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.
Oh yes, "abiogenesis" the everyday, anyone can do it, just need Jr High lab equipment, life creatin' experience we have all come to know, love and enjoy! Hey! I think I'll have my a big ol' bowl of "abiogenesis" right now! And you know what? It comes in all your favorite species!
All we need is a catchy jingle and I'm sure this will really take off. Now that's some modern science for ya! Humorous Regards,
Boiler Plate
Why don't you enlighten us then?
No my little friend that is not how science really works. You put forth a theory and then you must prove it. Then it gets to be fact upon which new theories are hypothesized and the process starts over.What he needs to do now is back it up, explain why so many actual scientists have written in disagreement, and why he is still spouting such nonsense. I can't get him to answer the question at all.
I'm on the brink of declaring that when a creationist whiffs at strike one (answering a question on-target), strike two and strike three are guaranteed, inevitable. Perhaps it's another bizarre symptom of Morton's Demon. If you can't see when you're dodging a question, you just ain't gonna see.
Another "I know you are but what am I" post. Why even waste everybody's time?
Frequently Asked Questions: Abiogenesis (Biopoesis)
Advantages: No need for large pool of complex organic molecules to start; can be gradually added. Deftly avoids all questions of the sort 'where did the ribose come from' Disadvantages: No evidence nor plausible mechanism for 'genetic takeover.[NO EVIDENCE BUT THAT DOES NOT STOP THE WRITER FROM ATTEMPTING A JUST-SO STORY]' However, it should be noted that clays have been seen to catalyze a number of prebiotic reactions. Advantages: Can derive almost all modern metabolism; genetic (as opposed to chemical) inheritance does not become involved until quite late; most reactions are postulated to occur in, well, slime layers on the surface of rocks (pyrite). This both reduces the dimensionality and dilution problems associated with normal prebiotic chemistry, and provides an 'identity' for chemical organisms (i.e., 'self'= your rock). Disadvantages: Some slight evidence for the ur- cycle, but the chemistry is pushed well beyond the bounds of anything known today.[JUST-SO STORY] If he turns out to be right it will be an intellectual achievement ranking with the Theory of Relativity. My personal assessment is that the reactions have been severely strained to produce 'modern' compounds and pathways, while it seems far more likely that the chemical cycles that initially evolved may have looked nothing like what exists today. That is, this theory seems to be guided by biological preconceptions rather than chemical plausibility. Advantages: Obvious and direct relation to modern life. Polymers can act as catalysts for their own replication and can create what Eigen has called 'hypercycles' (Eigen, Naturwissenschaften, 65, 341 (1978) is the classic paper in this field). Disadvantages: 'Food' tends to be relatively unstable molecules (see, for example, Pace, Cell, 65, 531 (1991)) that are prepared in extremely low yield by prebiotic pathways currently known. [DOESN'T SEEM LIKELY, THEREFORE PREPARE FOR ANOTHER JUST-SO STORY] In order to get around this, there are a wide range of nucleic acid 'like' compounds that are proposed to have preceded real nucleic acids on the evolutionary stage (Joyce, Nature, 338, 217 (1989) for a brilliant review). I have posted the mini-FAQ in the hopes of providing some snippets of evidence for those who say there are none. Perhaps this will sway some of you, perhaps not. I have tried to avoid advancing or advocating specific mechanisms for abiogenesis because I still believe that the following should be enough for us all: Evolution is both a theory and a fact. In accepting this, we must follow its tenets to their logical conclusion. Organisms evolve; their lineages can be traced. Their lineages lead back to a cell. Just as all cells evolved from this cell, so this cell must have evolved from something. The cell must have evolved from some set of molecules. These molecules can be seen to evolve even today. All of the events that led from the molecules to the cell were governed by the theory of evolution. It is the same theory that governs the evolution of all organisms, indeed of all self-replicating systems. |
The final paragraph explicitly demonstrates the reason that abiogenesis is tied to Darwininianism.
Another one? What was the first one?
Are you feeling all right? Have you take your nap yet, because you are starting to babble again?
Seriously BR, calm down, you are making a specticle of yourself. The very fact that you go off on these tirades is nothing but an indictment of your lack of understanding in regards to science and technology. You do nothing to advance your case by acting the way you do.
Warm Regards,
Boiler Plate
Not really. It just pushes the problem back to where it's always been. Evolution requires self-replicating organisms, but nowhere are they required to be cells - self-replicating molecules fit the requirements of the theory of evolution perfectly, but the theory makes no claim that such self-replicators arose through purely abiogenetic processes, nor does it explicitly or implicitly require such. How the first self-replicators came about is fun to speculate about, but it isn't a part of the theory of evolution - so long as self-replicators exist, that theory is satisfied no matter whether it was abiogenesis, God, leprechauns, space aliens, or something else that created them.
But of course, you know this...
Well, it shouldn't be part of the TOE, and real evolutionary scientists don't treat it as part of the theory, but some popularizers like to pretend it is. This is unfortunate, because a lot of people think they have to oppose the TOE or else they're endorsing atheism.
Yes, but the words I quoted and the argument presented in them come from a "Darwininian". My words were instructive as to their relevance. After all, the whole point of the author of that page was to convince someone of abiogenesis. And of course, I also wished to point out (again) that the Darwininians use "fact" and "theory" in a 3 card Monte fashion.
Those are my statements and I stand by them. How about you? Anything you'd like to hang your hat on?
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! Wrongo! I'm pointing out your ignorance to the other readers.
Actually, we all see it. But you never know when some poor innocent might happen by and think you are making sense if your idiot posts are allowed to stand without a simple comment in response.
What he needs to do now is back it up, explain why so many actual scientists have written in disagreement, and why he is still spouting such nonsense. I can't get him to answer the question at all.Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact". Tell us how the Theory of Evolution is somehow not a scientific theory. Speak up, don't be shy.
Remember folks, if you can't understand it, ridicule it.
And for the obvious reason that we understand that science is science and Intelligent Design/Intelligent Origins Theory is not.
First, who cares if there is no cure for the hanta virus?
403 posted on 03/13/2003 3:27 AM PST by Junior
So don't attack me for it. Look in the mirror at who are the ones totally lakcking in morals and decency on this thread - yourselves and your friends.
It is you who cannot make a case for your side. I can make a case for my side and back it up. You are as usual showing amply well what a sore loser you are. So thanks for the insults - it shows quite well your lack of character, knowledge and intelligence, not mine.
You still don't know how science works do you? You as the promoter of theory must prove it. You have not done so.
You are however a charming little person. Now go brush your teeth and go to bed. Sweet little Balrog dreams.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Just when did the first abiogenesis experiment actually produce life from inanimate matter?
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Ducking the questions again?
How will that look to your fellow seminar posters?
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.