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.
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.
Amphibians were (according to evolutionists) the first animals to live on land. Frogs are amphibians - and this particular frog has been unchanged for some 200 million years. My point stands. No change is evolution, change is evolution, evolution contradicts itself at every turn. Evolution is contradicted by the evidence at every turn. You cannot address my point so you go into your regular tirade on everyone being an idiot except yourself. Well, let me just say this - I can back up my position against evolution and you cannot back yours up with facts. Neither can you refute my statement. So who is the ignorant one?
PV=nrT is well known in both science and engineering. Can you tell me what it is and what it is used for?
Regards,
Boiler Plate
That is only a half-truth. Abiogenesis was part of evolution for some ten years after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. Only then did Huxley write it off as part of the theory. This is only the first example of evolution having to remake itself in the face of scientifically indisputable facts. Like the Communists, evolutionists now say that it never was part of the theory, just like now that descent of humans from monkeys has been disproven they also say that it was never a part of the theory. Seems every time evolutionists are proven wrong they claim they never said what they had been saying.
No, what you need to do is to back up your statementst with evidence. Call it what you will - a theory, a hypothesis, a law of nature, whatever you call it, for something to be science it must have evidence to back it up -
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION, IN FACT, THERE IS NOT EVEN A THEORY ON WHICH EVOLUTIONISTS CAN ALL AGREE AND GIVE EVIDENCE OF
Yup, the evidence presented in the FAQ quoted by andrewc pushes the problem of abiogenesis back where it has always been - the dreams of atheists. The following is why abiogenesis is not science and is totally impossible based on our scientific knowledge (which as our knowledge has increased, has made the possibility of abiogenesis even more impossible):
There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
While very interesting, it is irrelevant to the point being made. Frogs have been around for some 200 million years (at least) and the ones I quoted about are virtually unchanged. There are many other creatures which have been virtually unchanged for hundreds of millions of years - according to evolutionists and all legitimate science. The question posed many posts ago - which remains unanswered is - when did frogs and other species know when to stop evolving? If mutation happens all the time and the environment changes all the time as evolutionists claim their theory accounts for new species, then how is it possible for any species to remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Clearly, evolution is false.
Smart aleck remarks prove nothing. Let's hear you explain abiogenesis - and how it happened. I need a good laugh.
Your handful of fossils can hardly constitute a lineage of avain evolution. You have failed to explain as to what motivated the evolution of flight. You also have completely glossed over the causes and lineage of all the special organs needed for flight. You go directly from a air garbbing biped to a bird, just like that. With the only explanation being "That's how evolution works".
I am totally amazed at how readily you accept these explanations without question.
Flight is a very complex thing. It took humans thousands of years to figure out how to do it artificailly. Yet somehow through the miracle of totally random events and mutations (which all happen to miraculously all be good ones) flight just happens to pop up. And the critters, who for no particular reason sprout wings and feathers, know just exactly what to do with them.
Really? OK, I guess Scientific America says so and well EVERYBODY who is SOMEBODY knows that they are absolutely without an agenda, without bias, and never think of anything but science for science sake. No sir, money never crosses the mind of the outstanding folks at SA.
Vade, all science is open for debate. As much as we think we know now, the truth is we will know more tomorrow and more next year and next century. Even after a thousand years willstill be learning. I personally think that we are the verge of discovering amazing things in terms of sub atomic particles and they will play an important role in our further understanding of genetics and life. In short I think we are about to discover life is a whole lot more complicated than we ever imagined.
Sincere Regards,
Boiler Plate
Yup, science is science, what a brilliant deduction! How many years of schooling did you need to come to that conclusion? Kindergarten, first grade?
You and your friends continue to fail to give any evidence for your theory. The only 'proof' of evolution given on this thread has been insults, semantic double talk and lies.
That's a good one.
Unless you're still ducking the questions, it's your turn.
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.
Your turn, support your assertions.
And I am totally amazed at how you reject them without understanding them.
It's still your turn. Put up or shut up.
Nope, anyone can look it up. It is a theory (based on observation -> that makes it a "Law") that defines the relationship between temperature, pressure, volume, and molecular count of an ideal gas.
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.
Your turn, support your BS assertions.
You have yet prove abiogensis, the transition of invertebrates to vertebrates, how irreducible complexity in life was overcome or why transitional species do not absolutely dominate the fossil record.
Kind Regards,
Boiler Plate
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.
Your turn, support your BS assertions. And why waste time with the Ideal Gas Law - did you not understand it yourself?
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.