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.

[gore3000]

Why doesn't evolution go backwards as well as forward? -boiler plate-

That is the 64 million year question, especially in light of the evo claim that a few mutations are beneficial. If a few are beneficial, the rest are not. Those that are not, the creative and inventive minds assume, die because all non-beneficial mutations must die in order that the theory not be embarrassed.

Since the environment plays such a big part in evolutionary theory (or more properly excuses) one must really wonder about that. Geology tells us that there are periodic glaciations on earth with the ice cap moving back and forth throughout the ages. One would expect that with 'survival of the fittest' some would go back to the prior state in order to survive the reversed conditions.

[gore3000]

You'll have to give me a little more of an explanation than this, and perhaps a source.

For someone who claims to be a professor which knows it all you sound pretty ignorant! Not only that, you also seem to be unable to do your own research also!

[gore3000]

It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird.

But does it have mammary glands? Maybe it's a mammal? Does it have the special lungs of birds? Does it lay eggs? What are the differences in the DNA of this example and those of dinosaurs and those of modern birds?

Of course you cannot answer such questions and no scientist can either because a bunch of bones cannot answer the real important questions about any organism.

[gore3000]

Well, gee, I was just pointing out that you have yet to post a fact, an argument, or even be civil to anyone who disagrees with your BS

Gee balrog, talking to yourself again while looking in the mirror?????

[gore3000]

A scientific law is no more authoritative than a scientific theory.

Aaaah, more semantics. A theory is garbage if it is not scientifically supported by the facts. That is what the discussion is about, not about the meaning of 'is', or 'alone' or 'theory'.

[js1138]

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.

Please don't expect ml/nj to peel his own grapes. He is the self confessed kid who goes up to a professor after class, asks a question calculated to get a "gee, I don't know", then spends the rest of his life congratulating himself on being so much smarter than the teacher. See post #161.

[AndrewC]

Are you familiar with the concept of random error?

I think so. I believe that is what we are measuring. It is supposed to be random error which causes the divergence. The differences may be significant when matched with time. In any case the expectation value is calculated for the sequence differences. It is defined --

The Expect value (E) is a parameter that describes the number of hits one can "expect" to see just by chance when searching a database of a particular size. It decreases exponentially with the Score (S) that is assigned to a match between two sequences. Essentially, the E value describes the random background noise that exists for matches between sequences. For example, an E value of 1 assigned to a hit can be interpreted as meaning that in a database of the current size one might expect to see 1 match with a similar score simply by chance. This means that the lower the E-value, or the closer it is to "0" the more "significant" the match is. However, keep in mind that searches with short sequences, can be virtually indentical and have relatively high EValue. This is because the calculation of the E-value also takes into account the length of the Query sequence. This is because shorter sequences have a high probability of occuring in the database purely by chance.

If I read the values correctly, Danio(zebrafish) and Sparus (Gilthead Bream another fish) are represented by sequences which are more significant by 100 than Branchiostoma floridae and by 1 million than Branchiostoma lanceolatum.

[f.Christian]

... wow ...

g3 ...

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

'evolution just happens'. Such is not science.


fC ...

Alien abductions ...

nothing you can say ---

some kind of mental epilepsy --- evolution !

Main Entry: ep·i·lep·sy
Pronunciation: 'e-p&-"lep-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle French epilepsie, from Late Latin epilepsia, from Greek epilEpsia, from epilambanein to seize, from epi- + lambanein to take, seize -- more at LATCH
Date: 1543
: any of various disorders marked by disturbed electrical rhythms of the central nervous system and typically manifested by convulsive attacks usually with clouding of consciousness

[Dataman]

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.

Excellent point.

[Dataman]

Hey, you better get busy, the empty headed stomper seems to be giving you quite a contest for most buffoonish, YEC clown.

Keep practicing, and someday you'll make sense.

[Dataman]

Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries.

It is amazing how an orderly universe- orderly to the point of the anthropic principle- became orderly through chaos.

[Junior]

The point of the article was that evolution was used to identify the virus -- a practical application of the theory. You're the one who moved the goalposts when you realized there were such practical applications; suddenly they weren't practical unless a cure had been found. You're fighting a rearguard action, dear boy, and you're losing badly.

[Junior]

Ah, your willful ignorance is astounding! Species never stop evolving; new mutations are constantly entering the gene pool. However, in a stable environment the surviving genes will cluster around the optimum for that environment. Once the environment changes (or a group of individuals is isolated from the rest of the species and their environment changes) the new mutations that increase survival in that environment will survive, moving the species or new group genetically away from their parents.

Of course, you already know this. For the past two years we've been telling you this exact same thing. You, of course, choose to ignore us and argue against some fallacious strawman version of evolution that exists only in your mind.

[Junior]

Methinks BP is making a common assumption here in regards to feathered dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were not true reptiles. There is strong evidence they were warm blooded or sem-warm blooded. Reptiles are cold blooded. The flying reptiles BP refers to were the pterosaurs. However, they may not have been true reptiles either, as there is strong evidence they were fur covered, which indicates they also required insulation. The feathered dinosaurs gave rise to modern birds (feathers originated for insulation purposes, not flying; they were simply adapted for the latter). The truly-flying reptiles (to distinguish them from gliding reptiles, which can be found even today) went extinct, possibly out-competed by the early birds.

[PatrickHenry]

Recent developments in the thread motivate me to offer you this blue barf bag:

[Junior]

Thanks. I might just need it.

[Con X-Poser]

<< It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird. You and Gish need another "disproof of transitional fossils." >>

You are going to bank on another find from the Liaoning Province of *atheistic* Communist China? What are you gonna do when they find this one is another fake? You don't think an atheistic, communistic country might have an ulterior motive to try to eradicate God, do you?

I should ask my friend Wang Tsai what Liaoning means in English. No doubt it either means "Piltdown" or "Haeckel".

But, let's play along (wink, wink). What if it is a dinosaur? What if it did have feathers? What says a dinosaur couldn't have feathers? Feathers have uses other than flying - check out the ostrich next time you visit your zoo.

This does nothing to prove a transitional creature and less to prove evolution.

[ml/nj]

Would you believe it if he posted it or linked it?

I guess you missed it. The Great Scientist finally did provide a link, and I commented on it in #507. The linked source talked about instantaneous evolution. Just like Darwin, huh!

You guys are so full of it that you do not seem to recognize that you are presenting arguments that contradict your own assertions.

ML/NJ

[hawkaw]

As usual, the evolutionist argue against my conclusion while totally disregarding addressing the facts leading to that conclusion.

In your previous post to me you gave me "opinions" and you did not state any "facts" in support of your "conclusion". You also don't know if I support the theory or parts of the theory etc. but you decide to lump me in with everyone anyway.

I am not talking about biologists, chemists, etc.. Most of them are real scientists and they do not care a hoot about evolution.

Wow!! Another strawman argument.

[VadeRetro]

Now that is news, and they would be what?

Birds. Sorry if the presentation has been incredibly hard to follow.