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.

[AndrewC]

Your relentless confusion is understood to mean that on future threads we should expect to see you trolling with the same trap. We knew that already.

There is no confusion on my part. I am pointing out the just-so nature of what you post as evidence. The Sinosauropteryx remains ~15 million years younger than the Archie, despite your attempts at confusing the issue. Unless you count the protoavis or longisquama(you don't) Archie remains the oldest feathered animal. And its feathers are advanced.

[bondserv]

Excellent advice. Now why don't you put it into practice?

As more and more traitors to the Ivy League Cultural elite come out and side with the religious "unelite", the geoeducational landscape lurches.

The "brainwashed" homeschoolers will begin to inevitable supplant the morally compassless professor's currently entrenched at our Universities. As you will notice the main support this professor received was from the students.

Adherence to the Biblical mandate of truth and righteousness, which for the first time in history came about in ministerial training Universities of the early United States, projected this world into an unrivaled educational enlightenment.

Right Wing Professor, I believe you continue to have a love affair with the truth, for you have pursued and achieved a career in the sciences. We encourage you to continue this pursuit of truth in the spiritual arena as well. Personally dedicate some portion of your time to familiarizing yourself with the intricacies of the message of the Bible.

Try not to align yourself with your Liberal colleagues who have purposefully disregarded the Bible, because evolution has given them reason to ignorantly reject the Book that has been scrutinized by the best scholars for the last 2000 years.

I do always appreciate your honesty and sincerity. That doesn't mean you should always agree with my statements which are feeble attempts at humility. :~)

[gomaaa]

The chances of life arising by itself are less than statistical zero science tells us. Yet it is believed because the only alternative is that God created and that is unacceptable. What kind of reasoning is that? It is nothing but denial of the probable and adhering to the impossible in order that certain implications be avoided.

If you have already decided this to be impossible, than I guess it is and there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. I don't buy that it is impossible for the processes of life to begin in the manner suggested. With plenty of energy available the formation of organic chemicals has been shown to be possible. The organization into more complex self-replicating molecules is not completely understood, but is not mathmatically impossible.

Here's my big point of the day: The Theory of Evolution does NOT disprove or in any way contradict the existence of God, or suggest that God could not have had a subtle influence in the creation and development of life on Earth. If you take the Bible as completely literal, then this is not possible, but we can never agree then and we might as well give up the argument. If you accept that the Bible teaches TRUTH instead of FACT then I do not understand the problem in suggesting that the mechanism by which God created life is evolution. This does not contradict ANY of the current evidence, allows current Evolutionary theory to stand as is, and reconciles both with faith in God as creator of the human race. Evolution is NOT anti-God, and there are INNUMERABLE Christians of deep faith who take this approach. Abiogenesis is proposed as a theory because it fits with currently available evidence, NOT because it is an alternative to God somehow.

PLEASE let me know what you think of this. I think this a critical part of this debate and it never gets discussed.

[Junior]

I wonder why you are not making similar claims about cutting-edge research in physics and other areas?

'Cause they ain't gorin' his personal ox.

[VadeRetro]

There is no confusion on my part.

But you happily lost gomaaa in your usual dance of the ambiguously-worded objections.

I am pointing out the just-so nature of what you post as evidence.

To distract from what I am actually saying. Archaeopteryx (150 mya, "bird" bin) and Sinornithosaurus (135 mya, "dinosaur" bin) are more like each other than either is like any modern bird, more like each other than either is like many dinosaurs, and far more like each other than any reptile is like any modern bird. Quite possibly neither is on any modern creature's line of descent. Nevertheless, their similarities indicate that neither lies far from some pre-Archaeopteryx true historical divergence.

You may never find the exact divergence point in the fossil record. You're getting close when things get hard to tell apart which aren't hard to tell apart now. You're past it when there's only one kind of thing around, period.

Purely for the lurkers:

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.

[gomaaa]

Try not to align yourself with your Liberal colleagues who have purposefully disregarded the Bible, because evolution has given them reason to ignorantly reject the Book that has been scrutinized by the best scholars for the last 2000 years.

I would also be interested in hearing from you as well on the subject of my current debate with Dataman. Thanks!

[Dataman]

Evolution is NOT anti-God,

Dear gomaaa,

There are two kinds of evolution, theistic and atheistic. Atheistic, the type most often found on these threads, is anti-God. It has materialist presuppositions which are not rational but are necessary to justify a worldview. Theistic evolution borrows heavily from atheistic evolution and carries with it not only most of the problems of atheistic evolution but adds a few new ones as well.

I find it surprising that the atheistic evolutionists and the theistic evos team up against the young-earthers when theistic evos rely on something outside of this universe which the atheistic evos cannot abide.

[VadeRetro]

... far more like each other than any reptile is like any modern bird.

... far more like each other than any modern reptile is like any modern bird.

[AndrewC]

But you happily lost gomaaa in your usual dance of the ambiguously-worded objections.

I was perfectly clear. The Sino fossil is dated in the Barremian. Archie is dated in the Tithonian. Tithonian is older than Barremian. The cladogram shows Sino as older than Archie. It is the chart and your justification of it that is ambiguous. The chart is a construct. The fossils are fact. More---

The new dates reported here, in conjunction with the results of ref. 26, indicate that the 'feathered' dinosaurs of Liaoning, although primitive in appearance, are not Late Jurassic or even earliest Cretaceous in age. Compared with the geologic timescale of ref. 25, the dates indicate a correlation with the middle Barremian (mid-Early Cretaceous), at least 20 Myr younger than Archaeopteryx from the Late Jurassic (Tithonian) Solnhofen Limestone of Europe. Given the similarities already noted with the Solnhofen and Liaoning fossils, it would appear that aspects of the terrestrial fauna were part of a long-lived chronofauna, persisting across the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary. However, the ages of many of these sites worldwide are poorly known and, in light of the new dates for the lower Yixian fauna reported here, their ages may need re-examination. A final outcome of the new dates is that Archaefructus, although remarkably well preserved, cannot be considered as early as originally thought⁵. Depending on the accuracy in dating of other fossil sites worldwide, Archaefructus appears to be comparable in age with early angiosperm evidence from the Barremian of China, Europe, Russia and eastern North America³⁰.

Note: In the citation lies a point I made quite a while ago. Your persistent ignoring of the data prevents you from seeing it.

[gomaaa]

I find it surprising that the atheistic evolutionists and the theistic evos team up against the young-earthers when theistic evos rely on something outside of this universe which the atheistic evos cannot abide.

Thanks for your reply!

By your criteria, I would categorize myself on the atheistic side of things, but that doesn't mean I would completely discount the theistic side out of hand. Scientists who believe in God do not discount any of the evidence at hand. They find ways to reconcile their faith and the evidence and explanations they are presented with. So the two sides as you describe them are not so opposed as you might think. My opposition to creationism is not based on religion or the absence of religion. It has to do with the pseudo-scientific arguments that are too often offered.

I just don't like the way creation scientists treat a religious question in scientific terms. Religion and Science ask fundamentally different questions. One doesn't really 'believe' in Evolution anyway. It's a scientific theory, not a religious worldview or ideology. As such it doesn't make any sense to criticize evolution on religious grounds or Christianity on scientific grounds. I get equally annoyed with those who use evolution as 'proof' of the non-existence of God.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If you accept that the Bible teaches TRUTH instead of FACT then I do not understand the problem in suggesting that the mechanism by which God created life is evolution.

Amen.

[bondserv]

gomaaa,

Thanks for including me in your discussions. I will take the time to go back and read your prior posts this evening.

Your last post to Dataman seems to imply that you take an agnostic position regarding origins. In my opinion, when one only considers the scientific evidences for origins, agnosticism is the only intellectual honest position available. I still know of no one who has all knowledge of the mechanisms of our universe via the scientific method.

The only record of beginnings by a reliable witness, GOD, is not verifiable by the scientific method either. Believers of the Bible are forced to rely on historical evidences for proof of their faith. These types of evidences fall more into the category of judicial proofs, rather than scientific proofs.

Examining a preponderance of the historical evidence to validate reliability of the Biblical texts, travels down a very different road than evidences for evolution. Theologians debate incessantly over exegesis of manuscripts and their translations.

Sir Isaac Newton's research into the Biblical texts of the book of Daniel, led him to come to the conclusion that prophecies contained in the verifiably pre-Jesus documents, which clearly convinced him that Biblical prophecy verified authenticity of Jesus' claims. Newton became a believer in Jesus Christ by mathematical means, via probabilities related to Daniel's prophecies. One can quickly find Newton's commentary on the Internet regarding this.

Jesus' authenticity for the believer necessitates our desire to believe what He shared regarding origins. He clearly said that Adam and Eve were the beginning of mankind, confirming the Genesis account.

Most Biblical students who consider the text in its entirety, take the text literally unless the text clearly sets up the context as allegorical. We have 2000 years of mistakes made by men who took the text to be allegorical when they should have taken it literally i.e. the regathering of the Jews in Israel after 2000 years of being scattered to the ends of the earth (many Christians erroneously believed the Christian Church supplanted Israel in the prophetic text).

We must be careful of considering a Non-linear God, with our linear past, present and future mentality. This applies to the sciences as well! Understanding that God inhabits eternity eliminates most of the confusion that exists today.

[js1138]

The war has already started placemarker. I really like the Piltdown question. How do creationists decide anything is fake. For all we know, even the fakes were created by God. And if they weren't directly created, perhaps the people who made the fakes were created by God.

[js1138]

You're getting close when things get hard to tell apart which aren't hard to tell apart now.

Yes, but eventually you'll reach a point where everything is so hard to tell apart that it'll be easy to prove there aren't any transitional fossils. ;^)

[VadeRetro]

Apparently, it's always easy to prove there aren't any transitional fossils. There are all these handy quotes around from the 1940s.

[Con X-Poser]

<< http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/biology/Handbooks/evolearly.htm >>

So now you're admitting the entire paradigm for the origin of life was DRASTICALLY wrong - but we're supposed to believe all your evidence for evolution?

If evolutionists have been so wildly wrong about such an important item for decades - why should we put any stock in the rest of the story?

All this time your side has been defending the old paradigm tooth-and-nail, mocking creationists for "not understanding" and being ignorant (just like you argue the rest of the evolutionary myth) and suddenly you become Roseanna Anna D'Anna with "Never mind!"

It turns out creationists were right all along. The classic scenario for abiogenesis won't work - so you have to invent a new scenario.

<< Next will come lots of naysaying about the use of the words "may have" and "probably" in the above quote >>

Ah, you see it's weakness already. Larded with assumption and speculation, like the rest of the evolutionary fable.

[PatrickHenry]

You can identify a creationist by (check all that apply):

• His familiarity with the methodology of science
• His understanding of the theory of evolution
• His impressive collection of verifiable data
• His well-reasoned arguments
• His unbiased commitment to the evidence
• His willingness to acknowledge error
• His unfailing sense of humor

[Dataman]

If evolutionists have been so wildly wrong about such an important item for decades - why should we put any stock in the rest of the story?

But ConX, "science" is self-correcting. Since it is so far off the mark regarding origins, it will be correcting itself very often for a very long period of time. So just relax, take a deep breath and believe everything they tell you until they self-correct.

There are thousands of examples but just consider these:

Believe in the Steady State or be a Luddite.
Believe in the Big Crunch or be a Luddite.
Believe in the Big Fizzle or be a Luddite.
Believe the earth is 2 million years old or be a Luddite.
Believe the earth is 2 billion years old or be a Luddite.
Believe the earth is 4+ billion years old or be a Luddite.
Believe dinosaurs were cold-blooded or be a Luddite.
Believe dinosaurs were warm-blooded or be a Luddite.

At what point will evolutionists apologize to those who refused to believe what was later falsified? They owe a huge apology to doubters who have been correct!

[Con X-Poser]

<< But ConX, "science" is self-correcting >>

Yes it is, very much so. But for something to be 'corrected' it must first had to have been WRONG. Thus, evolution has been very wrong. Every time we point out an error they play the "self-correcting" card.

[PatrickHenry]

1000