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.

[PatrickHenry]

[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.

What a coincidence. I was thinking of him as the poster boy for that end of the debate spectrum.

[longshadow]

So it is your understanding, that in science, when you can not prove your theory, it is incumbent on others to provide an alternate? [emphasis added]

Unbelieveable.

Absolutely unbelieveable.

[VadeRetro]

I take that as "evolution is a theory". Now either dig up Steve Gould and argue with him or argue with Talk-origins.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.

Note that your very link preemptively dismisses using "Evolution is a fact" and "Evolution is a theory" to prove "theory = fact."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.

"Preemptively," except that it didn't stop you. A theory may be named after a fact.

[VadeRetro]

In order for the positive transitions to occur there should a overwhelming abundance of negative mutations. Do you disagree with that?

Didn't mean to skip this part of your post. However, one more verb should.

[VadeRetro]

Concatenating two speakers as unlike as Stephen Jay Gould and AndrewC into what looks like one quote is the textbook example of a copy error mutation. Meant to delete the first occurrence of SJG's text.

[Dataman]

What about deep underwater vents, where sunlight can't reach, let alone UV radiation?

The assumed absence of oxygen is only one of the problems with the life-from-rocks guesswork. You see, Miller's experiments proved that life cannot arise by itself, not even with human help.

Miller used ammonia gas. Perhaps there is an ammonia gas factory at the sea bottom?

Ninety-eight percent of Miller's results were poisionous to life (tar and carboxylic acid).

Miller's best results turned out two kinds of amino acids. It takes 20 to make life.

Miller's acids bonded with tar.

Half of the amino acids were right handed. Life needs left handed ones.

The smallest proteins have 70 amino acids- all left handed. All 70 need to be in a precise order.

There are more problems. If "science" can't even get close under ideal conditions, the chance of an accidental creation is unthinkable.

What you guys really need to reproduce in the laboratory is something from nothing as in the BB when nothing exploded and produced everything in this universe.

[HalfFull]

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.

This lurker sees clearly that since ya'll can not provide meaningful responses to points made by Gore3000, you simply ridicule, and take your ball home to mama.

[VadeRetro]

In order for the positive transitions to occur there should a overwhelming abundance of negative mutations. Do you disagree with that?

Since in your thrashing you're moving away from previous mantras, the broader picture of evidence for macroevolution goes far beyond fossil transitionals.

[Junior]

You have to consider: which side consistently takes quotes out of context and misrepresents the evidence? Which side uses half-truths and outright lies to convince the uninformed of the rightness of their claims? The fact that creationists must rely on such dishonest tactics speaks of the weakness of their claims.

[VadeRetro]

You underestimate your fill-level.

[Junior]

What points has gore made that have not been refuted dozens of times? You see, his tactic is to get trounced on one thread, then start on a new thread with the same old, tired arguments. Go back two years and you'll see he's been making these arguments since day one. Of course, back then we took the time to rip them to shreds. Now we just ignore him. One gets a little tired crawling over the same ground again and again.

[HalfFull]

You underestimate your fill-level.

I'm truely crushed by your quick-witted comment.

[HalfFull]

What points has gore made that have not been refuted dozens of times?

Well, I guess everyone sees things according to their own world view...wouldn't you agree? It seems to me that the same point that you make holds for the evol side of the house as well. Why not just respond to his points in a meaningfull way, instead of just quiting the playing field? Ignoring a poster because you don't like the points he makes doesn't work. If one does that in every case, before long you end up just debating one point of view, which isn't much of a debate at all.

[Junior]

No, I don't agree. Everyone sees the same things. One's worldview, however, can lead one to dismiss what's right before one's eyes. And no one's quit the playing field. We simply ignore one obnoxious poster and not because of the points he makes, but because he refuses to learn anything new and he consistently bluffs through being caught out in outright lies (ask him about his problems with the "wildly elliptical" thread from last April. He flat out lied about the genesis of the discussion, even after someone posted the original verbatim). His "points" are codswallop to anyone who spends five minutes on a google search, his tactics (the lies, the misrepresentations, the name calling -- he personally introduced the term "slimer" to these discussions) are trash and his attitude is obnoxious. You can converse with him all you want, but anyone who can't differentiate between "all frogs are amphibians" and "all amphibians are frogs" (from earlier in this thread) is not worth my time.

[HalfFull]

Everyone sees the same things.

I would be willing to bet that your "everyone" are on the evol side and "everyone else" is on the other side. The fact that you say you have no world view on this debate is very telling indeed.

[HalfFull]

oh...and having gone thru several of these threads as a lurker, insults and obnoxious posts are not limited to the ID side of the debate, and are certainly not limited to gore3000.

[PatrickHenry]

You're new to these threads. Permit me to give you a very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 21].

[AndrewC]

Note that your very link preemptively dismisses using "Evolution is a fact" and "Evolution is a theory" to prove "theory = fact."

So what? I was not trying to prove theory=fact. I was showing mr. b as wrong. He gave a partial answer. He was wrong. Darwininians use these distinctions for wiggle room. What is the fact of evolution.(in a meaningful way, not in the sense of a change which is undoubtedly the use you will offer)

[gomaaa]

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. I>

Please read the rest of my post. I answered specifically the questions you reiterate here. I'm trying to keep things civil, here, but you need to actually debate me and acknowledge the points that I make instead of ignoring them.

[Junior]

Nope. Everyone sees the same evidence. They see the same fossil record, the same geological formations, the same radioactive decay. Whereas the evo side has scientific theories to explain this evidence, the creationists have to resort to ignoring it or claiming it's a fraud. They have nothing to offer as an explanation that takes into account all the evidence; rather they nit pick bits and pieces here and there, never seeing the forest for the trees.

For example, we know that some organisms have existed at different times than other organisms but that they appear to be related structurally to those earlier organisms. From this we can conclude that the later organisms are related to, and possibly descended from the earlier ones. The only other explanation is that the earlier organisms died out and the later ones popped into existence afterward. Neither science nor the Bible support this view, yet that is what creationists have to believe. Of course, they won't tell you this -- it is pert near impossible to get a creationist to actually tell you what it is he believes. Note the ongoing discussions between balrog666 and Boiler Plate if you need an illustration.