Replies

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.

If evolution is the central paradigm of modern biology
then modern biology's central paradign is a wholly unproven theory.

But I do not even buy your premise, because in reality there is SOOOOOOOOO much more to modern biology than evolution. Evolution is there, but it is not at the core.

I will agree that evolution is rammed into our skulls by the scientific community whenever possible. And I will say that it seems to be a plausible way to explain somethings in natural history. But evolution clearly explains nothing about how living organisms came to be ex nihilo - and certainly nothing about how man got his extremely well-developed brain.

And then we can begin to talk about the HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE gaps in the evolutionary chain.

Evolution is far from having been proven. And I understannd that some of the evolution-based theories about what the DNA of various species will tell us when analyzed have been disproven.

TSK TSK - the more we know about evolution the more gaping holes we find.

She's likely just parroting the usual creationist nonsense.

Fear not an assault from minds that have no weapons. Blind fools should just sit down and shut up.

Did you ever see the movie the blob? Weaponless ooze coming out of the university closets.

As a chemistry professor (I believe somewhere along this string that is what you state as your profession; if I'm incorrect, I apologize), I would be interested in hearing your opinion of George Washington Carver.

Physical laws are sensible; one can see them or touch them, etc. Origin is not sensible in the same way - there is no way around the emotional roadblock of self-interest in this sort of debate.

Even the most avid creationist should admit that the divine coflicts with the rational; the closest the two ever get is when mankind invents new weapons of war to fight over whose god is the biggest or the best.

The U.S. Constitution comes closest to compromise in the precise wording of the 1st Amendment, yet we continue to argue it every day because it doesn't comfort us.

We are imperfect beings who innately imagine perfection, what to do?

She's likely just parroting the usual creationist nonsense.

Of sourse we don't seem to know what she said. LOL Why can't people in college have the same discussions we can here? And why do evolution discussions have to be lead by biologists?