It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by PsychoHazard
In the OP if I have not misunderstood, the OP is stating that we should give scientists' beliefs a closer look since they have discovered scientific laws and such.
Some scientists support Creationism. Does that mean it should be taught in the classroom?
NDE's are by and large explained by science as the effect of a damaged and oxygen deprived brain (usually from lack of bloodflow.) Failure of Proprioception is what causes the "out-of-body" sense and I have experienced this. Many other aspects are recreatable in the lab. There are some oddities with the phenomenon but there isn't much sense putting 'soul' in these discrepancies.
Science can not explain how some NDE experiencers come to know different things during the experience such as surgicial tools and not only that, but outside the operating rooms!
Besides, how would anyone be fully conscious during clinical death? That is just not possible.
Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by PsychoHazard
I agree. Just because there are Christian scientists doesn't mean their beliefs are true. An hypothesis or theory has to stand on it's own.
but we must take it on a case by case, study by study basis...you are not proposing we should CENSOR anyone, are you? WELL< THAT"S WHATS GOING ON!!!!
How about CWG, who discovered over 300 findings, accepted, peer -reviewed etc...who said, "“The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible.”
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
but we must take it on a case by case, study by study basis...you are not proposing we should CENSOR anyone, are you? WELL< THAT"S WHATS GOING ON!!!!
No it's not, don't be silly.
The Iowa Board of Regents rejected on Thursday an appeal by a professor who said he was wrongfully denied tenure by Iowa State University because of his views supporting intelligent design.
While ISU officials have maintained that their decision last spring on Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez 's bid for tenure had nothing to do with intelligent design, e-mails exchanged by ISU faculty – who voted against his tenure and statements in Gonzalez’s tenure file – suggest otherwise.
Gonzalez, assistant professor of astronomy and physics, has written papers on intelligent design and has asserted his views in a book which was published in 2004. He is also a senior fellow at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank on intelligent design.
The e-mails and documents obtained last summer by Discovery Institute through an open records request were not allowed as evidence by the Regents during their consideration of the case. The board also denied Gonzalez's request to give an oral argument at the closed session but did allow him to be present when the votes were cast. Regents rejected his appeal in a 7-1 vote.
“We are extremely disappointed that the Board of Regents refused to give Dr. Gonzalez a fair hearing in his appeal,” said Gonzalez’s attorney, Chuck Hurley. “They say in Iowa that academic freedom is supposed to be the ‘foundation of the university.’ That foundation is cracked.”
Iowa State denied Gonzalez tenure last spring, a decision upheld by university president Greg Geoffroy. Thursday's vote was the last chance for Gonzalez to appeal within the regents system.
Craig Lang was the sole regent who voted in the professor's favor.
"Dr. Gonzalez is so sure that he has done the things necessary for tenure," Lang told the Des Moines Register. "Let's just reconsider."
Gonzalez claims he met the criteria for promotion.
Casey Luskin, program officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, believes the outcome would have been different if e-mail records were allowed as evidence in the case or Gonzalez was given a chance to address the board.
“The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design," said Luskin.
"Then the Board refused to grant Dr. Gonzalez the right to be heard through oral arguments. Does it come as any surprise that now they denied his appeal?”
In 2004, Gonzalez authored the book "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery," a pro-intelligent design book.
The following year in August, three ISU faculty members circulated a petition with a statement denouncing the use of intelligent design, which disputes parts of the theory of evolution, in the science curriculum.
"We … urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of 'science and technology,' convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray intelligent design as science," read the petition's statement, which received 120 signatures.
Gonzalez said he thought the incident contributed to his denial for tenur
.
I had and OBE once. Was trippy. I was sick like always with OBE's but not deathly sick. My proprioception went and I'm sitting there looking around feeling completely disconnected from my body. Like Deja vu it only lasted a few moments but it was memorable, not mystical.
Originally posted by OldThinker
Fair point! Nice answer friend, thanks.
Some scare OT too...
but not my best pal JC, nor this guy, what's ya think? www.youtube.com... its only 9 min
[edit on 19-8-2009 by OldThinker]
Recently, the scientific establishment claimed another “prominent casualty as the Royal Society’s director of education, Michael Reiss, stepped down” (“Creating Controversy,” 2008, 199[2674]:4). What happened, exactly? Reiss, an evolutionary biologist and ordained Anglican priest speaking at the British Association for the Advancement of Science Festival in September 2008, simply “called for creationism to be discussed in UK science classes” (“Creating Controversy,” p. 4, emp. added). “Creationism,” he said, “is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view” (as quoted in Mitchell, 2008).
The greater scientific establishment was none too happy with Reiss for his comments about creationism. Reiss “provoked the anger” of many of the members of the Royal Society (Mitchell, 2008). The leading members wrote to the society’s president “demanding...Reiss step down, or be asked to step down, as soon as possible” (Mitchell, 2008, emp. added). According to the World Socialist, “Reiss was forced to resign” (Mitchell, 2008, emp. added).
Some may wonder why science societies, science departments, etc., are dominated by atheistic evolutionists. Could it be the result of years of dissidents being forced out? The fact is, scientists open to the idea of an intelligent Designer are some of the most discriminated-against people on Earth. Question the theory of evolution publicly, and a scientist must be prepared to lose his job and reputation in the scientific community.