Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/112003a.asp ^ | March 11, 2003 | Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: academialist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,201-1,228 next last
Intelligently Designed Films The two videos complement each other well. Unlocking the Mystery of Life develops all of Intelligent Design's major molecular-based arguments for an "intelligent cause" of life's complexity, and thus presents the positive case. Icons of Evolution, on the other hand, spotlights the problems of Darwinism: its censorship of key scientific information in public schools, and the scientific misinformation it spreads through public textbooks.


1 posted on 03/11/2003 3:01:59 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Remedy
She should have declined his request.
2 posted on 03/11/2003 3:04:58 PM PST by VRWCmember (Free Miguel Estrada, you democrat b@$tards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Okay, it's time for one of those evolutionists to post their "Giant List Of Links Containing Allegedly Scientific Answers To Any And All Points Raised By Creationists (End Of Debate)."
3 posted on 03/11/2003 3:07:31 PM PST by newgeezer (fundamentalist, regarding the Constitution AND the Holy Bible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Giant List Of MISSING & MISINTERPRETED Links.

They must be at a FOSSIL THUMPERS convention.

4 posted on 03/11/2003 3:10:28 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I suppose if some professor advocates the moon is green cheese theory that they should not be fired either?
5 posted on 03/11/2003 3:15:10 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
"The academy is all about free thought and academic freedom. He hadn't even
heard my talk," Bryson told American Family Radio News.


SOME evolutionists draw all sorts of hare-brained conclusions from nearly
non-existent evidence all the time.

Can you expect better from a university administrator?

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.


If, in fact this lady became an over-the-top creationist, it's sort of fun to
notice that the faculty that couldn't predict she'd do this after being made the head of
an academic division...thinks they can tell us everything that happened
millions of years ago...
6 posted on 03/11/2003 3:18:14 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
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.

Your post is misleading. She was (according to my reading) asked to resign as head; this is generally an administrative position, and is separate from her tenured professorship. She'll likely lose little or no salary, and will continue to be a faculty member; she just won't be running the division.

Fair enough, IMO. I wouldn't want a department chair who didn't believe the laws of thermodynamics.

7 posted on 03/11/2003 3:24:26 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOA

>> If, in fact this lady became an over-the-top creationist, it's sort of fun to notice that the faculty that couldn't predict she'd do this after being made the head of an academic division...thinks they can tell us everything that happened millions of years ago...<<

L.O.L. Guess, they didn't have enough missing papers or files for the prediction. They could have at least used Murphy's law.

8 posted on 03/11/2003 3:30:10 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Guess you tripped over the Thermo links in post #1.
9 posted on 03/11/2003 3:31:30 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan

With billion year gaps in the so-called "evolutionary chain", I posit that the yet unproven but somewhat plausible theory of evolution is not much more solid than the "moon is green cheese theory" depending on which moon one is talking about.

Clearly, all evidence supports intelligent design, a theory which does not deny that evolution may have occured.

Sadly, believers in evolutionism (fossil thumpers masquerading as "scientists") claim - with absolutely ZERO PROOF - that intelligent design is an impossibility.


10 posted on 03/11/2003 3:34:47 PM PST by Notwithstanding (What have you done for LIFE lately?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Excuse me: which actual science did this woman reject?
11 posted on 03/11/2003 3:36:42 PM PST by Notwithstanding (What have you done for LIFE lately?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I looked at them; they're the usual dreck. They say nothing about evolution; they merely argue that a completely unrealistic model of abiogenesis is indeed completely unrealistic.

I was arguing by analogy; that seems to have skipped right by you. She's a chemist. I'm in a chemistry department. If my department chair was teaching students an entirely erroneous theory of chemistry, I'd want him out. She's a chemist, running a science department, teaching garbage in a field that isn't her own.

12 posted on 03/11/2003 3:41:51 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Fair enough, IMO. I wouldn't want a department chair who didn't believe the laws of thermodynamics."

Absolutely correct. Irrespective of my devotion to God, the preponderance of evidence is in the evolutionists favor. Given that, this department chair should be a scientist or mathematician familiar with the concept of scientific research, and as ID and Creationism don't seem to be founded on those principals, her removal as chair is justified.

Notice I did NOT say that her questions shouldn't be asked, but they must be asked within the context of the scientific method. Simply saying, "God did it", or "Evolution does not have all the answers" does not qualify as evidence. The theory of natural selection does have flaws, and scientists are constantly seeking new data and information to further refine the theory. That's how science works. I do not see any evidence that the same is being done in ID or Creationism.

13 posted on 03/11/2003 3:42:00 PM PST by LeeMcCoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Alien abductions ... nothing you can say --- some kind of mental epilepsy --- evolution !

Main Entry: ep·i·lep·sy
Pronunciation: 'e-p&-"lep-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle French epilepsie, from Late Latin epilepsia, from Greek epilEpsia, from epilambanein to seize, from epi- + lambanein to take, seize -- more at LATCH
Date: 1543
: any of various disorders marked by disturbed electrical rhythms of the central nervous system and typically manifested by convulsive attacks usually with clouding of consciousness
14 posted on 03/11/2003 3:42:24 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Excuse me: which actual science did this woman reject?

What science did I say she rejected?

15 posted on 03/11/2003 3:42:47 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
you analogize that she is like someone who rejects the law of thermodynamics - and thus she ought not chair the dept

but what actual science is she rejecting?
16 posted on 03/11/2003 3:45:30 PM PST by Notwithstanding (What have you done for LIFE lately?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

>>teaching garbage<<

Exactly what spontaneous generation macroevolution is.

17 posted on 03/11/2003 3:46:28 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LeeMcCoy

>>Irrespective of my devotion to God, the preponderance of evidence is in the evolutionists favor.<<

Stay outta court.

18 posted on 03/11/2003 3:50:11 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I suppose I will be branded as 'wishy-washy' or some such thing, but since there are no living witnesses willing to testify on the subject (God hasn't spoken to me on the subject lately) I just assume both theories are just that--- theories. One is just as good as the other until God does decide to say something.
And don't tell me that the Bible is the word of God. At best, it's filtered through countless generations and translations.
19 posted on 03/11/2003 3:53:11 PM PST by oldfart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I'm in a chemistry department. If my department chair was teaching students an entirely erroneous theory of chemistry, I'd want him out.

Ah. But chemistry is a science.

ML/NJ

20 posted on 03/11/2003 3:53:24 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
The jackbooted Inquisitors running our institutions of higher learning strike again. Literally thousands of unanswered and disputed questions surround evolutionary theory, but if anyone sticks his or her head up to point out that little inconvenient fact, the dogmatists hammer it back down with a swift and sure stroke that would be the envy of Torquemada himself.
21 posted on 03/11/2003 3:54:13 PM PST by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Exactly what spontaneous generation macroevolution is.

Now you're just making stuff up. Evolution says species evolve from other species, not by spontaneous generation.

22 posted on 03/11/2003 3:55:44 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
So is biology.
23 posted on 03/11/2003 3:56:14 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: beckett
He's back with the jackboots.
24 posted on 03/11/2003 3:56:53 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Torquemada himself ...

I was thinking of pharoh ---

"let my people go" ... Moses !
25 posted on 03/11/2003 3:56:53 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I think the point that has gotten lost in this thread is that she is being punished for simply asking people to think critically about evolution. I'm sorry, but the reaction to her talk smacks of religious zealots who see infidels at the doorstep, not academics who disagree over scientific views.

Why is evolution the only topic in American education not open to criticism? Evolutionists themselves have had to revise their theories almost constantly.

Why are the high priests of evolution so afraid of honest discussion? I think the answer is that for many who want to maintain their devotion to non-theistic naturalism, evolution is a key religious doctrine. So, at the first sign of heresy, bring on the Spanish Inquisition.
26 posted on 03/11/2003 4:01:47 PM PST by coramdeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
but what actual science is she rejecting?

Gosh, I'm assuming you can read as well as I can, but the article says "Bryson believes she was punished for challenging evolutionary thought".

If someone challenges the second law of thermodynamics (and the US patent office gets hundreds of schemes that do that) I'm going to say that person shouldn't be running a chemistry department, because they really don't understand chemistry. I'll make an exception if they're a specialist in stat. mech. and they really have some basis for the challenge, though given the sound basis for the second law I'd be astonished. She, on the other hand, is not challenging evolution, the central paradigm of modern biology, on any research-based basis; her research, such as it is, is in chemistry. She's likely just parroting the usual creationist nonsense.

27 posted on 03/11/2003 4:02:28 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
"Stay outta court."

Now what is that supposed to mean...? That even though I'm a Christian I have no right to my beliefs? Or are you afraid that I will give evolutionists more cannon fodder?

I am a born-again Christian and I also happen to be a scientist. I know that God created the Universe and all that is in it, we differ only in our opinion as to HOW He made it. The evidence thus far points to a very long history, but frankly, I don't care how He did it. What matters to me is that He did, and in the process He created this wonderful world we live in.

28 posted on 03/11/2003 4:02:59 PM PST by LeeMcCoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Remedy; *Academia list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
29 posted on 03/11/2003 4:04:03 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coramdeo
Natural selection ... survival of the fittest --- evolution ruse --- rules the roost !
30 posted on 03/11/2003 4:05:09 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: coramdeo
Why is evolution the only topic in American education not open to criticism

We generally don't ask students to 'think critically' about other established scientific laws either. By and large, we regard them as well-established by a large body of experimental work, to which undergraduate students don't have extensive access; and 'critical thinking' about such laws is not a useful pedagogical technique.

31 posted on 03/11/2003 4:05:36 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
I just assume both theories are just that--- theories. One is just as good as the other until God does decide to say something.

That's your opinion and your entitled to it. However, why aren't both theories taught?

32 posted on 03/11/2003 4:06:37 PM PST by Pipe Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
So is biology.

I thought this was a thread about evolution.

Evolution has as much to do with biology as theories about the origin of the solar system have to do with chemistry, which is nothing.

ML/NJ

33 posted on 03/11/2003 4:10:59 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I've heard that Darwin himself repudiated his own theory
in later years - can anyone corraborate?
34 posted on 03/11/2003 4:15:43 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Evolution has as much to do with biology as theories about the origin of the solar system have to do with chemistry, which is nothing.

Your unsupported opinion on this is a waste of electrons.

Do a google seach using the search terms evolution, paradigm, biology. You'll find most every biology department in the country disagrees with you.

35 posted on 03/11/2003 4:18:32 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Professor,

Do you not recognize the difference between the LAWS of thermodynamics and the THEORY of evolution? Truly?

Incredible.
36 posted on 03/11/2003 4:19:29 PM PST by edger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: edger
Do you not recognize the difference between the LAWS of thermodynamics and the THEORY of evolution? Truly?

The difference is purely a matter of nomeclature, and is an accident of history. Evolution is a scientific law in the same sense as any other scientific law.

Incredible.

Want to know another amazing fact? The world isn't flat, it's nearly spherical.

37 posted on 03/11/2003 4:23:24 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: coramdeo
Why is evolution the only topic in American education not open to criticism?

I bet Holocaust denying professors don't last long. Why are the high priests of evolution so afraid of honest discussion?

There's nothing honest about creationism.

38 posted on 03/11/2003 4:25:23 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
I've heard that Darwin himself repudiated his own theory in later years - can anyone corraborate?

Not that it would matter if he did, but no. Here's a link The Lady Hope Story

39 posted on 03/11/2003 4:29:56 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Your unsupported opinion on this is a waste of electrons.

Well. Gee. Thanks for your evaluation.

Tell me "Professor," what was wrong with my analogy? Did you ever take chemistry? I did, a bit. I don't remember any of my courses considering where all those atoms came from. According to the MW9 I have at hand, biology is "a branch of knowledege that deals with living organisms." I believe living is the operative word.

ML/NJ

40 posted on 03/11/2003 4:31:58 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
The thing that really bothers me about the creationist bunch is that their purpose seems to be to disprove evolution, rather than develop affirmative evidence of something else.

I suppose that by definition faith will never have evidence to support it.

Too bad. I see this in the end hurting people of faith, not helping.

41 posted on 03/11/2003 4:32:49 PM PST by narby (Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VOA
nearly non-existent evidence all the time.

LMAO....

42 posted on 03/11/2003 4:34:01 PM PST by narby (Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The difference between scientific LAWS and THEORIES is a matter of nomenclature and an accident of history?

Where do you teach? I want to keep my kids away from there.
43 posted on 03/11/2003 4:34:29 PM PST by edger (he)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
We generally don't ask students to 'think critically' about other established scientific laws either. By and large, we regard them as well-established by a large body of experimental work, to which undergraduate students don't have extensive access; and 'critical thinking' about such laws is not a useful pedagogical technique.

Thinking critically about Euclid's 5th postulate has given us the wonders of non-euclidean geometery.

44 posted on 03/11/2003 4:35:56 PM PST by poindexters brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Bump
45 posted on 03/11/2003 4:38:53 PM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poindexters brother
Thinking critically about Euclid's 5th postulate has given us the wonders of non-euclidean geometery.

Indeed, but Riemann did that for his habilitation, which is a step after his Ph.D.. If he'd spent math class questioning fundamental postulates, he's have never gotten his primary degree. Research is really only possible when you already know the field.

46 posted on 03/11/2003 4:40:36 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: edger
The difference between scientific LAWS and THEORIES is a matter of nomenclature and an accident of history?

No, the difference between what we call the theory of evolution and scientific laws is a matter of nomenclature. The theory of evolution could more accurately be called the law of evolution.

Where do you teach? I want to keep my kids away from there.

Please do. Intelligence has a strong genetic component.

47 posted on 03/11/2003 4:43:41 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Now you're just making stuff up. Evolution says species evolve from other species, not by spontaneous generation.

I believe the term spontaneous generation concerns the very first organism from which every other organism supposedly evolved. Where did the first organism come from? It spontaneously generated!
48 posted on 03/11/2003 4:44:19 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: edger
The difference between scientific LAWS and THEORIES is a matter of nomenclature and an accident of history?

Ever take a "music Theory" class? You gonna tell me music is only a theory?

49 posted on 03/11/2003 4:45:07 PM PST by narby (Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: narby
Admittedley I did take a bit of a cheap shot with my comment.

But...we're always hearing about how climatologists can look back millions of years
in the past and thus predict the future...

...it just (in a simplistic fashion) seems funny that a bunch of smarty-pants PhDs
who tell us they know how to read the story of millions of years ago can't figure out
that their department chair-person won't be "going off the reservation" and saying
"unmentionable" things within the walls of the academy, which of course we all know
values "diversity of opinion".
(pardon my derisive laughter at my own comment...)
50 posted on 03/11/2003 4:47:21 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,201-1,228 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson