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.
Bingo.
verifiable observation = fact;It's so sad that with the length of time some of the creationoids have been around here, such basic matters still need to be pointed out.
facts that fall into a predictable relationship = law;
explanation = theory.
Cause and effect is invoked here but try and get them to apply cause and effect to the beginning of the universe and their gears start stripping.
I doubt that even one evolutionist understands it for the simple reason that they can't explain it.
Of course YOU can explain abiogenesis to us, can't you? Tell us how an oxygen free atmosphere allowed the proper sequences to combine without and ozone (oxygen) layer to stop the destructive UV radiation.
BR,
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
Exactly right. I should give this phenomenon a name, The Reversal of the Burden of Proof.
Assume your position to be right until proved wrong;
Assume the opposition to be wrong until proved right.
A self replicating molecule is: amino adenosine triacid ester. Who knows if it was the first in existence? Lee etal, in a 1996 Nature paper (vol 382) discovered a self-replicating peptide.
Recently, a paper was published in the Journal of the Americal Chemical Society by Isaac and Chmielewski (2002), vol 124 p 6808. There, they discuss the cycle of reproduction for one of a peptide chain called E1E2. They are able to get this particular chain to catalyze at an amazing rate, approaching that of natural enzymes, and all at condition found in nature.
If you want a good review article on abiogenesis that isn't too old, you can try the paper by McClendon, 1999, Earth Science Reviews, 47, pg 71-93. It is a review of the remaining lines of research I haven't covered, such as the earliest known fossil, theories on the origin of the earth, and the environment of the first billion years. It talks about models of survivability of organic matter if it falls to the Earth in the form of comets, and, of course, it discusses chemical simulations of life a-la Miller-Urey. This paper is quite good, and covers a lot of ground at a good intermediate level. I suggest everyone read it if they haven't already. You may be able to down load it from here, if you search for it.
So, Andrew, I've now shown you research on both ends of the life from lifelessness barrier. Each line of research advances at a pretty good rate (we did not know of a self replicating molecule 13 years ago, now we know of several). Do you think that the evidence for abiogenesis is more or less than that for any other theory? Could you show us that evidence?
What about deep underwater vents, where sunlight can't reach, let alone UV radiation?
m = m0 / (sqrt (1 - (v2/c2))
And I'm going to say that it's not really the same formula if it's not the same m.
While Newton's second law generally holds, as you get close to the speed of light, there is a relativistic mass factor that becomes apparent as one gets closer to the speed of light, it is gamma, where gamma= (the rest mass energy+the kinetic energy)/the rest mass energy. So at high velocities f=ma becomes f=(gamma)ma. where gamma*m is the relativistic mass.
Ah, OK by your definition then H2 was the first self-replicating molecule.
Acceleration and velocity are not the same thing.
Yes well luckily for us there are a whole host of skeletal features peculiar to mammals that allow us to determine whether a fossil was mammalian or not. The fact that these features are not only confined to, but are found in all living mammal species and all recent fossil mammal species makes it a statistical certainty that older fossil species possessing them were mammalian. If you don’t want to make the obvious inference, suit yourself. If we followed your refusal to make any historical inferences based on present day certainties, sciences like geology, cosmology, archaeology and palaeobiology would not exist. Doctors would be pretty snowed under if they couldn’t use a list of symptoms to make a diagnosis, but instead had to start afresh with each patient. “T,U, V, W, X, Y and Z are characteristic symptoms of disease A, and only disease A. We’re statistically certain that the illness is in fact disease A, but we cannot meet the absolute ironclad mathematical proofs required by the creationists, so we won’t make the diagnosis. Instead, we’ll waste time speculating that it might in fact be some disease we’ve never heard of.”
You get the cigar, at v=0 (relative) KE=0.
Just curious, though, did you have a comment on my original point, or did you just want to see if I passed the relativity section of my Cosmo class?
Retreating, are you? In Darwin's day, the fossil record was a tiny fraction of what we have now. Darwin was unable to point to that many examples of transitional forms. He nevertheless predicted that various forms interconnecting the tree of life must have existed at one time and are thus liable to be found as fossils. Other forms which make no historical sense (mammal-arthropod, bird-amphibian) should never be found.
Immediately, the scoffers staked out the holes in the fossil record as proof of holes in the history of life itself. That's what you're still doing today. But since 1859, Darwin has been repeatedly vindicated while your ground has shrunk to nothing.
What part of that statement [The fossil record should be almost nothing but transitions] do you not understand?
You only just retreated to this position in your last few posts. Rather than trying to make the evidence I've shown you go away, you're pretending it's not enough for you. Where have I failed to understand you? No one will ever bring you enough broomsticks, or the right broomstick. It is the hollowest of mockeries, the most patent of falsehoods, to claim that there is some lack in the physical evidence which prevents you from changing your mind. You have repeatedly shown yourself so ignorant of the state of the evidence that it would be impossible to justify your having a well-formed opinion on evolution at all.
Do you seriously imagine anyone is fooled? Can you even ask yourself how this looks to someone uninvolved following this conversation, if such an easily-amused person there be?
Now, at any rate, you're reduced to claiming that you know better than evolutionists what the implications of the theory of evolution actually are. As I mentioned, Darwin indeed wondered aloud where the transitionals are and predicted that they would turn up. I believe I have also mentioned now that they have done so in impressive numbers.
It is creation science, not real science, to stay stuck in the late 19th century for the sake of tactical convenience in arguing before an audience of presumed suckers.
Twist and Shout is not science.
Unfortunately Darwininians don't know this.
The latter, you are above the balrog class.
Indeed, a good link. I hope it's clear to the lurkers that I and many regular evos simply tune out some of the more "been-there-done-that" cases from the other side, lest every thread turn into every previous thread.
An idiot, therefore, is a person who continues to stand by an opinion by ignoring or knowingly misrepresenting evidence.
Pretty much sums up at least one poster on these threads.
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.