If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:18
"In the past, the major problem experienced by those who rejected
Darwinism based on science was denial of tenure. Tenure was generally an
effective protection against termination based on one’s conclusions
about Darwinism, but not any longer.
A new book about a tenured
professor expelled for a scientific discovery which created major
problems for Darwinism documents 
this reality. The case involves
Professor Change Laura Tan, formally a tenured associate professor
teaching molecular biology at the University of Missouri. Her bachelor’s
degree was in chemistry and her M. S. degree was in physical-organic
chemistry. Next followed a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in
biochemistry (developmental biology), and a post doc in genetics at
Harvard Medical School.
Dr. Tan was born and raised in mainland China. She first learned about
Darwin’s theory of evolution when she was in middle school in China.
Professor Tan accepted without question the idea that humans were only a
type of animal. She was taught that life came from non-life and that
complicated life came from simple life. Humans evolved from some ape
ancestor and there was no God and no creator.
Dr. Tan became a Christian in 2004. However, she remained an
evolutionist after she became a Christian because she believed that it
was supported by factual science. It was only when she began to teach
molecular biology at the University of Missouri in 2006 that she began
to question the theory. She taught molecular biology for sixteen years
and began writing a molecular biology textbook, forcing her to think
critically about the theory. While teaching and doing research, she
learned that the genes involved in DNA replication, transcription, and
translation in the three domains of life, i. e., bacteria, archaea, and
eukaryotes, are all very distinct.
This was clear evidence that prokaryotes did not evolve into eukaryotes
as Darwinism teaches.
Furthermore, the three domains of life could not
share a common ancestor, a conclusion based on the fact that most of the essential genes are domain-of-life specific. Therefore, an impassable gap exists between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Her first response was that maybe her knowledge about evolution was out
of date since, up to this time, she had never formally studied
evolution. Like so many others, she had taken evolution as a given.
As she analyzed genomes, the sum total of universal and nearly-universal
genes plateaued, while that of orphan and nearly-orphan genes grew
continuously. When the species numbers compared increased to 3,863
bacteria, 711 eukaryotes, and 179 archaea, not one of the universal genes remained universal. In other words, all genes are taxonomically restricted, though at different taxonomic levels. This was a stunning indictment of evolution and the exact opposite of what evolution predicted!
A major problem was that her opponents knew that she was 
publishing articles critical of evolutionary naturalism in the Answers Research Journal
(a scientific journal published by Answers in Genesis) from 2015
through 2016 because Tan included them in her list of accomplishments.
One of her main co-authors on these articles was Jeffrey P. Tomkins who
was the head of the genetics lab at Clemson University before he
retired. Having much experience with peer review, she also knew that the
peer-review process of Answers Research Journal was every bit as rigorous, if not more so, than the secular reviewers she had experienced at Harvard and elsewhere.
Before she switched her research direction from oogenesis to the
origin of life, she asked Dr. John Walker, her department chairman, for
permission.
In response to this request, her supervisor asked her to give a talk
in the faculty-to-faculty seminar about her interests. In retrospect, it
appears that his suggestion was a subtle way to prevent her from
researching this area. After that conversation Walker attempted to stop
her from pursuing any research against Darwinism. That was difficult
because her research goal was not directed toward disproving evolution.
It was focused on learning about the molecular details of DNA
replication, transcription, and translation, which, in turn, led her
away from evolution.
In December 2014, now that knowledge of her “heresy” was public, 
her
laboratory and office were moved from a modern and well-equipped
building, to a Lefevre Research Laboratory (University of Missouri College of Arts and Sciences), an old and
deteriorated room with a disgustingly stained laboratory floor.
Subsequently, the interim dean at the time, Dr. Cooper Drury,
informed her that the University decided to dismiss her for cause,
claiming unsatisfactory performance. At that time she had 39
publications, 1,239 citations, and 88,915 reads. She was one of the most
productive associate professors, with excellent student ratings during
her last few years. Nonetheless, her peers disparaged any publication
that took umbrage with Darwinism.
Show Trial Like the Inquisition
The interim dean, Dr. Cooper Drury, said that she could resign to
avoid the dismissal process, or she could request a hearing. She
requested a hearing and was told that she could bring a lawyer, or an
advisor, to the hearing, but she decided against this option, which she
soon realized was a mistake. She entered the hearing with little idea
about what would transpire. In addition to members of the University of
Missouri Campus Faculty Committee on Tenure, there were a court
reporter, a videographer, and several lawyers in the room. In fact, both
her dean and the chairperson are lawyers, the committee had a lawyer
counsel, and her dean had a lawyer who had two helping lawyers. The
charges for which she was being fired were vague, specifically that
there was
“adequate cause for dismissal related directly and substantially to your fitness or performance in a professional capacity of teacher or researcher.” [And for] failing to “perform her responsibilities in research at levels satisfactory to maintain her tenured appointment.”
It was clear from her academic hearing that the root issue was her
molecular biology research which showed that the life-from-non-life
belief and the evolutionary notion that eukaryotes evolved from
prokaryotes were both at odds with the experimental evidence. Her
response was to affirm that
these evaluations are the product of an orthodoxy that censors challenges to an explanation of the origin of life and its diversity held by my department Director and Personnel Committee, as well as the product of actions taken to censor and prevent my research about origins. The censorship violates Academic Freedom, what the tenure system at the University of Missouri aims to protect and what is essential to good science and good science education. In short, the key issue is about Organism-specific Genetic Information Coding and Decoding and its challenge to the current popular belief about life, origin of life, and origin of biodiversity.
The committee also claimed that
Professor Tan failed to contribute research, peer-reviewed journals, and failed to raise any research funding… University of Missouri uses indicators to determine the quality of research and education. These indicators include faculty research published in journals that are found in Thomson Reuters InCites database, the database that houses thousands of journals.
She then presented some of the evidence she found that led her to
question Darwinism, noting that “a comparison of RNA polymerases, (the
enzymes used to synthesize RNA using DNA as a template)” reveals that
bacterial RNA polymerase is made of four different proteinsand five different subunits. Bacteria use one single RNA polymerase to synthesize all their RNAs. Eukaryotes, on the other hand, use at least three different RNA polymerases. So, eukaryotic RNA polymerase shown here is the simplest one — that’s RNA polymerase II — which is used for Eukarya to transcribe their protein-coding genes, it is made up of 12 different proteins. But for bacteria, the core enzyme is made of four proteins. It needs help from one additional protein to perform the basal level of transcription. But a eukaryotic polymerase, RNA polymerase II specifically here, needs help from many different proteins here. There are actually 43 different proteins involved, the whole thing contains 49 different subunits. So, I can logically conclude that bacteria and eukarya have their own way of transcribing their genes. Eukarya RNA polymerases are much more complicated. Even though they’re much more complicated–they’re made of many more different proteins–they need help from many more proteins than the bacterial ones do.
Academic Blindness
No one could dispute the facts she presented. Furthermore, they had no interest in the facts. She did not believe in Darwinism and that was her problem. Period. In her defense one professor noted, paraphrasing
When I look at her résumé, I see she earned a Ph.D. from University of Pennsylvania and a post doctorate at Harvard University. She is a serious scientist, just as serious as Professor Barbara McClintock. But before she [McClintock] was awarded a Nobel Prize, she had difficulty publishing her papers in mainstream journals and getting grants because of her point of view. She couldn’t get tenure here at the University of Missouri. So right now maybe her [Tan’s] papers are not in the mainstream journals because the community is not happy with her ideas.
Judgment Rendered
On June 29, 2022, the Board of Curators informed her that they had
decided “to sustain the decision by the Hearing Committee” to dismiss
her. Her response was:
I researched and wrote articles on how genes demonstrate that it is impossible for life having come from non-life and eukaryotes having evolved from prokaryotes, but those articles could not be published in mainstream journals, and, thus, I could not get federal research funds and could not support students or postdoctoral fellows. Meanwhile, my supervisors were offended because my conclusions challenge their cherished view of life and its origin. With more than ten years’ efforts, a condition was generated so that the University could dismiss me for cause. Even though the charge was done prematurely, they succeeded.
Evolution has now become the enemy of evidence-based science
concerning origins. Tan’s experience may place her as the ‘Galileo’ of
evolution’s war on Darwin skeptics. The problem is that, we as a
society, allow such travesties to occur over and over again. The facts
that Dr. Change Tan uncovered, however, will not change. They will exist
forever to falsify Darwin’s theory." CEH