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.
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 how many times are you going to make us post this until you admit you were wrong?
You are the one who owes an admission of guilt. When did I ever say evolution wasn't a theory?
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate
Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact".Or just admit you were wrong.
And as for this raving from a lunatic: The fossil record should be almost nothing but transitions.
Show me a 200 million year old fossil of an extant mammal species. What? You can't? I guess they were all transitionals after all.
You are hoot!
Comical Regards,
Boiler Plate
When have you ever said anything that you stand by? So far I see nothing but half-truths that would make a liberal blush if they uttered them. Come on boy, I'm sure you have a stand on something in this matter, don't you?
Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact".
Or just admit you were wrong - come on, you can do it if you try.
It's difficult to show evidence from a field that is spread across several journals and many fields, but I can point you to a few places to start.
There have been some papers over the past twenty years by Woese etal (one of which is Woese, C, The Universal Ancestor, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 95, 6854-6859 (1998)). He provides a decent overview in 6 pages as anyone can of the period after the first self-replicating molecule.
There is another paper by Woese just last year, also in the PNAS that should be a good start. On the evolution of cells, Vol 99 p 8742, 2002. When you've read those papers, and the references there in, let me know and we can have a talk.
Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact".
Or just admit you were wrong.
And as for this raving from a lunatic: The fossil record should be almost nothing but transitions.
Show me a 200 million year old fossil of an extant mammal species. What? You can't? I guess they were all transitionals after all.
Balrog,
If you think that you somehow sound like a sane, refined, cultured, educated, intellectual, I think you might want to try a Dale Carnegie course. You are just babbling. For example an extant mammal would not be a transitional species but instead it would be negative mutation. Why because it failed to survive. On the other hand it may just be a extant mammal.
Your insults about myself and my education only prove that you are in fact a person of lowly stature. Who else would try to make an assertion without any evidence or knowledge? Well I guess that is why evolution appeals to you so much.
Sympathetic Regards,
Boiler Plate
Why YOU, of course and still ducking. Have you forgotten your own words?
Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact".
Or just admit you were wrong. Up to you. But we know what you will do. Go ahead, prove me correct one more time.
I'm not sure I should confuse you any more, after all you have problems answering my earlier question... Do you know of any other theories that explain the world better?
I would note, of course, that science can be successful when it can explain one aspect of a thing, even if it coesn't explain all aspects of a thing. F=ma is a great example of this. Great approximation at non-relativistic velocities, no good at all in the relativistic regime. Miller-Urey was great in the day because it showed that complex elements could form in what was believed to be an early-Earth environment. Now, after the idea that the early Earth environment has changed, it is useful in a historical sense, to show people what has come before, it shows that complex molecules can form in energetic environments. Obviously these molecules have been able to form in strange places, since we seem to be finding them in odd places like the deep cores of Giant Molecular Clouds. It is just not particularly useful in modelling Earth anymore.
Well, here is what Woese has to say about RNA world.
| Power shortage Evolutionary biologist Carl Woese of the University of Illinois says the genetic evidence contradicts the RNA world theory. And if that weren't bad enough, he also argues that the RNA world scenario is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules, or the copies that would be needed to keep the whole thing going. In test-tube RNA worlds, the elongating RNA molecules are fed artificially "activated" nucleotides, boosted with their own tri-phosphate bond to ensure that they come with an energy supply. In nature, such molecules only exist inside cells, and they have never been created in a Miller-type experiment. "The RNA world advocates view the soup as a battery, charged up and ready to go," Woese complains. On the primordial Earth, that energy had to come from somewhere, and it had to be coupled to production, or else it would quickly disappear into the ether. In Woese's view, the critical step that ultimately spawned life was not a few stray RNA molecules, but the emergence of a biochemical machine that transformed energy into a form that was instantly available for the production of organic molecules. |
Well, maybe you can show the math.
So it is your understanding, that in science, when you can not prove your theory, it is incumbent on others to provide an alternate?
Reagards,
Boiler Plate
Evolution - or so evolutionists claim all the time, including their latest worm eaten 'saint' S.J. Gould. Of course no one can give us any 'fact' proving evolution but because evolution is just rhetoric, insults, and lies, that is not a problem for evolutionists.
There are none, because there were no mammals 200 million years ago. In fact we cannot tell if there were any mammals a million years ago. There are no fossils with mammary glands in the first place. In the second place there is absolutely nothing to show the gradual evolution of mammals. It is your side that has no proof and yes the absence of proof is proof of lack, a tremendous lack of facts supporting evolution.
Evolution, the change of organisms over generations, is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is postulated to describe the mechanism or mechanisms of that change.
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.