously true:

Of course nothing is known to a 100% certain point. This hurts the evolutionists "proofs" not mine.

You seem to be having a little trouble focusing your thoughts, so let me help you out with some suggestions.

• Maybe you have a hypocritical double standard for evidentiary basis when it comes to evolution and anything else (especially creation).
• Maybe you realize that creationism/ID makes no attempt to be useful or informative about the real world and thus no standard of intellectual rigor even applies.
• Maybe you realize that you have offered no "proofs" (your word) and thus have nothing to support.
• Maybe you realize that you don't give a hoot about science. You just don't like what your preacher doesn't like.

These are just suggestions and are not meant to restrict you from taking another try in any way you chose. I do notice a tendency for creationists to only make an empty show of addressing certain points while in fact extemporizing on semi-related or unrelated topics. This variously makes them look slippery, unfocused, addlepated ... Whatever it is, they get it a lot.

[Right Wing Professor]

But you see, you have no standing in the real world, to grade others, or determine what is or is not "fallicious nonsense".

Our board of regents, fortunately, disagrees with you.

You cannot support your assertions, (re. the theory of evolution), with rigorous science. That is indeed the crux of this discussion.

I was going to call this an attempt at proof by repeated assertion, but why mince words? It's a lie; I've done this over and over again.

You toe the "party line", (re. the theory of evolution), you have to, or you wouldn't have a job teaching.

I'm employed as a physical chemist; I could believe anything I want about evolution; it would have very little impact on most of what I teach. One of the few really good scientists the creationist crowd holds up as an evolution skeptic is in the same field as I, and I'd say most people in the field don't even know what his beliefs are. However, I am considering offering a seminar this fall titled something like 'A chemist looks at evolution'. I'm not going to spend a lot of time skewering creationist fantasies; I'm not paid to teach nonsense, even with the goal of lampooning it; but we may cover it briefly, for light relief.

So you see, this is a labor of love

[VadeRetro]

It's intellectual comments like this that gets these threads moved to the smoky backroom.

"Dimwits" was a spur-of-the-moment choice. I overdo "Luddites" and had just used up "naysaying dolt" a post or two before. I'll try to be more resourceful in the future.

[ThinkPlease]

They fear debate. Very telling.

There's debate in a classroom environment? News to me! There is debate, however, at scientific meetings, and in scientific journals on evolution. Expend your horizons.

[Right Wing Professor]

There are five paradigms listed. Evolution is one of the five. In general, a science stands on all its paradigms; that is what paradigms are, after all.

I claimed evolution is the central paradigm; showing it listed as one of five paradigms does not disprove that.

[Notwithstanding]

But the material YOU pointed me to indicates evolution is merely a co-equal paradigm with the others - giving absolutely no indication that is THE CORE paradigm.

And once again, that a paradigm is widely believed does not make it factually or theoretically correct.

The handsdown best watchmakers in the world in 1967 - the Swiss - held the mistaken paradigm that their jeweled mechanical watches would always be the standard in timekeeping. In fact when Swiss engineers invented the quartz watch in 1967,no one bothered to to patent it because they thought it simply a curiosity - and of course the Japanese exploited this new quartz watch and within 10 years the Japanese watch industry overtook the Swiss watch industry.

The earth being flat and the center of the universe was a paradigm that was also hard to let go.

The point is that Evolution is a paradigm that has gotten weaker (scientific discovery has caused more doubts) the more science has tried to strengthen it.

Fools hang on to the paradigm to which they are wedded when it is clear it is no longer valid.

Those so wedded to evolution should take it up as a hobby and write about it as such - instead of pretending and lying about its certainty.

When a child is taught about evolution he is rarely taught that it is a theory that is romantically popular but not all its proponents want it to be.

When you prove it, then it can be considered hard science.

Until then we need to be honest about it being wishful romantic thinking.

[PatrickHenry]

I overdo "Luddites"

In this context, it can't be overdone. We don't use it enough.

[VadeRetro]

[Archaeopteryx is ...] 75 million years too late.

A typical page on Protoavis.

Have another one!

Here's a goodie!

Some bones may belong to a pterosaur, others to some kind of theropod.

Chatterjee's reconstruction is a controversial one from remains in very poor shape, an unarticulated pile of bone fragments that may well represent the remains of more than one animal. However, you need it exactly as Chatterjee claimed it and that's what counts. As far as you're concerned, it's golden.

Here's an absolutely uncritical one based totally on Chatterjee.

"A bird! Just a modern bird!" With teeth and a bony tail any modern lizard would envy. No real evidence for flight except a "maybe" on a supracoideus pulley.

[VadeRetro]

We don't use it enough.

On further review, you have it!

[AndrewC]

the genes from that class of organism will be most similar to the genes of animals which most recently diverged from the same line of descent, determined by non genetic evidence such as fossils, morphology, etc..

Well do you consider this comparision of ADH3 proteins as confirmation?

Base ADH3 -- Sea Squirt -- Ciona intestinalis

• Danio rerio Score = 532 bits (1370), Expect = e-150
• Sparus aurata Score = 531 bits (1369), Expect = e-150
• Branchiostoma floridae Score = 524 bits (1349), Expect = e-148
• Gadus morhua Score = 520 bits (1340), Expect = e-146
• Anopheles gambiae str. PEST Score = 520 bits (1338), Expect = e-146
• Indian spiny-tailed lizard Score = 515 bits (1327), Expect = e-145
• Branchiostoma lanceolatum Score = 512 bits (1318), Expect = e-144
• Caenorhabditis elegans Score = 506 bits (1302), Expect = e-142
• Drosophila melanogaster Score = 503 bits (1296), Expect = e-141
• Atlantic hagfish Score = 492 bits (1267), Expect = e-138
• Mus musculus Score = 490 bits (1262), Expect = e-137
• Rattus norvegicus Score = 490 bits (1261), Expect = e-137
• Homo sapiens Score = 488 bits (1256), Expect = e-137
• Equus caballus Score = 484 bits (1247), Expect = e-136
• Oryctolagus cuniculus Score = 481 bits (1238), Expect = e-135
• Octopus vulgaris Score = 476 bits (1226), Expect = e-133
• Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 Score = 451 bits (1160), Expect = e-126
• Microbulbifer degradans 2-40 Score = 447 bits (1151), Expect = e-125
• Yersinia pestis KIM Score = 447 bits (1149), Expect = e-124
• Arabidopsis thaliana Score = 441 bits (1134), Expect = e-123
• Vibrio vulnificus CMCP6 Score = 441 bits (1133), Expect = e-122
• Pisum sativum Score = 439 bits (1128), Expect = e-122
• Vibrio parahaemolyticus Score = 436 bits (1121), Expect = e-121
• Oryza sativa Score = 434 bits (1117), Expect = e-121
• Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato str. DC3000 Score = 434 bits (1116), Expect = e-120
• Neurospora crassa Score = 432 bits (1111), Expect = e-120
• Zea mays Score = 428 bits (1100), Expect = e-119
• Xanthomonas axonopodis Score = 424 bits (1089), Expect = e-117
• Xanthomonas campestris Score = 422 bits (1085), Expect = e-117

[Dataman]

IOW, since the evidence isn't conclusive, we should ignore it until conclusive evidence is found?

[VadeRetro]

IOW, since the evidence isn't conclusive, we should ignore it until conclusive evidence is found?

Well, isn't this fiendish? I say "Yes," referring to the jumbled and squashed pile of bones that is Protoavis, and you pounce to throw out the entire body of science since 1859. Cute!

An example of a specimen (Archaeopteryx) in rather better shape. (And it's only one of several just for that particular species.)

What don't you understand? Is what you are doing logic? Is this even argument?

Get some good evidence for whatever you have to replace it. For that matter, get a theory that says something about the world. Then come back to me with what you think is well-founded and what you think is conjectural.

[VadeRetro]

BTW, 429 is at least the second time I've answered you on Protoavis just lately. It looks funny when you keep coming back dumb as a stump with the same old pamphlet material.

[ThinkPlease]

Just a reminder to anyone who gets the cable channel Showtime, Penn and & Teller take on Creationism tomorrow night (March 14), on their hourlong show titled Bullpucky. I wish I got Showtime, I'd catch it.

[Remedy]

They fear debate. Very telling.

And Very superstitious

When you believe in things
that you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way

[Buggman]

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.

That's not entirely true, and I can see by your statement that you have not read very much on the ID side of the debate. However, it is true that much of the literature on the ID side is based on proving the inadequacies of naturalistic evolution to explain the world as we observe it. One has to first demonstrate the prevailing theory's inadequacies before your audience is willing to look at alternatives.

And frankly, there's quite a few holes in evolution that should be pointed out to students--or are you for teaching only half the truth?

Yours in Truth,

[longshadow]

In this context, it can't be overdone. We don't use it enough.

"Mystical/Supernatural/Fantasy Scientific Luddite Collective" placemarker

[balrog666]

And Very superstitious

Evo's are superstitious? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

[Dataman]

BTW, 429 is at least the second time I've answered you on Protoavis just lately. It looks funny when you keep coming back dumb as a stump with the same old pamphlet material.

Actually, your alzheimer's is giving you some trouble. What pamphlet material? I merely mentioned that other more modern birds have been found before the aptx, which itself is a suspect fossil.