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.

[Junior]

Frogs are supposedly amongst the first terrestrial animals.

I read your post up until this astoundingly ignorant line, then decided it wasn't worth answering if the rest of your "facts" matched the statement above. You know that frogs weren't around when vertebrates transferred to land, just as you knew man had not descended from mice -- another ignorant statement you made earlier (we shan't mention your "chimps have tails" error of a few months back). Until you can show a modicum of understanding of the theory you rail against, you will be on my virtual ignore list.

[PatrickHenry]

"chimps have tails" placemarker.

[Junior]

He did conveniently leave off the second sentence in my post, didn't he? Of course, LBB is a known Liar for God; he misquotes, misinterprets and outright prevaricates and thinks God won't hold him accountable because LBB's doing it for all the right reasons. I guess he forgot what the road to Hell is paved with ...

[f.Christian]

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.


539 posted on 03/13/2003 8:59 PM PST by gore3000

[Junior]

Never had an original thought, have you? Parroting the inaccuracies and outright obfuscations of another doesn't lend them or you any more credence.

[gore3000]

No I did not misrepresent Junior's post I QUOTED HIM Your friend accused me of not caring about human life when it was Junior who made the statement. It is you and your friends that are totally dishonest and without morals accusing others of the sins of your own.

First, who cares if there is no cure for the hanta virus?
403 posted on 03/13/2003 3:27 AM PST by Junior

Further, I am still looking for how the 'science' of evolution has benefited humanity. The silence is deafening.

[Dataman]

Evolution is a religion, plain and simple. Your missive clearly demonstrates that fact. You are consumed with it. Now get a drink of water and take a nap. Have a nice day .

Balrog's tantrum is commonly used to evade the craters on the face of evolution. He's fallen into Lessing's ugly ditch and he can't get out. The burden of proof is on the new idea, the more elaborate explanation. Evolution is the new idea, the more elaborate explanation. They can't explain why 3 consecutive layers in the geologic column are rarely found. They can't explain how life came from a rock. They can't explain a trainload of aspects regarding their AIDS-quilt theory.

Not only does evolution completely lack proof, it makes better science fiction than a scientific theory.

[gore3000]

read your post up until this astoundingly ignorant line, then decided it wasn't worth answering if the rest of your "facts" matched the statement above.

Frogs are not amphibians? Amphibians are not supposedly among the first terrestrial animals? You better read the garbage put out by your own side. They have been around for hundreds of millions of years:

Native New Zealand frogs (genus Leiopelma) are among the rarest frogs in the world. They are the living representatives of the most ancient lineage of frogs, closely resembling frogs that lived 200 million years ago.
From: Behavior and Biology of Native Frogs.

So as you see, my statement is correct about the doubletalk of evolutionists. When it fits their agenda evolution goes on all the time, when it does not species remain the same for hundreds of millions of years. as when they make selective DNA comparisons.

[HalfFull]

btt

[general_re]

I suppose I could continue to go round and round here, but I think the point has been made. Anyone who wants to understand the sort of moral degenerate that that particular poster is can easily see it for themselves by tracing back through those particular posts.

Anyway, if I'm going to hell for a belief in evolution, I think I'll ask for a seat near the section holding the bearers of false witness, so that I can spend an eternity making faces at a certain somebody. ;)

[js1138]

And quotations cannot be used to misrepresent? Answer carefully, because the Bible is full of quotations. Is it or is it not possible to distort meaning with truncated quotations?

[VadeRetro]

... frogs that lived 200 million years ago.

Younger than many of the dinosaurs. Creation Science is the science of creatively misunderstanding real science and tiling together lying mosaic pictures from real quotes.

[Junior]

Frogs are not amphibians?

Yes all frogs are amphibians, but not all amphibians are frogs. That you cannot discern the difference just reinforces my view that you are a complete moron.

[VadeRetro]

Because Vade you guys are still at square one. That would be trying to establish evolution as scientific fact.

A funny answer to the question of why creationists try to propagate disinformation on the relationships between theory, law, and fact in science. Want to take another swing?

[VadeRetro]

He did conveniently leave off the second sentence in my post, didn't he?

But his tracks are covered. We're in the Back Room.

[PatrickHenry]

We're in the Back Room.

These things always seem to happen whenever a certain person shows up in the thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Blue-skipping placemarker.

You [PatrickHenry] have been suspended several times.
The-Earth-is-old-and-Henry-Morris-is-right.
Wildly elliptical.
1⁷²⁰.
Nobel Prize for biology.
All discoveries disprove evolution.
DNA disproves evolution.
The fossil record disproves evolution.
Nobel Prize for creationism.
Genetic variation has nothing to do with evolution.
Parable of the Ant and the Elephant .

[Note to moderator: there are no personal attacks in this post.]

[Right Wing Professor]

Andrew, a sequence of 263 amino acids is one termination or initiation codon different from a sequence of 194. I know very little about S4, but I'm willing to bet the extra amino acids, in species where they're present, are deleted in post-translation processing.

[Right Wing Professor]

Attempt at smear by association.

[Right Wing Professor]

No, the proteins were on the Y that were farther than the chicken. It was not evident on the match as they were not identified as such on the comparison lines. The opposum both X and Y are farther away than the chicken and they have less identities than the chicken.

Again I'm not an expert on this area (the sheer volume of results coming from genomics is intimidating), but my guess is the y-linked proteins are not expressed, and therefore aren't subject to significant evolutionary pressure, so they diverge rapidly. S4, where it is on X or on a somatic chromosome, seems to be very highly conserved. 4 mutations between birds and mammals, and highly conservative mutations at that, over 200 amino acids, is very stable indeed...which makes sense for a ribosomal protein, I suppose.