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.
But in any case I'm wondering if you're using the program properly. If the three species have very different numbers of mismatches in the first 50 or so amino acids, the chances they end up with virtually the same number of mismatches over the whole sequence are rather low.
I'll run the sequences by hand, and get back to you. I don't trust canned programs unless I've checked them by hand first.
1. Take one standard biology text.
2. Strike through each sentence.
3. In the margin of each page, write either: "Lie," "Slime," "Fraud," or "Not 100% Proven!"
4. Include a list of misleading, out-of-context quotes.
5. Demand respect and equal classroom time.
6. Let the children decide.
You need all the proto birds you can get. Why shoot this one down? Still there is an incredible lack of evidence to support avian evolution and no logical reason for them to evolve. Unless you are going to stick with the Type R High performance road handling story. What is interesting about the feathers is that there are plenty of example of flying reptiles that flew quite well without feathers and yet for reasons only known to Darwin, Archaeopteryx pops up out of nowhere with perfectly functional avian type feathers. In light of the chicanery with Archaeoraptor liaoningensis out of China I wouldn't put much stock in your picture of Caudipteryx xoui. However I suppose you need all the help you can get. The question is where are all the feathered reptiles today? Did they all become birds? One would expect that evolution being mostly random forces that we should still have plenty of them around today.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Would you believe it if he posted it or linked it?
If you're really interested, looking it up for yourself is the only way to be sure you're not getting second hand interpretations or misinterpretions, oddball opinions, or utterly bogus crap. Look for multiple sources and, if you have time, compare how the descriptions and analysis change over time to reflect how new information or conflicting interpretations lead to better science (scientists love to argue/dispute even the most obvious physical evidence and the simplest of conclusions and that process leads to a better understanding for all concerned and better science - that's how peer review works). Note how even RWP (just a few posts ago) has to compare results by hand before he believes someone else's program!
Your objections are relentlessly unscientific. It needs evidence. When there's evidence for it, it flies, whether it poses problems or not. Right now it looks like Chatterjee has a Triassic chimera, or a vaguely bird-like Triassic theropod.
Still there is an incredible lack of evidence to support avian evolution and no logical reason for them to evolve.
In theory lack of evidence bothers you, except you uncritically accept Protoavis, the bone-pile jigsaw puzzle. All those fantastically preserved fossils we have, however, are to be regarded with suspicion. Why do you (and Dataman, et. al) weigh the information content of fossils upside-down from their clarity?
Unless you are going to stick with the Type R High performance road handling story. What is interesting about the feathers is that there are plenty of example of flying reptiles that flew quite well without feathers and yet for reasons only known to Darwin, Archaeopteryx pops up out of nowhere with perfectly functional avian type feathers.
Huh?
In light of the chicanery with Archaeoraptor liaoningensis out of China I wouldn't put much stock in your picture of Caudipteryx xoui.
The pictures I posted were of a probable juvenile Sinornithosaurus. Ichneumon posted some good Caudipteryx shots here. There's more than one feathered dinosaur. Apparently, all you read are creationist tracts on ICR (or AiG or TrueOrigins), a limitation which will keep you pig-ignorant in these discussions forever.
As far as Archaeoraptor goes, mainstream science caught it in two months. When creationists start screaming that everything is Piltdown Man, they're whipped. You might just as well rethink as dream you're scoring with that cop-out.
However I suppose you need all the help you can get. The question is where are all the feathered reptiles today?
They diversified.
Did they all become birds?
I suppose some lines went extinct.
One would expect that evolution being mostly random forces that we should still have plenty of them around today.
We do.
We do.
Now that is news, and they would be what?
Perhaps those who come down with it?
Again you show the typical disregard for human life of evolutionists. The challenge put to you was to show how evolution has helped humanity, clearly it has not when your own example, your 'refutation' of my statement in post# 124 that:
And 150 years later not only does it not cure belly ache, but it has not led to a single useful application. Instead, evolution keeps getting in the way of science instead of leading it to new discoveries.
is no refutation at all. One would think that after 150 years you could come up with something worthwhile - you who have been on these threads for so many years cannot even give a decent example of how evolution has helped humanity.
As to the fugu fish, you bet it does show that your nonsense about comparing the trees of life provides any benefits is total nonsense. Scientists have been doing it for thousands of years. Long before evolution Aristotle made a system of classifying species and compared the features and their organisms. This went on for thousands of years before Darwin and Linnaeus - many years before Darwin , set up the basic system of classifying still used today. This is another example of evolutionists claiming for themselves something which they had nothing to do with.
Further, the discovery of vaccination by Edward Jenner, using cowpox to innoculate humans against smallpox shows, like many other examples in medicine, that scientists are always looking throughout the animal kingdom for something to use, they could care less about evolutionary theory in doing so. In fact, they look to exotic plants and bacteria far removed from humans for medicines and other scientific discoveries. For example, some of the great DNA discoveries have come from examining fruit flies. Insects are teaching us about humans!
Which brings us back to the fugu fish. We are learning from a fish what we have been unable to learn from our closer cousins (as evolutionists call them) because all living things come from one maker. If evolution were true, the changes in the hundreds of millions of years since these fish supposedly arose would have led to great changes making them totally irrelevant to our research needs. Instead we find the genome closely similar to ours in spite of the hundreds of millions of years of supposed evolution between us and the fugu. Just what we would expect if species were created. Stasis is proof against evolution, regardless of what you and your speaking out of both sides of the mouth evo friends may have to say. To get from bacteria to humans by gradual evolution all species need to be in a constant state of change and transformation. The fugu's close relationship genetically to man shows this evolutionary assumption to be totally false.
No, it is not the 'why are there still monkeys argument'. The fact is that unless you can show how a species 'knows' how to stop evolving, unless you can show how a species 'knows' how to stop mutating, unless you can show how a species 'knows' that it has generated the required amoung of transformations to keep evolution going and it needs to stop mutating, then stasis is very strong proof against evolution. When we can see numerous species which have not changed for hundreds of millions of years one has to ask - why did they stop mutating? Why don't they mutate like all the other creatures supposedly do according to evolution.
In this the argument of necessity does not work. If necessity was the cause of transformations, then no 'primitive' species should exist. Because 'survival of the fittest' should have destroyed all those who failed to 'get on with the program'. This is why evolution is total bunk. It is full of internal inconsistencies and that is why it is not science. It is, as I say - pseudo-science for morons. And that is why, like the Communist and other tyrannical liars, that evolution must try to shut off discussion by firing professors who talk against it, demonize those who write against it and insult those who dare tell the truth about the false theory of evolution.
My, what a wonderful and outstanding "strawman" argument. Who are you going to sterotype next?
As usual, the evolutionist argue against my conclusion while totally disregarding addressing the facts leading to that conclusion. I am not talking about biologists, chemists, etc.. Most of them are real scientists and they do not care a hoot about evolution. They care about the truth and that is why they ignore evolution. Evolution has not led to any scientific achievements because evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE. The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species. This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions. Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries. In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism. That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists. It is pseudo-science for morons. With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.
We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.
The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.
It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'. Such is not science.
When they are losing, that's what they do - they start the insults so that the thread will be pulled. If they cannot win, they do not want anyone to play. More proof of the tyrannical tactics of evolutionists (as if any were needed).
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.